The Cowardly Liberals on USMB

[TooTall]

Short Answer

Clinton ain't gonna pay for shit any more than Reagan or Bush 43 did, both of whom left the nation deeply in debt.

Long Answer

The logic for the spending strategies of Republicans and Democrats is old news.

1. Clinton is going to offset some of the cost by a slight increase in taxes on the plutocracy that owns our political system.

2. Just as Reagan said tax cuts pay for themselves (through increased economic growth > increased revenue), Liberals (and many pre-Tea Party Republicans) believe that investment in infrastructure pays for itself, e.g., the satellite system that came out of the Cold War Pentagon and NASA budget has turned into massive private sector profits - and it lead to immense technological and efficiency gains across sectors.

Turn off FOX News and research the history of Boeing and aerospace technology, specifically the amount of government spending dumped into these things. Having a first world industrial infrastructure, an expensive Patent system, a military that protects overseas supply chains (like Exxon's oil fields in the mideast), and an expensive legal system that protects private property and enforces contracts is crucial to capital investment. (And all these things require taxation > spending. The Republican base doesn't understand the different kinds of spending because their pundit class has given them very simplistic explanations for almost everything. For example, look at how simple Bush made Iraq sound. He never outlined the tribal tensions in the region, or the near impossible task of reconstructing Iraq)

The point here is that the OP has never - in any of his posts - displayed an understanding of the basic arguments that each side offers for its fiscal strategies.

It would be nice if the OP opened up a more complex discussion (rather than his typical spam and mindless drivel).

Let's take a more complex look at "Government Spending". Consider the economic growth under Reagan, which was fairly robust. Here's is the problem. Reagan spent like a drunken sailor. He tripled Carter's debt. Cconsumer debt also tripled, as the middle class transitioned from wage-based consumption to credit (debt)-based consumption.

Reagan absolutely abandoned any pretense of paying for his massive increase in military spending - but the Left sees Reagan's spending differently than the Right. For the Left, Reagan was not simply spending, but he was engaged in a form of military Keynesianism, which stimulated the economy .

Reagan created 4x as many government jobs as Carter, mostly in defense. But every government job Reagan added to San Diego and Orange counties represented another consumer on "Main Street", which was a boon to local ecnomies. You get this right? This isn't rocket science. When more people can afford to buy shit, business has an incentive to add more jobs and expand production. And when more jobs are added, you have even more consumers on Main Street (it's a "virtuous cycle"). This is the same kind of government-spending that helped end the Great Depression and created the Golden Era of capitalism in the 50s & 60s.

Seriously, the OP doesn't know any of this shit. FDR didn't end the Depression with government programs. The Depression was ended because of the jobs and industrial output that came from the war effort. If we built the bombs/airplanes and the millions of other things that needed to be manufactured and simply dumped these things in the ocean - the effect would have been the same: more people working = more people flocking to "main street" and buying things from business = economic growth.

FDR and Reagan used government spending to create jobs and technology, both of which lead to spectacular economic growth.

When the OP labels everything as "spending" (without unpacking the different kinds of spending), he engages in simplifications that turn an otherwise complex issue into a bumper sticker.

FDR's spending on the war effort was justified as well as Reagan's spending on defense. FDR's spending also resulted in millions of people being killed, since that is what happens in a World War while Reagan's spending prevented a nuclear war with the USSR that would have resulted in the end of mankind.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Yanno if you sit down and squint, and hold your breath, and grunt really hard, you might be able to get a brain cell to kick into action and figure out that "Liberal" is not necessarily the same thing as "Hillary Clinton supporter". I know blanket statements are just so much easier because they involve no brain sweat but .... just a thought.

Uhhhhh, how can you support Hillary and not be liberal? That's like saying that "conservative" and "Ted Cruz supporter" aren't necessarily the same thing. Uh, yeah, they are.

 

[Wildman]

The Cowardly Liberals on USMB

after 162 posts there is still no sensible, logical, truthful, honest replies from the liberfools!!

why is that!!

 

[candycorn]

Short Answer

Clinton ain't gonna pay for shit any more than Reagan or Bush 43 did, both of whom left the nation deeply in debt.

Long Answer

The logic for the spending strategies of Republicans and Democrats is old news.

1. Clinton is going to offset some of the cost by a slight increase in taxes on the plutocracy that owns our political system.

2. Just as Reagan said tax cuts pay for themselves (through increased economic growth > increased revenue), Liberals (and many pre-Tea Party Republicans) believe that investment in infrastructure pays for itself, e.g., the satellite system that came out of the Cold War Pentagon and NASA budget has turned into massive private sector profits - and it lead to immense technological and efficiency gains across sectors.

Turn off FOX News and research the history of Boeing and aerospace technology, specifically the amount of government spending dumped into these things. Having a first world industrial infrastructure, an expensive Patent system, a military that protects overseas supply chains (like Exxon's oil fields in the mideast), and an expensive legal system that protects private property and enforces contracts is crucial to capital investment. (And all these things require taxation > spending. The Republican base can't separate the different kinds of spending because their brains have been so completely co-opted by a pundit class that never parses these complex issues)

The point here is that the OP has never - in any of his posts - displayed an understanding of the basic arguments that each side offers for its fiscal strategies.

It would be nice if the OP opened up a more complex discussion (rather than his typical spam and mindless drivel).

Let's take a more complex look at "Government Spending". Consider the economic growth under Reagan, which was fairly robust. Here's is the problem. Reagan spent like a drunken sailor. He tripled Carter's debt. Cconsumer debt also tripled, as the middle class transitioned from wage-based consumption to credit (debt)-based consumption.

Reagan absolutely abandoned any pretense of paying for his massive increase in military spending - but the Left sees Reagan's spending differently than the Right. For the Left, Reagan was not simply spending, but he was engaged in a form of military Keynesianism, which stimulated the economy .

Reagan created 4x as many government jobs as Carter, mostly in defense. But every government job Reagan added to San Diego and Orange counties represented another consumer on "Main Street". The spending didn't just go into a black hole; it jump started the economy. You get this right? This isn't rocket science. When more people can afford to buy shit, business has an incentive to add more jobs and expand production. And when more jobs are added, you have even more consumers on Main Street (it's a "virtuous cycle"). This is the same kind of government-spending that helped end the Great Depression and created the Golden Era of capitalism in the 50s & 60s.

Seriously, the OP doesn't know any of this shit. FDR didn't end the Depression with government programs. The Depression was ended because of the jobs and industrial output that came from the war effort. If we built the bombs/airplanes and the millions of other things that needed to be manufactured and simply dumped these things in the ocean - the effect would have been the same: more people working = more people who can afford to buy the things that business is selling.

FDR and Reagan used government spending to create jobs and technology, both of which lead to spectacular economic growth.

When the OP labels everything as "spending", he engages in simplifications that turn an otherwise complex issue into a bumper sticker.

The OP is speaking to an audience that hasn't the foggiest inkling as to just what the stated policies of their own leading candidate are. I have been forced by their own lack of knowledge to provide them with links that detail these policies.

No.

You said 2T in the OP. You've provided dubious links to 1T in new spending over 10 years which is $200B a year. Raising taxes on the uber wealthy would pay for that which has been substantiated (not proven).

Anything else?

 

[Pogo]

Yanno if you sit down and squint, and hold your breath, and grunt really hard, you might be able to get a brain cell to kick into action and figure out that "Liberal" is not necessarily the same thing as "Hillary Clinton supporter". I know blanket statements are just so much easier because they involve no brain sweat but .... just a thought.

The ignorant OP'er ask me the same stupid question, and I have pointed out countless of time I am not supporting Hillary Clinton and I am voting third party if Trump or Cruz are the GOP candidate, and yet to the OP'er claim I am a Liberal supporter of Hillary Clinton.

I swear some of Trump supporters are living proof that they can be dumber than a Albino Chimp with down syndrome!

Judging by the avatar the poster may not have been born yet, so that would explain the limited intellect.
It's rampant on this board, this binary thinking that sees only two possibilities and if you're not in "my" camp, then you must be in the only other one I can see. Then they want to blame everybody else for the fact that they're not bothering to look any deeper than their own tiny little vision.

Hillary is the slam dunk Democrat candidate and all liberals with very few exceptions will vote for her. End of story.

You fancy yourself the man behind the curtain that pulls the levers controlling what other people do then?

That was a movie, stupid.

 

[Pogo]

Yanno if you sit down and squint, and hold your breath, and grunt really hard, you might be able to get a brain cell to kick into action and figure out that "Liberal" is not necessarily the same thing as "Hillary Clinton supporter". I know blanket statements are just so much easier because they involve no brain sweat but .... just a thought.

Uhhhhh, how can you support Hillary and not be liberal? That's like saying that "conservative" and "Ted Cruz supporter" aren't necessarily the same thing. Uh, yeah, they are.

Uh, no they're not. The world doesn't work that way. And just to save time we should probably note that no planet works that way. Where do you parrots come up with this cockamamie fucking bullshit?

 

[Davros]

The Cowardly Liberals on USMB

after 162 posts there is still no sensible, logical, truthful, honest replies from the liberfools!!

why is that!!

Because the OP is made up bullshit

 

[candycorn]

The Cowardly Liberals on USMB

after 162 posts there is still no sensible, logical, truthful, honest replies from the liberfools!!

why is that!!

Because the OP is made up bullshit

One thing that isn't made up (the OP gets no run for being honest--he is incredibly dishonest) is that whomever is elected, sequestration is going bye bye. The Next President will run up the debt...no matter what.

 

[Pogo]

The Cowardly Liberals on USMB

after 162 posts there is still no sensible, logical, truthful, honest replies from the liberfools!!

why is that!!

Because, Pinky ---- there's no sensible, or logical, or truthful, or honest, (or redundant), question IN the OP.

Why is that?
I already noted that in post 2. In response, got crickets.

 

[paulitician]

Democrats understand they're running the most despicable corrupt candidate in the race. So they have to desperately try to make others look worse. Hence all the hateful smear campaigns.

They can't defend Hillary Clinton. They knew she's a corrupt lying asshole. So expect lots more petty smear campaigns. It is what it is.

Like it or not

Hillary is the most qualified in the race

 

[Billo_Really]

It seems to me you know nothing about the economy.

You can't initiate a good economy by funding one small sector of it. To move the economy, money has to be widespread and not contained. Example: when did our economy show some real movement? It was after fuel prices began to fall. When fuel prices fall, EVERYBODY has more money and everybody spends, saves, pays off bills or invests.

The construction industry is not a small sector. What is one of the biggest indicator that the economy is up? Housing starts.

Depending on how far you and your family drive, how large of a home you have to heat, people had an extra $100.00, $200.00 and even $300.00 a month. That's not a few dollars. That's money that makes the economy move.

And?

Secondly is that all constructions jobs are temporary. Trust me, I'm from a construction family. When the job is complete, everybody goes home, so those infrastructure jobs are temporary and have no sustainability.

Construction projects can go on for years.

Next of course is the fact that government jobs don't have a domino effect. Why? Because the government doesn't create profit. Government doesn't create any sellable products or services.

What are you talking about? I personally worked on a DOE contract for 4 years. That's 4 years of me getting a paycheck. 4 years of me paying rent, buying food and clothing, going out entertaining, buying weed; that's putting money back into the system. How can you say that is not a domino effect?

 

[hazlnut]

I have repeatedly invited the cowardly Liberals on USMB to explain how their leading candidate, Hillary Clinton proposes to pay for her $2 Trillion dollars in additional spending. I can not get a single cowardly Liberal to respond. It appears all the cowardly Liberals on USMB care to engage in are cheap little smear campaigns against whoever the leading candidate of the Republican Party happens to be at any particular moment. This truth can be readily seen by the number of posts attacking Donald Trump that are currently running on the Board.

One should rightfully expect that the Liberals on USMB, even though cowards, might at least exhibit the class enough to shout the praises of their leading contender and the virtues of her $2 Trillion in new spending and explain to us just exactly how she intends to fund this new and additional expenditures.

Once again, I invite you Liberals to show your class and defend your own candidate instead of simply continuing your impotent little nonsensical smear campaigns against the opposition party candidates.

Raise taxes.

Now I get my prize, you can suck my dick.

 

[Billo_Really]

You don't pay attention to politics do you? What party is united and what party is divided?

The Democrat debates were boring, why, because they all think alike. The first debate was mostly about who could create the larger welfare state. They all agreed.

Look at this forum, what do you see? You see half of the topics about Trump alone. The Republicans are very critical of each other between the Establishment and the Tea Party types. We disagree with each other ten times more than Democrats ever would.

Your side didn't say shit about Bush for 8 years until he became a lame duck.

Obama lost the left about 18 months into his first term.

 

[rdean]

While I can't say I agree with the previous posters plans...

What are you talking about, my plans are kick-ass!

That's okay. This is just another example of how liberals are not afraid to disagree with each other. How many times do you see conservatives do that?

What you said:

• Raise capital gains tax to 25%

• Raise tax on dividends to 25%

• Submit a bill to Congress for a Financial Transactions Tax for every share traded on Wall Street

• Cut the defense budget in half

• Close all the over 800 bases around the world

• End the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and all the countries in Africa

• End the drone program

• End all welfare payments to Israel

In one major way, this seems very GOP. Take a good look. What's missing?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Give up?
If you notice from posts by right wingers on the economy or bringing down the deficit, there is one thing missing again and again.
Building stuff.
Making stuff.
Creating stuff.
Again and again, right wingers try to "lure" business. But they rarely talk about starting a business.
For instance, Republicans love to say business is fleeing California and moving to states like Texas. The TRUTH is, companies with minimum wage jobs move to Texas. Because there are so many uneducated Texas who will work for piss wages.
Companies that rely on innovation, research and development, move to states like California and some Eastern states because they need to be near research and development facilities. I've posted facts on this many, many times. But anti education Republicans don't want to hear it.

Now I'm not saying don't raise taxes. They have to be targeted. Raising taxes willy nilly can do more harm than good. And if you just pull all American bases everywhere and cut funding everywhere all at once, you just invite chaos. It has to be both targeted and phased and well planned out from the beginning. There has to be goals and it needs to be well managed. Facts and data need to be constantly collected and analyzed. And that's another reason GOP economic policies always fail. They don't believe in study, research, education or making corrections.

So your plans come across as talking points and not serious policy, which would happen with more detail. Really well thought out plans with lost of detail based on study, research, data and analysis always have the greatest chance of success. And that's the "liberal" way.

 

[rightwinger]

Democrats understand they're running the most despicable corrupt candidate in the race. So they have to desperately try to make others look worse. Hence all the hateful smear campaigns.

They can't defend Hillary Clinton. They knew she's a corrupt lying asshole. So expect lots more petty smear campaigns. It is what it is.

Like it or not

Hillary is the most qualified in the race

By far

 

[rightwinger]

I have repeatedly invited the cowardly Liberals on USMB to explain how their leading candidate, Hillary Clinton proposes to pay for her $2 Trillion dollars in additional spending. I can not get a single cowardly Liberal to respond. It appears all the cowardly Liberals on USMB care to engage in are cheap little smear campaigns against whoever the leading candidate of the Republican Party happens to be at any particular moment. This truth can be readily seen by the number of posts attacking Donald Trump that are currently running on the Board.

One should rightfully expect that the Liberals on USMB, even though cowards, might at least exhibit the class enough to shout the praises of their leading contender and the virtues of her $2 Trillion in new spending and explain to us just exactly how she intends to fund this new and additional expenditures.

Once again, I invite you Liberals to show your class and defend your own candidate instead of simply continuing your impotent little nonsensical smear campaigns against the opposition party candidates.

Raise taxes.

Now I get my prize, you can suck my dick.

Gum job?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You don't pay attention to politics do you? What party is united and what party is divided?

The Democrat debates were boring, why, because they all think alike. The first debate was mostly about who could create the larger welfare state. They all agreed.

Look at this forum, what do you see? You see half of the topics about Trump alone. The Republicans are very critical of each other between the Establishment and the Tea Party types. We disagree with each other ten times more than Democrats ever would.

Your side didn't say shit about Bush for 8 years until he became a lame duck.

Obama lost the left about 18 months into his first term.

How did he do that? How did he get reelected--Republicans?

The left wants to go further left. Your second runner up (and first in some places) is an admitted Socialist. Your commander and chief had the support of the US Communist party both elections. How much more left can you go than that?

Obama has all of their support and still does. As for Bush, you don't know what you're talking about. He took more slack from the right than the left on many of his policies. Until this day, you will find few Republicans that would call GW a conservative. We didn't like the medicare expansion and he took heat for that. We didn't care for No Child Left Behind. In fact the Republicans just changed it. We didn't care for the bailouts and openly said so.

Why do you suppose Jeb is doing so poorly? He's the top spender and is still at the bottom.

The Republican party is a very fragmented party. It's the Establishment vs TP. You don't have anything like that going on in the Democrat party.

 

[paulitician]

Democrats understand they're running the most despicable corrupt candidate in the race. So they have to desperately try to make others look worse. Hence all the hateful smear campaigns.

They can't defend Hillary Clinton. They knew she's a corrupt lying asshole. So expect lots more petty smear campaigns. It is what it is.

Like it or not

Hillary is the most qualified in the race

By far

 

[rdean]

While I can't say I agree with the previous posters plans...

What are you talking about, my plans are kick-ass!

That's okay. This is just another example of how liberals are not afraid to disagree with each other. How many times do you see conservatives do that?

You don't pay attention to politics do you? What party is united and what party is divided?

The Democrat debates were boring, why, because they all think alike. The first debate was mostly about who could create the larger welfare state. They all agreed.

Look at this forum, what do you see? You see half of the topics about Trump alone. The Republicans are very critical of each other between the Establishment and the Tea Party types. We disagree with each other ten times more than Democrats ever would.

Hmm, yea, let's think about that.

More likely to think alike or bring diversity?

A party that's 90% white and nearly all Christian without a single liberal.

or

A coalition party made up of blacks, browns, whites and everyone else. A party of all religions or none. A party from scientists to general labor. A party of both conservatives and liberals.

A tard would say, clearly, the party that's 90% white. Because they are not able to think for themselves with even the most common of sense.

Bam! Bitch slap so hard my hand will hurt for a week.

 

[TooTall]

Yanno if you sit down and squint, and hold your breath, and grunt really hard, you might be able to get a brain cell to kick into action and figure out that "Liberal" is not necessarily the same thing as "Hillary Clinton supporter". I know blanket statements are just so much easier because they involve no brain sweat but .... just a thought.

The ignorant OP'er ask me the same stupid question, and I have pointed out countless of time I am not supporting Hillary Clinton and I am voting third party if Trump or Cruz are the GOP candidate, and yet to the OP'er claim I am a Liberal supporter of Hillary Clinton.

I swear some of Trump supporters are living proof that they can be dumber than a Albino Chimp with down syndrome!

Judging by the avatar the poster may not have been born yet, so that would explain the limited intellect.
It's rampant on this board, this binary thinking that sees only two possibilities and if you're not in "my" camp, then you must be in the only other one I can see. Then they want to blame everybody else for the fact that they're not bothering to look any deeper than their own tiny little vision.

Hillary is the slam dunk Democrat candidate and all liberals with very few exceptions will vote for her. End of story.

You fancy yourself the man behind the curtain that pulls the levers controlling what other people do then?

That was a movie, stupid.

My post:
"Hillary is the slam dunk Democrat candidate and all liberals with very few exceptions will vote for her. End of story."

Your post:
"You fancy yourself the man behind the curtain that pulls the levers controlling what other people do then?
That was a movie, stupid"

Who be stupid?