Total Posts:78|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Bill Clinton, the Right Wing Extremist

BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 9:04:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Republicans are, if we are to believe Democrats, right wing extremists for proposing cuts to the government. If we were to follow Paul Ryan's budget, the federal government would consume about 19.6% of GDP on average. That is, according to Democrats, a radical and extreme budget.

In 2000, Bill Clinton was in his last full year of presidency. The federal government consumed 18.2% of GDP, well below Ryan's 19.6%.

According to Democrats, a government that is 19.6% of GDP cannot fulfill "vital investments" and is cruel and inhumane. So, I would assume that Bill Clinton's 18.2% of GDP government was one of the cruelest times ever.

In other words, if Democrats were being consistent, they would consider Bill Clinton an anti government, right wing extremist.
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 9:10:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 9:04:05 PM, BigRat wrote:
Republicans are, if we are to believe Democrats, right wing extremists for proposing cuts to the government. If we were to follow Paul Ryan's budget, the federal government would consume about 19.6% of GDP on average. That is, according to Democrats, a radical and extreme budget.

In 2000, Bill Clinton was in his last full year of presidency. The federal government consumed 18.2% of GDP, well below Ryan's 19.6%.

According to Democrats, a government that is 19.6% of GDP cannot fulfill "vital investments" and is cruel and inhumane. So, I would assume that Bill Clinton's 18.2% of GDP government was one of the cruelest times ever.

In other words, if Democrats were being consistent, they would consider Bill Clinton an anti government, right wing extremist.

The cuts Ryan wants to make has nothing to do with the percentage of GDP spending the government has, nor does the spending which occurred under Bill Clinton indicate that he's a right-wing extremist. You're speaking in hyperbole to arouse partisan divide.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 9:13:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 9:10:04 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 2/22/2013 9:04:05 PM, BigRat wrote:
Republicans are, if we are to believe Democrats, right wing extremists for proposing cuts to the government. If we were to follow Paul Ryan's budget, the federal government would consume about 19.6% of GDP on average. That is, according to Democrats, a radical and extreme budget.

In 2000, Bill Clinton was in his last full year of presidency. The federal government consumed 18.2% of GDP, well below Ryan's 19.6%.

According to Democrats, a government that is 19.6% of GDP cannot fulfill "vital investments" and is cruel and inhumane. So, I would assume that Bill Clinton's 18.2% of GDP government was one of the cruelest times ever.

In other words, if Democrats were being consistent, they would consider Bill Clinton an anti government, right wing extremist.

The cuts Ryan wants to make has nothing to do with the percentage of GDP spending the government has, nor does the spending which occurred under Bill Clinton indicate that he's a right-wing extremist. You're speaking in hyperbole to arouse partisan divide.

Not at all.

The fact is that the federal government of 2000, under a president that Democrats praise, was far smaller than anything proposed by Ryan. Yet, he is called an extremist.

If Democrats were being consistent, they would stop praising Clinton and claim that his government was WAY to small and that he was radical for being president over that small government.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 9:17:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 9:13:29 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/22/2013 9:10:04 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 2/22/2013 9:04:05 PM, BigRat wrote:
Republicans are, if we are to believe Democrats, right wing extremists for proposing cuts to the government. If we were to follow Paul Ryan's budget, the federal government would consume about 19.6% of GDP on average. That is, according to Democrats, a radical and extreme budget.

In 2000, Bill Clinton was in his last full year of presidency. The federal government consumed 18.2% of GDP, well below Ryan's 19.6%.

According to Democrats, a government that is 19.6% of GDP cannot fulfill "vital investments" and is cruel and inhumane. So, I would assume that Bill Clinton's 18.2% of GDP government was one of the cruelest times ever.

In other words, if Democrats were being consistent, they would consider Bill Clinton an anti government, right wing extremist.

The cuts Ryan wants to make has nothing to do with the percentage of GDP spending the government has, nor does the spending which occurred under Bill Clinton indicate that he's a right-wing extremist. You're speaking in hyperbole to arouse partisan divide.


Not at all.

The fact is that the federal government of 2000, under a president that Democrats praise, was far smaller than anything proposed by Ryan. Yet, he is called an extremist.

If Democrats were being consistent, they would stop praising Clinton and claim that his government was WAY to small and that he was radical for being president over that small government.

I'd wager that it's not just about the size of government but rather about what the government is spending on. Plus, during the Clinton years, we were in an economic boom, and Democrats want to spend more during a recession. You need to examine the context.

That said, yes, Bill Clinton, just like Obama, is a right winged extremist.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 9:23:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 9:17:04 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/22/2013 9:13:29 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/22/2013 9:10:04 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 2/22/2013 9:04:05 PM, BigRat wrote:
Republicans are, if we are to believe Democrats, right wing extremists for proposing cuts to the government. If we were to follow Paul Ryan's budget, the federal government would consume about 19.6% of GDP on average. That is, according to Democrats, a radical and extreme budget.

In 2000, Bill Clinton was in his last full year of presidency. The federal government consumed 18.2% of GDP, well below Ryan's 19.6%.

According to Democrats, a government that is 19.6% of GDP cannot fulfill "vital investments" and is cruel and inhumane. So, I would assume that Bill Clinton's 18.2% of GDP government was one of the cruelest times ever.

In other words, if Democrats were being consistent, they would consider Bill Clinton an anti government, right wing extremist.

The cuts Ryan wants to make has nothing to do with the percentage of GDP spending the government has, nor does the spending which occurred under Bill Clinton indicate that he's a right-wing extremist. You're speaking in hyperbole to arouse partisan divide.


Not at all.

The fact is that the federal government of 2000, under a president that Democrats praise, was far smaller than anything proposed by Ryan. Yet, he is called an extremist.

If Democrats were being consistent, they would stop praising Clinton and claim that his government was WAY to small and that he was radical for being president over that small government.

I'd wager that it's not just about the size of government but rather about what the government is spending on. Plus, during the Clinton years, we were in an economic boom, and Democrats want to spend more during a recession. You need to examine the context.

That said, yes, Bill Clinton, just like Obama, is a right winged extremist.

This needs some explaining (bolded).

As to the first statement, Ryan is proposing that size of government after we recover... it will remain larger than that until then.

Obama is proposing a governmetn with something like 22 or 23% of GDP AFTER rexocvery.

Ryan is much closer, though still larger, than what we had under Clinton even after the state of the economy is taken into account.
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 6:21:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 9:23:51 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/22/2013 9:17:04 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

That said, yes, Bill Clinton, just like Obama, is a right winged extremist.


This needs some explaining (bolded).


Bill Clinton put the discriminatory DADT and DOMA policies in place, which is a Republican-endorsed policy. Bill Clinton also signed the Gramm Leach Bliley Act into law, which repealed the merger provision of Glass-Steagall, ultimately acting as a deregulation to financial institutions which were allowed to create egregious conflicts of interests. There's also Bill's support of NAFTA, which failed to include a labor provision and ultimately cost Americans their jobs.

President Obama is a Republican. He's a moderate Republican, who has handed out tax cuts like crazy VIA the Recovery Act, and the Tax Relief Act of 2010, which just extended the Bush tax cuts for everybody instead of the bottom 98%. Not to mention he caved on the debt ceiling crisis by signing the Budget Control Act into law, which makes draconian spending cuts (Republican idea). He's also done a lot to curb torture, but has used drones as a means of carrying out warfare, which is relatively neglectful towards collateral damage. Not a lot of Democratic support for that, you might notice. He instituted the no-fly zone in Libya, an interventionist policy which is reminiscent of Republicans, in addition to having troop surge in Afghanistan, instead of a withdrawal. His entire healthcare bill was a giant handout to insurance companies. Democrats wanted a public option, at minimum. Single payer preferred. Not to mention how little he has done, outside of doubling emission standards on cars, to combat climate change. We're producing more oil than ever, instead of exploring green energy alternatives because he's scared of the Solyndra back-lash.

In every sense, they're both moderate Republicans. It's just that the Republican-right has gone so extreme that it's easy to confuse a moderate Republican with Che Guevara
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 6:26:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 6:21:19 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:

In every sense, they're both moderate Republicans. It's just that the Republican-right has gone so extreme that it's easy to confuse a moderate Republican with Che Guevara


Now look who's using hyperbole.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 6:28:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 6:26:14 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 2/23/2013 6:21:19 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:

In every sense, they're both moderate Republicans. It's just that the Republican-right has gone so extreme that it's easy to confuse a moderate Republican with Che Guevara


Now look who's using hyperbole.

Guilty as charged! :P
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 6:30:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
All the more evidence that time periods matter much more than political parties. Both political parties basically just copy the median voter, but demographics and culture changes, so the parties change.

FDR would be a libertarian in modern-day times.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 6:32:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 6:30:41 PM, darkkermit wrote:
FDR would be a libertarian in modern-day times.

I don't think a libertarian would have created social security. :P
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 6:32:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 6:30:41 PM, darkkermit wrote:
All the more evidence that time periods matter much more than political parties. Both political parties basically just copy the median voter, but demographics and culture changes, so the parties change.

FDR would be a libertarian in modern-day times.

I don't think so, because most libertarians disagree with social security and the like.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 6:32:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 6:32:11 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 2/23/2013 6:30:41 PM, darkkermit wrote:
FDR would be a libertarian in modern-day times.

I don't think a libertarian would have created social security. :P

Beat me by four seconds.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 6:33:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 6:32:35 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 2/23/2013 6:32:11 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 2/23/2013 6:30:41 PM, darkkermit wrote:
FDR would be a libertarian in modern-day times.

I don't think a libertarian would have created social security. :P

Beat me by four seconds.

*puts on sunglasses* I'm just that good.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 6:46:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 9:04:05 PM, BigRat wrote:
Republicans are, if we are to believe Democrats, right wing extremists for proposing cuts to the government. If we were to follow Paul Ryan's budget, the federal government would consume about 19.6% of GDP on average. That is, according to Democrats, a radical and extreme budget.

In 2000, Bill Clinton was in his last full year of presidency. The federal government consumed 18.2% of GDP, well below Ryan's 19.6%.

According to Democrats, a government that is 19.6% of GDP cannot fulfill "vital investments" and is cruel and inhumane. So, I would assume that Bill Clinton's 18.2% of GDP government was one of the cruelest times ever.

In other words, if Democrats were being consistent, they would consider Bill Clinton an anti government, right wing extremist.

This assumes that Paul Ryan is a right wing extremist. I sincerely doubt he is.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 6:50:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 9:04:05 PM, BigRat wrote:
Republicans are, if we are to believe Democrats, right wing extremists for proposing cuts to the government. If we were to follow Paul Ryan's budget, the federal government would consume about 19.6% of GDP on average. That is, according to Democrats, a radical and extreme budget.

In 2000, Bill Clinton was in his last full year of presidency. The federal government consumed 18.2% of GDP, well below Ryan's 19.6%.

According to Democrats, a government that is 19.6% of GDP cannot fulfill "vital investments" and is cruel and inhumane. So, I would assume that Bill Clinton's 18.2% of GDP government was one of the cruelest times ever.

In other words, if Democrats were being consistent, they would consider Bill Clinton an anti government, right wing extremist.

Or, if your data was correct, you wouldn't have made this thread.

Federal spending was 33% of GDP in 2000.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 6:52:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How am I always the only one to check the accuracy of these bullsh!t Libertarian claims?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 6:54:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 6:50:01 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/22/2013 9:04:05 PM, BigRat wrote:
Republicans are, if we are to believe Democrats, right wing extremists for proposing cuts to the government. If we were to follow Paul Ryan's budget, the federal government would consume about 19.6% of GDP on average. That is, according to Democrats, a radical and extreme budget.

In 2000, Bill Clinton was in his last full year of presidency. The federal government consumed 18.2% of GDP, well below Ryan's 19.6%.

According to Democrats, a government that is 19.6% of GDP cannot fulfill "vital investments" and is cruel and inhumane. So, I would assume that Bill Clinton's 18.2% of GDP government was one of the cruelest times ever.

In other words, if Democrats were being consistent, they would consider Bill Clinton an anti government, right wing extremist.

Or, if your data was correct, you wouldn't have made this thread.

Federal spending was 33% of GDP in 2000.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...

That's including state and local government. I also think that website does some double counting (counting local and state spending twice).

http://2.bp.blogspot.com...
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 6:58:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 6:54:49 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/23/2013 6:50:01 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/22/2013 9:04:05 PM, BigRat wrote:
Republicans are, if we are to believe Democrats, right wing extremists for proposing cuts to the government. If we were to follow Paul Ryan's budget, the federal government would consume about 19.6% of GDP on average. That is, according to Democrats, a radical and extreme budget.

In 2000, Bill Clinton was in his last full year of presidency. The federal government consumed 18.2% of GDP, well below Ryan's 19.6%.

According to Democrats, a government that is 19.6% of GDP cannot fulfill "vital investments" and is cruel and inhumane. So, I would assume that Bill Clinton's 18.2% of GDP government was one of the cruelest times ever.

In other words, if Democrats were being consistent, they would consider Bill Clinton an anti government, right wing extremist.

Or, if your data was correct, you wouldn't have made this thread.

Federal spending was 33% of GDP in 2000.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...

That's including state and local government. I also think that website does some double counting (counting local and state spending twice).

http://2.bp.blogspot.com...

scroll down.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 7:02:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 6:58:47 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/23/2013 6:54:49 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/23/2013 6:50:01 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/22/2013 9:04:05 PM, BigRat wrote:
Republicans are, if we are to believe Democrats, right wing extremists for proposing cuts to the government. If we were to follow Paul Ryan's budget, the federal government would consume about 19.6% of GDP on average. That is, according to Democrats, a radical and extreme budget.

In 2000, Bill Clinton was in his last full year of presidency. The federal government consumed 18.2% of GDP, well below Ryan's 19.6%.

According to Democrats, a government that is 19.6% of GDP cannot fulfill "vital investments" and is cruel and inhumane. So, I would assume that Bill Clinton's 18.2% of GDP government was one of the cruelest times ever.

In other words, if Democrats were being consistent, they would consider Bill Clinton an anti government, right wing extremist.

Or, if your data was correct, you wouldn't have made this thread.

Federal spending was 33% of GDP in 2000.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...

That's including state and local government. I also think that website does some double counting (counting local and state spending twice).

http://2.bp.blogspot.com...

scroll down.

It looks to be just under 20% for federal spending in the year 2000.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 7:02:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, this doesn't take the GDP growth into account.

Moreover, like Reagan and Bush 43, Republicans always talk a good game, but what two administrations ushered in the largest increases in spending and also the largest increases in deficit spending, as compared to the administrations before them?

Oh, that's right...Reagan and Bush43...I almost forgot.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 7:04:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 7:02:06 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 2/23/2013 6:58:47 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/23/2013 6:54:49 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/23/2013 6:50:01 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/22/2013 9:04:05 PM, BigRat wrote:
Republicans are, if we are to believe Democrats, right wing extremists for proposing cuts to the government. If we were to follow Paul Ryan's budget, the federal government would consume about 19.6% of GDP on average. That is, according to Democrats, a radical and extreme budget.

In 2000, Bill Clinton was in his last full year of presidency. The federal government consumed 18.2% of GDP, well below Ryan's 19.6%.

According to Democrats, a government that is 19.6% of GDP cannot fulfill "vital investments" and is cruel and inhumane. So, I would assume that Bill Clinton's 18.2% of GDP government was one of the cruelest times ever.

In other words, if Democrats were being consistent, they would consider Bill Clinton an anti government, right wing extremist.

Or, if your data was correct, you wouldn't have made this thread.

Federal spending was 33% of GDP in 2000.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...

That's including state and local government. I also think that website does some double counting (counting local and state spending twice).

http://2.bp.blogspot.com...

scroll down.

It looks to be just under 20% for federal spending in the year 2000.

yeah...I was wrong...but, it's pretty consistent throughout the modern era, and we're no longer the supplier of everything to the world like we were just after WW2.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 8:52:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 8:49:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
This thread would have been more interesting if you had discussed Obama's foreign policy.

Just in general, or in comparison to Bill Clinton's foreign policy?
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 8:54:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 8:49:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
This thread would have been more interesting if you had discussed Obama's foreign policy.

Did you not see my response? I touched on interventionism and drone warfare.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 9:07:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 6:21:19 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 2/22/2013 9:23:51 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/22/2013 9:17:04 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

That said, yes, Bill Clinton, just like Obama, is a right winged extremist.


This needs some explaining (bolded).


Bill Clinton put the discriminatory DADT and DOMA policies in place, which is a Republican-endorsed policy. Bill Clinton also signed the Gramm Leach Bliley Act into law, which repealed the merger provision of Glass-Steagall, ultimately acting as a deregulation to financial institutions which were allowed to create egregious conflicts of interests. There's also Bill's support of NAFTA, which failed to include a labor provision and ultimately cost Americans their jobs.

President Obama is a Republican. He's a moderate Republican, who has handed out tax cuts like crazy VIA the Recovery Act, and the Tax Relief Act of 2010, which just extended the Bush tax cuts for everybody instead of the bottom 98%. Not to mention he caved on the debt ceiling crisis by signing the Budget Control Act into law, which makes draconian spending cuts (Republican idea). He's also done a lot to curb torture, but has used drones as a means of carrying out warfare, which is relatively neglectful towards collateral damage. Not a lot of Democratic support for that, you might notice. He instituted the no-fly zone in Libya, an interventionist policy which is reminiscent of Republicans, in addition to having troop surge in Afghanistan, instead of a withdrawal. His entire healthcare bill was a giant handout to insurance companies. Democrats wanted a public option, at minimum. Single payer preferred. Not to mention how little he has done, outside of doubling emission standards on cars, to combat climate change. We're producing more oil than ever, instead of exploring green energy alternatives because he's scared of the Solyndra back-lash.

In every sense, they're both moderate Republicans. It's just that the Republican-right has gone so extreme that it's easy to confuse a moderate Republican with Che Guevara

You think Obama is a Republican. I believe his registration is public and he is a Democrat.

But, in all seriousness.

Despite what you read in the NYtimes and what not, Obama is a pretty left wing president. He really has been, at least on domestic policy.

The Republican party has moved. They've moved to the LEFT in the past decades.

In the 1960s, they opposed the existence of Medicare and Medicaid. In the 2010s, they are called radical for proposing fairly modest reforms to these programs.

Both parties have moved to the left.

Anyone who argues politics have not moved to the left in the past decades is simply ignorant. They have. No mainstream politician opposes teh existence of the welfare state. Just a fee decades ago, anyone supporting even a small welfare state was considered radical.

Really, teh asserition that Republicans have become "radical" and that Obama is simply a moderate Republican is pretty laughable. Unfortunatley, it isn't funny because many supposedly intelligent pundits write and believe this nonsense.

The reality is that both parties have been moving to the left and Barack Obama has governed from a pretty far left position.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 9:08:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 6:30:41 PM, darkkermit wrote:
All the more evidence that time periods matter much more than political parties. Both political parties basically just copy the median voter, but demographics and culture changes, so the parties change.

FDR would be a libertarian in modern-day times.

Bingo.

Politics have moved to the left if we look at actual positions. Hence the term progressive. As time progresses, we get closer to what progressives wanted.

When progressives say "we have moved to the right", they really mean "we haven't moved to the left fast enough".
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 9:10:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 6:50:01 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/22/2013 9:04:05 PM, BigRat wrote:
Republicans are, if we are to believe Democrats, right wing extremists for proposing cuts to the government. If we were to follow Paul Ryan's budget, the federal government would consume about 19.6% of GDP on average. That is, according to Democrats, a radical and extreme budget.

In 2000, Bill Clinton was in his last full year of presidency. The federal government consumed 18.2% of GDP, well below Ryan's 19.6%.

According to Democrats, a government that is 19.6% of GDP cannot fulfill "vital investments" and is cruel and inhumane. So, I would assume that Bill Clinton's 18.2% of GDP government was one of the cruelest times ever.

In other words, if Democrats were being consistent, they would consider Bill Clinton an anti government, right wing extremist.

Or, if your data was correct, you wouldn't have made this thread.

Federal spending was 33% of GDP in 2000.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...

Man. How embarassing... Oh wait. You are looking at state, local, and federal spending combined.

I am only looking at federal spending. Federal spending was 18.2% of GDP in 2000... Just as I said.

So, ya....
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 9:11:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 6:52:24 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
How am I always the only one to check the accuracy of these bullsh!t Libertarian claims?

A lot of attitude from somebody who just confused federal spending with total government spending.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 9:13:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 7:02:31 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Also, this doesn't take the GDP growth into account.

Moreover, like Reagan and Bush 43, Republicans always talk a good game, but what two administrations ushered in the largest increases in spending and also the largest increases in deficit spending, as compared to the administrations before them?

Oh, that's right...Reagan and Bush43...I almost forgot.

Despite Bush 43's huge increase in the deficit, Obama still found a way to make him look fiscally responsible by comparison...