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

Obama is a super-sized Bush

HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 4:59:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Almost a year and a half after his election and Obama is proving to be not just "more of the same" but more of the same and on a larger scale. He's not removed us from Iraq. He put us deeper into Afghanistan. He just extended the Patriot Act. He's spent and borrowed way more than Bush. He's still bent on expanding government beyond its currently UNAFFORDABLE size. I've always said, "if you liked Bush, you gotta love this guy." He's nothing more than Bush on steroids. And since everyone agrees Bush was an idiot, what does that make this guy?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 6:00:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Its possible I'd listen to you, if you weren't a Republican, because anyone who goes on this much of a tirade against Bush and Obama, calls themselves "libertarian," yet keeps their allegiance to the GOP, probably the party you can depend most on for authoritarianism and the sort of stuff you call stupidity, is someone you can't take seriously.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 6:12:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 6:00:04 PM, Volkov wrote:
Its possible I'd listen to you, if you weren't a Republican, because anyone who goes on this much of a tirade against Bush and Obama, calls themselves "libertarian," yet keeps their allegiance to the GOP, probably the party you can depend most on for authoritarianism and the sort of stuff you call stupidity, is someone you can't take seriously.

I never understood this way of thinking personally. Both parties spend excessively - just on different things (like social programs vs. war). One party grants more social freedoms, though, so at least it's a win-lose instead of a lose-lose.
President of DDO
banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 6:33:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Volkov its sad how some of your post could be so wonderful full with logic,and how rediculous your post is now...!
You clearly admited bieng biased now ,yet you claim your the one that's backed by logic...!
To poster pointed his point all full of facts ,yet you did not even addresed one of them...!
Volkov I would expect it from everyone aside from you...!!
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
ournamestoolong
Posts: 1,059
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 6:55:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 4:59:19 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Almost a year and a half after his election and Obama is proving to be not just "more of the same" but more of the same and on a larger scale.

Actually, the two are bascially polar oppisites.

He's not removed us from Iraq. He put us deeper into Afghanistan.

True, when his generals told him to move into Afghanistan, but he is pulling troops out of Iraq (Very soon, actually) http://articles.latimes.com...

He just extended the Patriot Act.

One issue a clone does not make

He's spent and borrowed way more than Bush.

But for many different things. Social programs, education initaitives, rather than tax cuts for the rich.

Bush =/= Obama
I'll get by with a little help from my friends.

Ournamestoolong

Secretary of Commerce

Destroy talking ads!
banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 8:11:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ourname its so idiotic to read a exhibition of idioticy packaged as a argument..!
I should first try to see things from your point of view,however its hard to put my eyes so far up your rear end..!
You said we will be out of iraq after one year of promises why are we still there..! Why would we trust after deadlines expiered..?
We dubled our troops in afghonistan and increased funds for war..! How is this funds social programs.?
The patriot acts extanding is not significant.? Please explain this with logic..!
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 8:14:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 6:12:57 PM, theLwerd wrote:
I never understood this way of thinking personally. Both parties spend excessively - just on different things (like social programs vs. war). One party grants more social freedoms, though, so at least it's a win-lose instead of a lose-lose.

That's it exactly. Both parties are certainly excessive with spending, as all political parties are destined to do, just by virtue of their sometimes position as the governing party. The question is, what do you want this money spent on? Wars and keeping gays out of the military, or essential and important services like healthcare?
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 8:15:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Na, he is not a super-sized bush.

He is just to nice!
Bi-partisanship is not working with the republicans in office.

He is way over his head, I will give you that, but he is his own entity.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 8:17:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 8:14:29 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/27/2010 6:12:57 PM, theLwerd wrote:
I never understood this way of thinking personally. Both parties spend excessively - just on different things (like social programs vs. war). One party grants more social freedoms, though, so at least it's a win-lose instead of a lose-lose.

That's it exactly. Both parties are certainly excessive with spending, as all political parties are destined to do, just by virtue of their sometimes position as the governing party. The question is, what do you want this money spent on? Wars and keeping gays out of the military, or essential and important services like healthcare?

from the fact that both parties spend excessively it doesn't follow that all possible parties would do the same.

granted it would be hard to find a party that didn't spend excessively but thats a separate issue. i also wasn't aware that there was a ton of spending going on to keep gays out the military... i thought the rhetoric was doing all the work....
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 8:22:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 8:17:15 PM, belle wrote:
from the fact that both parties spend excessively it doesn't follow that all possible parties would do the same.

It actually does, unless you get a group of people who aren't at all interested in power and keeping the government running. You can't be a party of government, and not spend. You just can't. 'Tis a near impossibility, if not one outright.

granted it would be hard to find a party that didn't spend excessively but thats a separate issue. i also wasn't aware that there was a ton of spending going on to keep gays out the military... i thought the rhetoric was doing all the work....

It costs money to prosecute these cases, to replace the manpower lost, to handle the eventual lawsuits, etc.
ournamestoolong
Posts: 1,059
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 8:24:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 8:11:00 PM, banker wrote:
Ourname its so idiotic to read a exhibition of idioticy packaged as a argument..!

I like you too.

I should first try to see things from your point of view,however its hard to put my eyes so far up your rear end..!

Really? My point of view is THAT insane to you. Wow, your mind is closed.

You said we will be out of iraq after one year of promises why are we still there..! Why would we trust after deadlines expiered..?

Because you can't just say "WE ARE OUT OF IRAQ" without having means to transport 300,000 people out of a country. Organizing that is not easy.

We dubled our troops in afghonistan and increased funds for war..! How is this funds social programs.?

First off, where the f*ck is "afghonistan". Second, Obama listened to his generals to try to add stability to a reigion. IMHO, this was a important move to reducing terrorism. However, it is not a social program. I was referring to prograns like UHC and Race to the Top.

The patriot acts extanding is not significant.? Please explain this with logic..!

I am saying this one issue does not turn Obama into Bush.
I'll get by with a little help from my friends.

Ournamestoolong

Secretary of Commerce

Destroy talking ads!
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 8:25:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 8:22:08 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/27/2010 8:17:15 PM, belle wrote:
from the fact that both parties spend excessively it doesn't follow that all possible parties would do the same.

It actually does, unless you get a group of people who aren't at all interested in power and keeping the government running. You can't be a party of government, and not spend. You just can't. 'Tis a near impossibility, if not one outright.

or you could structure the laws in such a way that abuse of power is more difficult than it is now. and in any case we're talking about *excessive* spending, not gov't spending in general.

as for the gay thing, maybe, but i still think you could have come up with a better example of poor gov't spending, since that has to be an exceedingly small portion of the budget....
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 8:30:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 8:25:04 PM, belle wrote:
or you could structure the laws in such a way that abuse of power is more difficult than it is now. and in any case we're talking about *excessive* spending, not gov't spending in general.

Excessive spending, or spending in general, would need to be outlawed in order for any sort of "abuse of power" law to be effective. It isn't for lack of laws that spending gets out of control; its the fact that government spending is just inherently meant to go overboard, if indeed it does what its supposed to, and isn't some sort of Objectivist paradise like Ragnar always offers up. Providing services to millions of people with different needs and demographics every single day isn't something that you can control with "laws," unless you want those services scrapped.

as for the gay thing, maybe, but i still think you could have come up with a better example of poor gov't spending, since that has to be an exceedingly small portion of the budget....

That wasn't the point of mentioning the gays-in-the-military issue. If you reread the sentence, I said "do you want your money spent on this?", not "do you want only a certain amount spent on this?"
banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 8:30:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ourname are you talking about bush or obama.?
Are you aware we got there in 10 days ..?
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
ournamestoolong
Posts: 1,059
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 8:35:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 8:30:52 PM, banker wrote:
Ourname are you talking about bush or obama.?

Both

Are you aware we got there in 10 days ..?

Getting there =/= Getting out
We need to go out in a way that minimizes the chaos.
I'll get by with a little help from my friends.

Ournamestoolong

Secretary of Commerce

Destroy talking ads!
banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 8:39:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ourname I see you agree with hands that's good me too
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
ournamestoolong
Posts: 1,059
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 8:41:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 8:39:31 PM, banker wrote:
Ourname I see you agree with hands that's good me too

What? I in no way agree with what he is saying. I am saying Obama is trying to get our troops out of Iraq, unlike what he said.
I'll get by with a little help from my friends.

Ournamestoolong

Secretary of Commerce

Destroy talking ads!
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 8:42:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 8:30:13 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/27/2010 8:25:04 PM, belle wrote:
or you could structure the laws in such a way that abuse of power is more difficult than it is now. and in any case we're talking about *excessive* spending, not gov't spending in general.

Excessive spending, or spending in general, would need to be outlawed in order for any sort of "abuse of power" law to be effective. It isn't for lack of laws that spending gets out of control; its the fact that government spending is just inherently meant to go overboard, if indeed it does what its supposed to, and isn't some sort of Objectivist paradise like Ragnar always offers up. Providing services to millions of people with different needs and demographics every single day isn't something that you can control with "laws," unless you want those services scrapped.

not so. in fact all you need to do is, as you've done, ask what the money should be spent on. which services are necessary. while republicans and democrats are content to argue over that and replace the desired of one group with the desired of the other, i believe there are many that could simply be cut. if the services are clearly defined and do not overreach themselves then they need not be designed to go overboard as they currently are.

its certainly not a case of "spend more money than you have or cut all spending" as you keep trying to present it
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 8:53:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 8:42:27 PM, belle wrote:
not so. in fact all you need to do is, as you've done, ask what the money should be spent on. which services are necessary. while republicans and democrats are content to argue over that and replace the desired of one group with the desired of the other, i believe there are many that could simply be cut. if the services are clearly defined and do not overreach themselves then they need not be designed to go overboard as they currently are.

its certainly not a case of "spend more money than you have or cut all spending" as you keep trying to present it

Alright, lets examine such a take.

How do you set defined limits on, lets say, old age pensions? Lets say that, because baby boomers will soon be retiring and they haven't had large families that they can depend on, how do you define the spending limit for the pensions program if that, plus the fact that immigrants and such will also strain the system, will mean spending has a very high likelihood of overrunning, given the increased costs that must be covered by pensions if they're to fill the income void in old age as they're supposed to? That includes cost of living, too, which is always going up.

How do you define limits and keep to them, without cutting the program's effectiveness?
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 9:00:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 6:55:26 PM, ournamestoolong wrote:
At 2/27/2010 4:59:19 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Almost a year and a half after his election and Obama is proving to be not just "more of the same" but more of the same and on a larger scale.

Actually, the two are bascially polar oppisites.

How so?

He's not removed us from Iraq. He put us deeper into Afghanistan.

True, when his generals told him to move into Afghanistan,

So? If his generals told you to jump off a cliff would you?

but he is pulling troops out of Iraq (Very soon, actually) http://articles.latimes.com...

I will believe it when I see it.

He just extended the Patriot Act.

One issue a clone does not make

Agreed.

He's spent and borrowed way more than Bush.

But for many different things. Social programs, education initaitives, rather than tax cuts for the rich.

I don't think the spending percentages are as different as you think.

Bush =/= Obama

They are relatively similar.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 9:03:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 8:53:18 PM, Volkov wrote:

How do you set defined limits on, lets say, old age pensions? Lets say that, because baby boomers will soon be retiring and they haven't had large families that they can depend on, how do you define the spending limit for the pensions program if that, plus the fact that immigrants and such will also strain the system, will mean spending has a very high likelihood of overrunning, given the increased costs that must be covered by pensions if they're to fill the income void in old age as they're supposed to? That includes cost of living, too, which is always going up.

How do you define limits and keep to them, without cutting the program's effectiveness?

thats exactly it, you limit "effectiveness" in proportion to what you can afford. if revenues fall, benefits fall... and thats unfortunate but it makes a lot more sense than running up an epic debt with no plan (or intention it seems to me) of ever repaying it.

its like a kid with his first ever credit card but on a country wide scale.

its this kind of "we need these programs so we will spend on them no matter what" attitude that leads to the huge national debt. do we really "need" all these things that we can't afford?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
ournamestoolong
Posts: 1,059
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 9:07:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 9:00:09 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/27/2010 6:55:26 PM, ournamestoolong wrote:
At 2/27/2010 4:59:19 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Almost a year and a half after his election and Obama is proving to be not just "more of the same" but more of the same and on a larger scale.

Actually, the two are bascially polar oppisites.

How so?

Politically, in the way they do things.

He's not removed us from Iraq. He put us deeper into Afghanistan.

True, when his generals told him to move into Afghanistan,

So? If his generals told you to jump off a cliff would you?

That is hardly a military decision, where their input should be valued

but he is pulling troops out of Iraq (Very soon, actually) http://articles.latimes.com...

I will believe it when I see it.

Ok then.

He just extended the Patriot Act.

One issue a clone does not make

Agreed.

Again, Ok.

He's spent and borrowed way more than Bush.

But for many different things. Social programs, education initaitives, rather than tax cuts for the rich.

I don't think the spending percentages are as different as you think.

The percentages may not be different, but the ways and things they spent them on were.

Bush =/= Obama

They are relatively similar.

Not really.
I'll get by with a little help from my friends.

Ournamestoolong

Secretary of Commerce

Destroy talking ads!
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 9:08:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 9:03:22 PM, belle wrote:
thats exactly it, you limit "effectiveness" in proportion to what you can afford. if revenues fall, benefits fall... and thats unfortunate but it makes a lot more sense than running up an epic debt with no plan (or intention it seems to me) of ever repaying it.

See, that's the issue, right there. If you know you're just going to have the program fail anyways, why run it in the first place? it makes more sense to stop spending altogether.

That's why its silly for a libertarian to say, "well, we can afford some programs." Well, sure, you can.. but what would be the point? If you know spending will go over any "defined limits" you attempt to set on it, why bother setting it up in the first place? Better to not do it, than to have it and have it be ineffective at what its supposed to do.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 9:14:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 9:07:16 PM, ournamestoolong wrote:
Politically, in the way they do things.

Example of such differences?

That is hardly a military decision, where their input should be valued

In the same way, whether one should deploy more troops to Afghanistan isn't a military decision. It is an ethical one.

The percentages may not be different, but the ways and things they spent them on were.

Do you have proof of this? I greatly doubt that there has been much change in the overall budget whatsoever.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 9:16:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 6:55:26 PM, ournamestoolong wrote:
Actually, the two are bascially polar oppisites.

Nope, not at all.

They're not debating policies. They're not debating whether to decrease or increase spending or taxation. They're debating how much to increase spending and taxation. They're not debating whether to go to war or not go to war. They're debating where to go to war, and how much they should send to war. They're not debating whether to regulate or not. They're debating how much regulation. They're basically the same.

True, when his generals told him to move into Afghanistan

Of course the Generals told him they wanted more troops. They always want more troops. The bankers also told him to give them bailouts. He did that too.

but he is pulling troops out of Iraq (Very soon, actually) http://articles.latimes.com...

I won't hold my breath.

One issue a clone does not make

Huh?

He's spent and borrowed way more than Bush.

But for many different things. Social programs, education initaitives, rather than tax cuts for the rich.

Does it matter? Obama has spent more than Bush on everything. He's also borrowed more than Bush.

Bush =/= Obama

I think you have it wrong. Bush ~= Obama.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 9:27:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 9:08:00 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/27/2010 9:03:22 PM, belle wrote:
thats exactly it, you limit "effectiveness" in proportion to what you can afford. if revenues fall, benefits fall... and thats unfortunate but it makes a lot more sense than running up an epic debt with no plan (or intention it seems to me) of ever repaying it.

See, that's the issue, right there. If you know you're just going to have the program fail anyways, why run it in the first place? it makes more sense to stop spending altogether.

That's why its silly for a libertarian to say, "well, we can afford some programs." Well, sure, you can.. but what would be the point? If you know spending will go over any "defined limits" you attempt to set on it, why bother setting it up in the first place? Better to not do it, than to have it and have it be ineffective at what its supposed to do.

nono you miss the point. personally i don't think we need most social services at all. but if they're going to be implemented, rather than fixing a dollar amount, why not say X program gets Y percentage of gov't income, divided by number of beneficiaries = ? because some help is better than no help at all. then it would be, quite literally, impossible for spending to go over because the payout is based on the amount of money coming in.

note this is not a well thought out plan of action, its something i came up with to demonstrate that government spending doesn't, by necessity, spin out of control unless you mandate a certain benefit in dollars to certain individuals matching certain criteria of "need". there are other ways of going about things.

without such guarantee you may well think "whats the point" but thats a separate issue and doesn't make gov't spending within limits impossible at all.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 9:30:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 9:14:35 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Do you have proof of this? I greatly doubt that there has been much change in the overall budget whatsoever.

Obama increased the budget by half a trillion his first year in office. I'm not much sure of percentages. I do, however, have this nice graphic: http://blog.heritage.org...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2010 9:36:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/27/2010 9:27:39 PM, belle wrote:
without such guarantee you may well think "whats the point" but thats a separate issue and doesn't make gov't spending within limits impossible at all.

Lol, it actually isn't a separate point at all. Government spending should be based on whether or not the service is not only needed, but if it will be effective in its raison d'etre. Programs upon which you set a limit on that will probably go over that limit just by its very nature are ones that won't be effective under such a system, because if the entire point of the limits is to help with controlling spending, well, you see where I'm going with this.

And in all honesty, "some help is better than no help at all" isn't a motto that the government should go by, especially a libertarian one. And if you're like me, well, you'd know that a government program that ain't effective to its utmost, is a program that needs some serious looking at.