|
United States22883 Posts
On April 15 2009 22:04 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2009 21:17 Jibba wrote:On April 15 2009 21:03 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On April 15 2009 21:00 Jibba wrote:On April 15 2009 15:51 Caller wrote:On April 15 2009 15:40 Railz wrote:On April 15 2009 15:33 Savio wrote:On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote: - If these conservatives spent half the time protesting their new government as they did actually reading what is Constitutional and what isn't, we actually might get a decent third party. Sooo...you are saying conservatives read the constitution too much and should just get out there and protest something? No I am saying, these self-labeled, conservatives (old values) need to actually understand what the values stated in the constitution are. They're not protesting the correct issues. What the government does with Taxes, is by the Constitution, by-and-by legal and these 'tea party' activists just look plain city. I worded it wrong, I meant if the Conservatives actually spent half the time reading the constitution as they did protesting -- ... I just swapped positions. Woops. Fun fact: The income tax was not originally in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, it's ratification was somewhat contentious. Fun fact: The Constitution was a pro-slavery document and women originally could not vote. As a matter of fact, the abolishment of slavery was somewhat contentious. The Sixteenth Amendment exists. Get over it. True. It does exist. And your point is well taken, Jibba, the constitution -- rather, the creation of the united states -- is no example of pure goodness (welcome to human history, you and I would both say, right?). But this does nothing to address the question of whether or not the 16th should exist. (that, of course, is a much larger and more fundmantal debate). Redistributive policies are always contentious and make people upset, but I'd wager that more people care about the services provided by the federal government than the tax they'd have to pay. In fact, without those services being provided I can't imagine the type of country we'd be living in. And I don't mean publicized services like welfare programs, that actually take up a small portion of the budget. I mean historically things like funding WWI/II, roads, polio immunizations, etc. It could be that humanity, at large, is not yet ready (if ever..) for true self-governance. If that is the case we can only hope that the stupid masses will succesfully (somehow) determine the smart individuals to rule them. But come on man, surely you can imagine a society of individuals who act collectively and, at the same time, without coercion. I'm not a person that thinks the masses are stupid and need to be coerced. I have respect for the vast majority of people, even if I get annoyed at times. That said, I think direct democracy is just a few short steps away from anarchy and I can't imagine a society of individuals who act collectively without coercion. I don't think you mean to say collectively, because I agree with true liberalism that collectivism is dangerous and inevitably does involve coercion.
Humanity will never be ready for self governance, until we destroy 99% of the population and are left with one village. It's not a matter of being smart or dumb, it's because for the most part humans are rational actors in Bentham's sense of utilitarianism, not Mill's, and in that game every party will lose. We don't act that way all the time and I don't think it's right, but I do think it's how most people operate.
The point of my post was really that government has a place in the world because markets are exploitable and slow, and there needs to be something to fund that governance. The reason we first implemented a regular income tax (not to fund war) was with the Revenue Act of 1894, because we were dropping tariffs and they needed to offset the costs.
This is just going to lead to a super derailed discussion, and I hope it doesn't. D:
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 15 2009 22:36 oneofthem wrote:
i see lots of people are equating liberty with the lack of visible government activity, but this identity is not replicated among political philosophers to nearly the same extent. Maybe it's just my schooling, but I equate liberty to negative liberty and I think most Americans do as well. Positive liberty is more like determinism.
|
On April 15 2009 21:00 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2009 15:51 Caller wrote:On April 15 2009 15:40 Railz wrote:On April 15 2009 15:33 Savio wrote:On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote: - If these conservatives spent half the time protesting their new government as they did actually reading what is Constitutional and what isn't, we actually might get a decent third party. Sooo...you are saying conservatives read the constitution too much and should just get out there and protest something? No I am saying, these self-labeled, conservatives (old values) need to actually understand what the values stated in the constitution are. They're not protesting the correct issues. What the government does with Taxes, is by the Constitution, by-and-by legal and these 'tea party' activists just look plain city. I worded it wrong, I meant if the Conservatives actually spent half the time reading the constitution as they did protesting -- ... I just swapped positions. Woops. Fun fact: The income tax was not originally in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, it's ratification was somewhat contentious. Fun fact: The Constitution was a pro-slavery document and women originally could not vote. As a matter of fact, the abolishment of slavery was somewhat contentious. The Sixteenth Amendment exists. Get over it. 6 of the 48 states that were around did not ratify the amendment. On the contrary, all 36 states of the Union at the time did ratify the vote, even a significant number of the states were effectively forced into it.
|
United States12224 Posts
On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote: Ha. Ha. Ha. First off, let me say, I was fine with O'Reilly and Hannity on Fox because every station had their own crazy guys. Hannity is an ignorant fuck but Whatever, it can slide. But Glenn Beck, he is something else. He came from no where to make a quick buck off a democratic Congress/Presidency. I saw his 'Book' at Barnes and Nobles the other day and decided to flip through some pages and I couldn't help but smile. The text was size 20 font, double spaced. I didn't even bother reading the context because it looked like it was made for Children. Ha. Being 'un'-american is being a Patriotic in the truest sense.
If these conservatives spent half the time reading what is Constitutional legal as they did spend their time protesting their new government, we actually might get a decent third party. Protesting for the sake of protesting proves one point: Facism isn't here - If you can say Obama is wrong on TV and not be in Jail the next day, (assuming you aren't blowing and being violent like that new Tea Party Organization), there is no Facism.
First of all, all of these clips are taken completely out of context. Nobody is advocating violent revolt, and this is particularly irritating on the subject of Glenn Beck's program. He did not just "come from nowhere" although it may seem that way to someone who gets his information from Media Matters or other progressive news sites. Glenn has had a nationally syndicated radio show for at least 10 years (picked up on my local affiliates in 2001) and had a TV show on CNN Headline News for 3 years before being picked up by Fox News. Surprise surprise, the show started during the reign of George W Bush. He's also been writing books for over 10 years, and good books for over 6. Furthermore, I'm a regular listener to Glenn's radio program, and every time he talks about things such as protest and overbearing government and a fascist destination he always prefaces it with a historical explanation as well as a disclaimer that a) he desperately hopes he is wrong about the future of the country and b) the following subject matter will be taken out of context by a progressive blog.
Secondly, all the talk about secession is not extremist at all, it's analytical. Most people on the progressive side seem to think that the federal government holds absolute power over the States and has carte blanche to enact new laws over any of them, but the fact is that the Constitution was a unifying document to create a Union among the individual States (hence the United States).
I guess I'm just saying do your own homework before immediately demonizing the other side (as DHS appears to be doing right now). That lack of research is the reason we got into this divisive mess in the first place. What's especially tragic is that it's at heart not a Republican or Democrat issue, it's one of freedom.
|
I just thought I'd add a few more videos to the ones in the opening post:
+ Show Spoiler +Outrage over "Potato Day?":http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=223862&title=Baracknophobia---ObeyOutrage over Taxation with Representation:Outrage over High Speed Rail as it could possibly be used to create a "sin train" via a non-existent earmark (as really, to right-wing extremists, what else would liberal High Speed Rail be used for?): Might add more if I get bored. :p There are also a few that I know of without videos - things like some of my friends in South Carolina in the education field are about to lose their jobs due to nutjobs like Governor Mark Sanford rejecting stimulus money to cover the state's cuts from a budget shortfall. Educational organizations can sure run on 1980s funding levels and surely those laid off will find employment elsewhere in a state with over 10% unemployment. Always glad I got out of that crappy state.
However, I must add, I do think part of the reaction we are seeing is due to these people being unable to influence the course of this country anymore. They are frustrated by that and have yet to accept the change in their influence - and I think that their shows / protests against a legally elected government will die down over time as it sinks in.
|
Glenn Beck is insane and always has been. Nothing has changed on his show. Hannity just happened to get his own show (Colmes left) around the same time as the change in power, so it's expected he'd go hard right. Joe the Plumber is just some random guy getting too much press, and the anti-Obama speech at rallies was exaggerated.
The recession is having little effect on their behavior. The anti-tax protests are being caused by Obama's insane spending, which in turn is caused by the recession, so you could say indirectly that that's one thing the recession caused.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
What Washington DC is doing in terms of multi-trillion dollar bailouts is extreme. Objecting to the Washington DC based extremism is called extremism by DC. HA!
The phenomenon happened during the Bush years. It's happening again in the Obama administration. It's the pattern for government will label its opponents.
|
United States41651 Posts
Liberals founded America and fueled the British Empire. Of course we're talking about the old economic and social liberalism in which people look out for themselves and their families and the government does its best to safeguard the free market and preserve law and order while not infereing in anything. It's quite shocking to see ignorant people thinking liberals are socialist, pro abortion, anti war, vegan protestors. Any real liberal would take one look at them, laugh and tell them to go get a real job. Over time there has been a merging and redefining of doctrines in which the "leave everyone else alone" and "people can do whatever they like as long as it doesn't bother me" from liberalism headed towards the 'left' while the "if they can't hack it let them starve" headed towards the 'right'. The ideas of small government, non interference and free trade found a home in neither group.
|
On April 15 2009 23:15 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2009 22:04 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On April 15 2009 21:17 Jibba wrote:On April 15 2009 21:03 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On April 15 2009 21:00 Jibba wrote:On April 15 2009 15:51 Caller wrote:On April 15 2009 15:40 Railz wrote:On April 15 2009 15:33 Savio wrote:On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote: - If these conservatives spent half the time protesting their new government as they did actually reading what is Constitutional and what isn't, we actually might get a decent third party. Sooo...you are saying conservatives read the constitution too much and should just get out there and protest something? No I am saying, these self-labeled, conservatives (old values) need to actually understand what the values stated in the constitution are. They're not protesting the correct issues. What the government does with Taxes, is by the Constitution, by-and-by legal and these 'tea party' activists just look plain city. I worded it wrong, I meant if the Conservatives actually spent half the time reading the constitution as they did protesting -- ... I just swapped positions. Woops. Fun fact: The income tax was not originally in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, it's ratification was somewhat contentious. Fun fact: The Constitution was a pro-slavery document and women originally could not vote. As a matter of fact, the abolishment of slavery was somewhat contentious. The Sixteenth Amendment exists. Get over it. True. It does exist. And your point is well taken, Jibba, the constitution -- rather, the creation of the united states -- is no example of pure goodness (welcome to human history, you and I would both say, right?). But this does nothing to address the question of whether or not the 16th should exist. (that, of course, is a much larger and more fundmantal debate). Redistributive policies are always contentious and make people upset, but I'd wager that more people care about the services provided by the federal government than the tax they'd have to pay. In fact, without those services being provided I can't imagine the type of country we'd be living in. And I don't mean publicized services like welfare programs, that actually take up a small portion of the budget. I mean historically things like funding WWI/II, roads, polio immunizations, etc. It could be that humanity, at large, is not yet ready (if ever..) for true self-governance. If that is the case we can only hope that the stupid masses will succesfully (somehow) determine the smart individuals to rule them. But come on man, surely you can imagine a society of individuals who act collectively and, at the same time, without coercion. I'm not a person that thinks the masses are stupid and need to be coerced. I have respect for the vast majority of people, even if I get annoyed at times. That said, I think direct democracy is just a few short steps away from anarchy and I can't imagine a society of individuals who act collectively without coercion. I don't think you mean to say collectively, because I agree with true liberalism that collectivism is dangerous and inevitably does involve coercion.
Great post Jibba. I have 2 brief (undeveloped) points here...
1) I do think there is another very important role to government other than organising what the collective group of people that is society wants/ doing what is best for society. That other role is putting talented and experienced people in a position of control where their personal objectives are much more aligned with the objectives of society than a position where their personal objectives are their only objectives. Government provides an opportunity for entrepeneurs, militarymen, great thinkers, knowledgeable and powerful leader-types to give something directly related to their expertise to the country, whilst also advancing their personal goals. It's an institution designed for that...just look back to the days when politicians weren't even paid. The reason this is so useful is it helps to counter-balance the large amounts of capable, experienced people who are just in it for their own good, making as much money as possible with no intentions of helping society out.
2) As much as we can accept that people are usually quite level headed and cooperative, and regardless of intelligence they usually have good intentions at heart; don't you agree that allowing the whole of society to vote in everything that happens would most likely be disastrously slow in any situation? From where I stand, government is a great way to organise people into groups where they are educated, experienced and democratic enough to make good decisions quickly. The spread of personalities (conservative v progressive) is probably the same in a select medical care committee as it is in a group of people in the street.
The way I see it is allowing the doctor to do his work. The family of an injured person shouldn't get to vote on the way the doctor treats a patient. They can vote on the people who get to delegate who gets to decide who is on a committee to decide which doctors are allowed to operate or not; but that's pretty much as close as I would like the family to have control of the treatment of their loved one. I would tend to equate the profession of doctor to any number of professions of the people in government (which generally revolves around experience and competence), I think we should apply the same system to the average joe public voting on what government does.
I think the best thing we can do is keep our politicians straight and honest, but we should keep them there and keep them relatively powerful.
|
On April 16 2009 00:35 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote: Ha. Ha. Ha. First off, let me say, I was fine with O'Reilly and Hannity on Fox because every station had their own crazy guys. Hannity is an ignorant fuck but Whatever, it can slide. But Glenn Beck, he is something else. He came from no where to make a quick buck off a democratic Congress/Presidency. I saw his 'Book' at Barnes and Nobles the other day and decided to flip through some pages and I couldn't help but smile. The text was size 20 font, double spaced. I didn't even bother reading the context because it looked like it was made for Children. Ha. Being 'un'-american is being a Patriotic in the truest sense.
If these conservatives spent half the time reading what is Constitutional legal as they did spend their time protesting their new government, we actually might get a decent third party. Protesting for the sake of protesting proves one point: Facism isn't here - If you can say Obama is wrong on TV and not be in Jail the next day, (assuming you aren't blowing and being violent like that new Tea Party Organization), there is no Facism. First of all, all of these clips are taken completely out of context. Nobody is advocating violent revolt, and this is particularly irritating on the subject of Glenn Beck's program. He did not just "come from nowhere" although it may seem that way to someone who gets his information from Media Matters or other progressive news sites. Glenn has had a nationally syndicated radio show for at least 10 years (picked up on my local affiliates in 2001) and had a TV show on CNN Headline News for 3 years before being picked up by Fox News. Surprise surprise, the show started during the reign of George W Bush. He's also been writing books for over 10 years, and good books for over 6. Furthermore, I'm a regular listener to Glenn's radio program, and every time he talks about things such as protest and overbearing government and a fascist destination he always prefaces it with a historical explanation as well as a disclaimer that a) he desperately hopes he is wrong about the future of the country and b) the following subject matter will be taken out of context by a progressive blog. Secondly, all the talk about secession is not extremist at all, it's analytical. Most people on the progressive side seem to think that the federal government holds absolute power over the States and has carte blanche to enact new laws over any of them, but the fact is that the Constitution was a unifying document to create a Union among the individual States (hence the United States). I guess I'm just saying do your own homework before immediately demonizing the other side (as DHS appears to be doing right now). That lack of research is the reason we got into this divisive mess in the first place. What's especially tragic is that it's at heart not a Republican or Democrat issue, it's one of freedom. This.
Thank you.
|
United States12224 Posts
On April 16 2009 02:05 Kwark wrote: Liberals founded America and fueled the British Empire. Of course we're talking about the old economic and social liberalism in which people look out for themselves and their families and the government does its best to safeguard the free market and preserve law and order while not infereing in anything. It's quite shocking to see ignorant people thinking liberals are socialist, pro abortion, anti war, vegan protestors. Any real liberal would take one look at them, laugh and tell them to go get a real job. Over time there has been a merging and redefining of doctrines in which the "leave everyone else alone" and "people can do whatever they like as long as it doesn't bother me" from liberalism headed towards the 'left' while the "if they can't hack it let them starve" headed towards the 'right'. The ideas of small government, non interference and free trade found a home in neither group.
Terms can be defined and redefined over time. Eventually the discussion devolves into a futile squabble of semantics over "left" vs "right" using misinterpreted or antiquated definitions. I can immediately think of a personal example from years ago in which I defined some members of this site as "liberals" and Drone responded with the dictionary definition as something to be championed. However, the dictionary simply defines it as "open to change" and "free-thinking" without any political context, which is what is needed when defining modern liberalism. We can now define that ideology as "progressive" in most regards, with modern conservatism leaning toward a more "libertarian" end.
|
MIAMI (Reuters) - Left-wing extremists in the United States are gaining new recruits by exploiting the ennui resulting from 60 years of prosperity and decadence, the Department of Homeland Security warned in a report to law enforcement officials.
The April 7 report, which Reuters and other news media obtained on Tuesday, said such fears were driving a resurgence in “recruitment and radicalization activity” by “whiter” supremacist groups, progovernment extremists and egalitarianist movements. It did not identify any by name.
DHS had no specific information about pending violence and said threats had so far been “largely rhetorical.”
But it warned that continuing racial and gender disparities in outcomes, mass consumerism during a prolonged period of peace, and other consequences of contrived intra-white status jockeying intensified by the increasing cognitive stratification of the last 30 years “could create a fertile recruiting environment for left-wing extremists.”
“To the extent that these factors persist, left-wing extremism is likely to grow in sanctimony,” DHS said.
The report warned that college graduates returning from liberal arts schools with degrees in communications, law and women’s studies could be recruitment targets, especially those having trouble finding a purpose in life beyond their IPod playlist or fitting back into a civilian society that still eats factory farmed meat.
The department “is concerned that left-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning graduates in order to boost their finger wagging capabilities,” the report said.
DHS spokeswoman Bulldyke McBulldykerson said on Tuesday the report was one of an ongoing series of threat assessments aimed at “a greater understanding of white elitist radicalization in the U.S.”
A similar assessment of right-wing radicals completed in January was distributed to federal, state and local police agencies at that time, under cover of night on a Friday. It was not reported on by the mainstream media, for fear of stoking a backlash by left-wing radicals.
“These assessments are done all the time, this is nothing unusual,” McBulldykerson insisted.
The Department of Homeland Security was formed in response to the September 11 attacks of 2001 and has focused largely on threats from Islamist extremists.
The report said domestic left-wing terrorist groups steadily grew during the economically prosperous years from 1950 to 2000 but temporarily subsided as the Twin Towers fell into fiery ash and 3,000 Americans died.
Government scrutiny disrupted treasonous plots to revise the U.S. Constitution to better reflect the values of postmodern America following a candlelight vigil for cop killer Mumai Abu-Jamal and covert attempts by business leaders, academics, community organizers, libertarians and residents of all-white gated communities to encourage demographic cleansing through mass population replacement. One such scraggly-bearded academic interviewed on condition of anonymity said after watching the Matrix trilogy, he “joyfully awaited the coming of Zion. Progress demands it. I’ve been practicing my rhythmic dancing to heavy bass beats.”
SINGLE WOMEN
“Despite similarities to the climate of the second half of the 20th century, the threat posed by childless, single women and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years,” the report said.
The entire media complex, government, academia and Macbook owners have made it easier to locate specific targets, communicate with like-minded people and find information on subverting American identity, it said.
Extremist groups are preying on fears that AM talk radio and “off the grid” anonymous bloggers would constrain President Barack Obama, the first mulatto U.S. president, from realizing the dreams from his father to change America into a socialist utopia greased by a perpetual racial spoils system and guaranteed by a demographically dominant Democrat Party for generations to come, the report said.
It said such groups were also exploiting anti-Wrong Kind of White People sentiment with accusations that “a cabal of heartland yokels” had conspired to preserve the diversity of a unique American culture.
“This trend is likely to accelerate if the truth is perceived to be making inroads,” the report said.
|
Modern conservatism is not what the GOP wants, at least not this super hardcore base that is left.
They would never take the required measures to reduce tax to the max and increase business freedom do the limits (such as legalizing all drugs which is a libertarian stance or am i wrong ?)
|
GOP is just an embarassment these days... these tea parties are a perfect example...
|
Such well meaning protests they are to.
Despite what media talking points saying that the protests are not political it's plainly obviosu that they are especially when you have Political scheduled to speak at some events. As well as funding said events.
|
On April 16 2009 00:35 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote: Ha. Ha. Ha. First off, let me say, I was fine with O'Reilly and Hannity on Fox because every station had their own crazy guys. Hannity is an ignorant fuck but Whatever, it can slide. But Glenn Beck, he is something else. He came from no where to make a quick buck off a democratic Congress/Presidency. I saw his 'Book' at Barnes and Nobles the other day and decided to flip through some pages and I couldn't help but smile. The text was size 20 font, double spaced. I didn't even bother reading the context because it looked like it was made for Children. Ha. Being 'un'-american is being a Patriotic in the truest sense.
If these conservatives spent half the time reading what is Constitutional legal as they did spend their time protesting their new government, we actually might get a decent third party. Protesting for the sake of protesting proves one point: Facism isn't here - If you can say Obama is wrong on TV and not be in Jail the next day, (assuming you aren't blowing and being violent like that new Tea Party Organization), there is no Facism. First of all, all of these clips are taken completely out of context. Nobody is advocating violent revolt, and this is particularly irritating on the subject of Glenn Beck's program. He did not just "come from nowhere" although it may seem that way to someone who gets his information from Media Matters or other progressive news sites. Glenn has had a nationally syndicated radio show for at least 10 years (picked up on my local affiliates in 2001) and had a TV show on CNN Headline News for 3 years before being picked up by Fox News. Surprise surprise, the show started during the reign of George W Bush. He's also been writing books for over 10 years, and good books for over 6. Furthermore, I'm a regular listener to Glenn's radio program, and every time he talks about things such as protest and overbearing government and a fascist destination he always prefaces it with a historical explanation as well as a disclaimer that a) he desperately hopes he is wrong about the future of the country and b) the following subject matter will be taken out of context by a progressive blog. Secondly, all the talk about secession is not extremist at all, it's analytical. Most people on the progressive side seem to think that the federal government holds absolute power over the States and has carte blanche to enact new laws over any of them, but the fact is that the Constitution was a unifying document to create a Union among the individual States (hence the United States). I guess I'm just saying do your own homework before immediately demonizing the other side (as DHS appears to be doing right now). That lack of research is the reason we got into this divisive mess in the first place. What's especially tragic is that it's at heart not a Republican or Democrat issue, it's one of freedom. So Glenn Beck videos where he says that Obama is a bloodsucker and calls to drive a stake through his heart, where he says Obama better shoot him in the head instead of slowly killing him, where he speaks about Obama being a tyrant while playing german nazi movies in the background, where he cries and claims he only cares about his country and is scared for its well being while calling out to fight against it, where he says Obama is a tool for communism that was planned for 40 years by Soviet Union and that there are bazillion of secret agents in US waiting for order to take over the country, where he says Obama is getting slavery back, where he calls Obama communist/fascist/marxist/socialist in one sentance repeating it bazillion times with cool graphics, all that is just taken out of context and that he's actually trying to send peace and love message? Come on man...
|
On April 15 2009 18:05 D10 wrote:
But I think capitalism is self destructive.
I hope we someday develop a sustentabilism or something, our core doctrine as a race cant be a character flaw(greed).
That is hilarious since capitalism (or free market or whatever) is the best/most stable political advancement in millenia (perhaps since the dawn of time?).
Chew on this quote for a few seconds:
"The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another. – Milton Friedman"
|
Also just to point out that they are protesting big government:
President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn’t cut enough spending to change his place in history, either.
Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush’s first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton’s last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush’s first term.
The Republican Congress has enthusiastically assisted the budget bloat. Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs they vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27 percent.
The last 8 fiscal years.
09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On April 16 2009 04:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Also just to point out that they are protesting big government: Show nested quote + President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn’t cut enough spending to change his place in history, either.
Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush’s first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton’s last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush’s first term.
The Republican Congress has enthusiastically assisted the budget bloat. Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs they vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27 percent. The last 8 fiscal years.Show nested quote + 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
It's doesn't mean that protesting big government is wrong. It's that if you trust the Republicans to shrink government when in power, you have to check your memory. Republicans were never the party of small government when they were in power. The party and its principles are disjoint.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 16 2009 00:35 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote: Ha. Ha. Ha. First off, let me say, I was fine with O'Reilly and Hannity on Fox because every station had their own crazy guys. Hannity is an ignorant fuck but Whatever, it can slide. But Glenn Beck, he is something else. He came from no where to make a quick buck off a democratic Congress/Presidency. I saw his 'Book' at Barnes and Nobles the other day and decided to flip through some pages and I couldn't help but smile. The text was size 20 font, double spaced. I didn't even bother reading the context because it looked like it was made for Children. Ha. Being 'un'-american is being a Patriotic in the truest sense.
If these conservatives spent half the time reading what is Constitutional legal as they did spend their time protesting their new government, we actually might get a decent third party. Protesting for the sake of protesting proves one point: Facism isn't here - If you can say Obama is wrong on TV and not be in Jail the next day, (assuming you aren't blowing and being violent like that new Tea Party Organization), there is no Facism. First of all, all of these clips are taken completely out of context. Nobody is advocating violent revolt, and this is particularly irritating on the subject of Glenn Beck's program. He did not just "come from nowhere" although it may seem that way to someone who gets his information from Media Matters or other progressive news sites. Glenn has had a nationally syndicated radio show for at least 10 years (picked up on my local affiliates in 2001) and had a TV show on CNN Headline News for 3 years before being picked up by Fox News. Surprise surprise, the show started during the reign of George W Bush. He's also been writing books for over 10 years, and good books for over 6. Furthermore, I'm a regular listener to Glenn's radio program, and every time he talks about things such as protest and overbearing government and a fascist destination he always prefaces it with a historical explanation as well as a disclaimer that a) he desperately hopes he is wrong about the future of the country and b) the following subject matter will be taken out of context by a progressive blog. The fact that he qualifies they might be taken out of context, or that he "desperately hopes he is wrong" is just as likely used as a cover to make extreme remarks.
"I hope I'm wrong, but I think there's a fire in the theater" doesn't change the basic premise of the statement.
Secondly, all the talk about secession is not extremist at all, it's analytical. Most people on the progressive side seem to think that the federal government holds absolute power over the States and has carte blanche to enact new laws over any of them, but the fact is that the Constitution was a unifying document to create a Union among the individual States (hence the United States).
I guess I'm just saying do your own homework before immediately demonizing the other side (as DHS appears to be doing right now). That lack of research is the reason we got into this divisive mess in the first place. What's especially tragic is that it's at heart not a Republican or Democrat issue, it's one of freedom. Do you seriously get your political theoretical analysis from Glenn Beck? Hell, I'm sure you can get Road to Serfdom on tape and maybe even Constitution of Liberty.
"Surprise surprise, the show started during the reign of George W Bush."
No, it's not a surprise because he came about on the coattails of the conservative revivalism that brought Bush into power, not because he was a bipartisan figure. Being on CNN isn't really any better or worse than being on Fox or MSNBC, ie. Nancy Grace and Lou Dobbs.
You talk about defending freedom, but what was Glenn's take on the Patriot Act? He's against bureaucracy, but how did he feel about the creation of DHS? He calls himself a libertarian, but he isn't.
|
|
|
|