Why is it that Rand Paul and other "Strict Constitutionalist" Conservatives believe that in 1787 the US Constitution gave the federal government the authority to allow states to permit private individuals to own slaves, yet in 1964 (a century after enactment of the 14th Amendment) the federal government did not have the power to prohibit private business owners from engaging in racial discrimination?
Do these Tea Bagger Conservatives believe that the US Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation in order that the states might form a "less perfect" union?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
65 comments:
Rank Paul wants to cut the military? Doesn't that make him weak on defense? Guess it's not weak if a chicken hawk con says it?
It's really sad, that Obama was largely pacifying the cons, with a large commitment in Afghanistan, and now the cons want out? Little rhyme or reason in a con world. Just can't keep a con happy, unless he's the one telling you what to do.
"Conservatives believe that in 1787 the US Constitution gave the federal government the authority to allow states to permit private individuals to own slaves"
-Raygun
Why would you think that the constitution would permit someone to own a slave? Wouldnt it be the other way around? The constitution would have to ban slave ownership not the other way around.
If there is no law against something than its not illegal. DUH!
"Why would you think that the constitution would permit someone to own a slave?"
You missed the point again. My point was, the constitution is far from this perfect document. Far, far from it.
Is that why the cons hate Thomas Jefferson so much now? He didn't believe in God, didn't think the constitution was perfect, and thought as the US progressed, changes would have to be made. In other words, he was an anti con, or what some might call a progressive (go look up the definition of progressive). So the Texass school curriculum is trying to drop him from history now? Because they finally had someone tell them what Jefferson was actually saying? GD wait till someone tells Texass what the bible actually says.
"Is that why the cons hate Thomas Jefferson so much now? He didn't believe in God, didn't think the constitution was perfect, and thought as the US progressed, changes would have to be made."
-Raygun
Why do you think the conservatives are against changing the constitution? I say by all means change it, but for now there are limits to the powers for government and we the people need to hold government to those limits. If you want to change the constitution then write an amendment! Dont simply ignore the regulations in our country that the liberals dont like.
GIVE THE POWER TO THE PEOPLE, NOT CONGRESS!
"we the people need to hold government to those limits."
I thinks that's the courts job. Course we know cons are all backwoods lawyers and know what the constitution says even though the courts disagree. And funny, the courts must hate cons, because all the constitutional injustices wrought by the libs are never successfully fought in court. I guess the courts are like the media, they have a lib bias.
Are the dems going to bailout their union buddies now? How much do you think the dems will recieve for their campaigns, from the unions, in 2011?
source: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/05/should-the-government-bail-out-union-pension-funds/57258/
"He didn't believe in God, didn't think the constitution was perfect, and thought as the US progressed, changes would have to be made."---RG
Where are you getting your info on Jefferson? Thomas Jefferson was not an atheist. He just didn't publically declare a religious preference. He firmly believed that his way of worship was "between he and God" He attended church regularly, sent his children to religious school, and references GOD in most of his writings and letters.
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever."
Thomas Jefferson
To quote Jefferson: "I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other."
Being the one of the PRIMARY authors of the Constitutuion of the US, Jefferson made sure that GOD was included.
Yes, he believed that ammendments to the Constitution would have to be made as times changed, however:
he warned against treating the Constitution as "a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please."
Jefferson was AGAINST a large Federal government.
Yeah, they are voting to bailout Union Pensions. WE may have to foot the bill for the bloated pensions of union members. Hey SEIU---why not use the money that you contribute to political campaigns to your own union pensions? Millions and millions of dollars to political causes and not going to the coffers of what they are actually there for!
Jefferson was a deist, which mankind can live with. So was Einstein, and any other person with common sense that needs a God to explain how we got here. A deist (Einstein particularly) believed God created the universe and walked off. I like that God just fine.
Why is the Texas school curriculum board trying to drop Jefferson from the history books?
You can cherry pick Jefferson's quotes just like you all cherry pick the bible, but most agree that Jefferson was a deist. Don't forget, being burned at the stake in the name of God was still a very real possibility. So maybe he was covering himself?
Whatever RG! The deist thing was disproven years ago. That was started by 1 author named Kennedy. Jefferson called himself a Christian and I believe the references to God in his letters back that up. He did attend the Anglican Church, and that is a rather "loosey goosey" religion which may account for the confusion. Not in sync with the standards of the Purist Protestants of the time.
You atheists can cherry pick too!
As far as Texas goes...who knows? I am not affliated with anyone or anything in Texas and do not claim to know how those people think! I am not for "cherry picking" the facts---on either side. Both sides do it, and it is total bullshit. You have to be careful in history as in anything political. You can't limit yourself to 1 or 2 sources of information.
"As far as Texas goes...who knows? "
Why not research it? Texas is the capital of the bible belt, and their exclusion of Jefferson is God related. Go investigate for yourself.
Caseyboy said...
"Yeah, they are voting to bailout Union Pensions."
Getting the so called "news" from Fox again? lol
A Repugnican reports this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/26/gop-congressman-steve-lat_n_589460.html
This week Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio) unleashed a fiery attack on Fox News on the House floor, blasting the network for distorted coverage of legislation addressing union pension plans.
LaTourette said that Fox's representation of the bill as a "bailout" was "nonsense" and then went on to rip the quality of the network's larger news coverage.
"I don't know who the pin head and weenie is at Fox News that decided to put that story together," LaTourette said. "I don't know what they're doing at Fox News, but they should stop smoking it and get back to reporting the facts."
ThinkProgress has more on what LaTourette had to say:
"I think as a Republican, I'm supposed to love Fox News and hate MSNBC," he began. "Now, I'm going to tell you, I do hate MSNBC, but something just happened on Fox News that compelled me to come to the floor."
REALLY Anon2??? You need to get your head out of your ass and do your own research! GOOGLE IT! Do you even know HOW to do that? Don't tell me where I get my info. This is not FOX NEWS stuff. Just the first page alone on Google shows 10 articles on this subject and I am not even counting a single Fox site. Bill sponsored by Bob Casey (D-PA)Union Pension bailout. "$165 billion in bailouts for troubled union pension funds. (H.R. 3936).
Guess the Huffington Post has given you yet another piece of shit news coverage.
Again, crazy cons, lack of regulations necessitates a pension bailout. ie They, the crappy companies, should of been required to hold more money, and keep their money grubbing hands off of the pension funds. Thanks w. Thanks cons that voted for w.
Good post A2. CC has her panties in a twit.
"Good post A2. CC has her panties in a twit."---RG
How in the Hell is that a "good post"? Can you stop sucking her ass for a minute and explain that to me? She was DEAD WRONG about the pension bailout. And if you are looking for regulation on Unions from this administration---forget it. Never gonna happen. On the contrary...they want US to bail THEM out! How is this OUR problem? Union members need to wake up and hold their leaders accountable and DEMAND that they begin to get back to the business of looking out for their best interest. The political shit has to stop.
RG this is not something that can be blamed on Bush. That whole thing is begining to wear thin---even with me--who was NEVER a Bush supporter. Notice it is a Democrat that is introducing the Bill.
Damned right my "panties are in a wad" I am getting sick of this shit and the stupid people that go along with it.
We need fking regulations, unions, companies, everyone. Do you get it?
"Damned right my "panties are in a wad"
Try getting over your Christian guilt. Try going commando :-)
Oh...I get it. LaTourette didn't like the Bill being refered to as a "bailout" of the union pension funds, but what should we call it?....what should we call it...lets see...there must be SOMETHING else to call it....No. It's a bailout.
"No. It's a bailout."
Dear Case, the government insures most pension funds. What the government fails to do, is enact stringent funding rules. Lack of rules lets the companies use the extra pension money to pay bonuses, "invest", etc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wallis/how-christian-is-tea-part_b_592170.html?ir=Politics
Part 1
How Christian is Tea Party Libertarianism?
The insurgent Tea Party and its Libertarian philosophy is a political phenomenon, not a religious one. Like the Democratic and Republican parties it seeks to challenge, it is a secular movement, not a Christian one. As with both major political parties, people who regard themselves as Christians may be involved in, or sympathetic to, the new Tea Party; but that doesn't make it "Christian." But like the philosophies and policies of the major political parties, the Tea Party can legitimately be examined on the basis of Christian principles -- and it should be.
Since the Tea Party is getting such national attention, our God's Politics blog is going to begin a dialogue on this question: Just how Christian is the Tea Party Movement -- and the Libertarian political philosophy that lies behind it? Let me start the dialogue here. And please join in.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that holds individual rights as its supreme value and considers government the major obstacle. It tends to be liberal on cultural and moral issues and conservative on fiscal, economic, and foreign policy. This "just leave me alone and don't spend my money" option is growing quickly in American life, as we have seen in the Tea Party movement. Libertarianism has been an undercurrent in the Republican Party for some time, and has been in the news lately due to the primary election win of Rand Paul as the Republican candidate for a Senate seat in Kentucky. Paul has spoken like a true Libertarian, as evidenced by some of his comments since that election last week.
He cited the Civil Rights Act as an example of government interference with the rights of private business. Paul told an interviewer that he would have tried to change the provision in the 1964 Civil Rights Act that made it illegal for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race. He answered a specific question about desegregating lunch counters by countering, "Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant?"
A few days later, he spoke about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Referring to the Obama administration's criticisms of BP, Paul said, "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."
Is such a philosophy Christian? In several major aspects of biblical ethics, I would suggest that Libertarianism falls short.
Part 2:
1. The Libertarian enshrinement of individual choice is not the pre-eminent Christian virtue. Emphasizing individual rights at the expense of others violates the common good, a central Christian teaching and tradition. The Christian answer to the question "Are we our brother's keeper?" is decidedly "Yes." Jesus tells us that the greatest commandment is to love God and love our neighbor. Loving your neighbor is a better Christian response than telling your neighbor to leave you alone. Both compassion and social justice are fundamental Christian commitments, and while the Christian community is responsible for living out both, government is also held accountable to the requirements of justice and mercy. Both Christians on the Right and the Left have raised questions about Libertarian abandonment of the most vulnerable -- whether that means unborn lives or the poor.
Just look at the biblical prophets in their condemnation of injustice to the poor, and how they frequently follow those statements by requiring the king (the government) to act justly (these requirements applied both to the kings of Israel and to foreign potentates). Jeremiah, speaking of King Josiah, said, "He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well."
(Jeremiah 22:16). Amos instructs the courts (the government) to "Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts" (Amos 5:15). The prophets hold kings, rulers, judges, and employers accountable to the demands of justice and mercy.
2. An anti-government ideology just isn't biblical. In Romans 13, the apostle Paul (not the Kentucky Senate candidate) describes the role and vocation of government; in addition to the church, government also plays a role in God's plan and purposes. Preserving the social order, punishing evil and rewarding good, and protecting the common good are all prescribed; we are even instructed to pay taxes for those purposes! Sorry, Tea Party. Of course, debating the size and role of government is always a fair and good discussion, and most of us would prefer smart and effective to "big" or "small" government.
Revelation 13 depicts the state as a totalitarian beast -- a metaphor for Rome, which was persecuting the Christians. This passage serves as a clear warning about the abuse of governmental power. But a power-hungry government is clearly an aberration and violation of the proper role of government in protecting its citizens and upholding the demands of fairness and justice. To disparage government per se -- to see government as the central problem in society -- is simply not a biblical position.
Part 3:
3. The Libertarians' supreme confidence in the market is not consistent with a biblical view of human nature and sin. The exclusive focus on government as the central problem ignores the problems of other social sectors, and in particular, the market. When government regulation is the enemy, the market is set free to pursue its own self-interest without regard for public safety, the common good, and the protection of the environment -- which Christians regard as God's creation. Libertarians seem to believe in the myth of the sinless market and that the self-interest of business owners or corporations will serve the interests of society; and if they don't, it's not government's role to correct it.
But such theorizing ignores the practical issues that the public sector has to solve. Should big oil companies like BP simply be allowed to spew oil into the ocean? And is regulating them really un-American? Do we really want nobody to inspect our meat, make sure our kids' toys are safe, or police the polluters to keep our air clean? Do we really want owners of restaurants and hotels to be able to decide whom they will or won't serve, or should liquor store owners also be able to sell alcohol to our kids? Given the reality of sin in all human institutions, doesn't a political process that provides both accountability and checks and balances make both theological and practical sense? C.S. Lewis once said that we need democracy not because people are essentially good, but because they often are not. Democratic accountability is essential to preventing the market from becoming a beast of corporate totalitarianism - just as it is essential for the government. And God's priorities should determine ours, not the priorities of the Chamber of Commerce.
4. The Libertarian preference for the strong over the weak is decidedly un-Christian. "Leave me alone to make my own choices and spend my own money" is a political philosophy that puts those who need help at a real disadvantage. And those who need help are central to any Christian evaluation of political philosophy. "As you have done to the least of these," says Jesus, "You have done to me." And "Blessed are those who are just left alone" has still not made the list of Beatitudes. To anticipate the Libertarian response, let me just say that private charity is simply not enough to satisfy the demands of either fairness or justice, let alone compassion. When the system is designed to protect the privileges of the already strong and make the weak even more defenseless and vulnerable, something is wrong with the system.
Part 4:
5. Finally, I am just going to say it. There is something wrong with a political movement like the Tea Party which is almost all white. Does that mean every member of the Tea Party is racist? Likely not. But is an undercurrent of white resentment part of the Tea Party ethos, and would there even be a Tea Party if the president of the United States weren't the first black man to occupy that office? It's time we had some honest answers to that question. And as far as I can tell, Libertarianism has never been much of a multi-cultural movement. Need I say that racism -- overt, implied, or even subtle -- is not a Christian virtue.
Yawn....
You know ANON2 ...we could all go to Huffington all by ourselves. And that opinion article is one of the MOST boring.
It doesn't matter what that guy thinks. The bottom line is, those TeapParty people are just people from all walks of life, and contrary to popular belief there are colors other than white that attend. Not as many---grant you that, but there are, and they are included and no matter what you all think, they have been peaceful, respectful, and EFFECTIVE.
The message is---SPENDING IS OUT OF CONTROL. And unless you live under a rock, guess what? spending is out of control and everyone is saying it now. So what is the problem?
"SPENDING IS OUT OF CONTROL"
JHC, where was your bitching when w and RayGun and Bush the wiser was spending the 10 trillion or so they have chocked up??? Why is whatever cons spend money on, war, cutting taxes, fighting crime, building prisons, building schools for their own kids, etc ok? Dems own about 1.5 trillion of that deficit, and cons own the rest (11.5 trillion). Try reality cons, its tough in the real world, but that's all there really is (except delusion). Face it. The sooner the better. Thanks.
Spending is Not out of control, Casey. It's the American Economy that was out of control. Our entire economy was crashing and burning, when Bush left office. Most of what Obama has spent has been on stimulus packages to help American financial institutions survive, so our economy would last long enough to stage a comeback -- which is now happening. Republicans were trying to re-institute their Do-Nothing policies of the early 1930's, which resulted in multiple bank closings and the Great Depression. Too bad the Tea Party Teabaggers didn't get their way. Then they would experience what real economic misery is. The Tea Partiers are still trying their hardest to drag our economy back to the early 1930's.
"Again, crazy cons, lack of regulations necessitates a pension bailout. ie They, the crappy companies, should of been required to hold more money, and keep their money grubbing hands off of the pension funds. Thanks w. Thanks cons that voted for w."
-Raygun
Still blaming republicans for the dems failures! Why didnt the dems pass anything making your requirements? They have had control for almost 4yrs! At what point do the liberals start owning up to their failures?
"Spending is Not out of control, Casey."
"Our entire economy was crashing and burning, when Bush left office. Most of what Obama has spent has been on stimulus packages to help American financial institutions survive..."
"Republicans were trying to re-institute their Do-Nothing policies of the early 1930's, which resulted in multiple bank closings and the Great Depression."
-CJP
I was doing a little research on federal spending and the great depression and I was wondering if any of you liberals could explain why between 1932-1936 federal spending doubled but that was the beginning of the great depression and year after year the federal spending increased but the great depression remained.
So, CJP, how can you claim that the republicans did nothing during the 1930? During the great depression congress was spending like crazy, why did the great depression linger? Liberals want everyone to believe they must spend more to help the economy and not spending is what caused the great depression to linger! Perhaps your wrong and wasting tax dollars isnt the answer. Its to bad Obama is going to waste TRILLIONS of our tax dollars to find that out the hard way.
F.Y.I.
-Federal spending during the great depression increased over 250%.
Are we headed for an 8.5 trillion dollar/yr. federal budget under Obama?
sources:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/wp-content/uploads/201004_blog_dehaven121.jpg
http://www.mybudget360.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/dow-great-depression.jpg
"where was your bitching when w and RayGun and Bush the wiser was spending the 10 trillion or so they have chocked up???"---RG
That one is getting REALLY old, but I will answer it ONE MORE TIME. I was bitching during the Bush spending, I just wasn't on this blog at the time. What I hated with BUSH spending I am hating 2-3 times as much now. (ratio to Bush spending to Obama spending)
If you don't think the spending is too much CJP you are one of the only people on earth that doesn't. Both sides of the fence are beginning to be alarmed.
Now, you tell me where we are recovering. I need a good laugh.
Casey-
Do you think I will get any response to my above comment?
Whats the answer BB? Tax cuts for the rich? More deregulation? Eliminating food stamps?
Actually, Brandon, the Great Depression lasted from 1929 to 1933, while the Do-Nothing Herbert Hoover and his fellow Republicans were in office. Hoovervilles were Hoover's legacy to the American people. When FDR took office, in 1933, he began a federal works program which put millions of people back to work. The Conservative Supreme Court from 1933 through 1935 voided many of Roosevelt's Back-To-Work programs, such as the NRA and the AAA. But in 1935 the Supreme Court reversed itself and Roosevelt's policies were allowed to take effect. Millions of people went back to work, the spirit of hopelessness which had infected this country under Hoover was dissipated, and the Great Depression became a thing of the past. In 1936, Roosevelt was re-elected by the Greatest Landlside in American history, to that point. Why are you listening to your Revisionist Right-Wing "historians", Brandon? Why aren't you listening to what the overwhelming majority of American voters said, loud and clear, in 1936?
FDR was a great president.
Seems like a pattern to me. Cons destroy and dems rebuild.
"So, CJP, how can you claim that the republicans did nothing during the 1930? During the great depression congress was spending like crazy, why did the great depression linger? Liberals want everyone to believe they must spend more to help the economy and not spending is what caused the great depression to linger! Perhaps your wrong and wasting tax dollars isnt the answer. Its to bad Obama is going to waste TRILLIONS of our tax dollars to find that out the hard way."
-Brandon
"Actually, Brandon, the Great Depression lasted from 1929 to 1933, while the Do-Nothing Herbert Hoover and his fellow Republicans were in office. Hoovervilles were Hoover's legacy to the American people. When FDR took office, in 1933, he began a federal works program which put millions of people back to work."
-CJP
Again, how can you make the claim that Hoover did nothing when in my previous comment I said federal spending increased 250% over the length of the great depression? Then compare the federal spending timeline thru the great depression to federal spending under Obama. Your Bashing the days of Hoover spending like crazy and you stand by Obama spending in the same way. What is the difference? Will history remember conservatives as the one that saved the economy in 2012?
"Whats the answer BB? Tax cuts for the rich? More deregulation? Eliminating food stamps?"
-Raygun
Why are you convinced we must do anything?
Actually CJP you are quite wrong about what brought the end to the great depression. The war is what ended the depression. Period.
They have been studying the great depression for many years and the overwhelming opinion is that the programs that FDR put in place actually EXTENDED the Great Depression.
"The war is what ended the depression. Period. "
Guess thats why cons are such big fans of war. It's good for business.
CJP
Still waiting for you to respond to my comment.
"So, CJP, how can you claim that the republicans did nothing during the 1930? During the great depression congress was spending like crazy, why did the great depression linger? Liberals want everyone to believe they must spend more to help the economy and not spending is what caused the great depression to linger! Perhaps your wrong and wasting tax dollars isnt the answer. Its to bad Obama is going to waste TRILLIONS of our tax dollars to find that out the hard way."
-Brandon
"Actually, Brandon, the Great Depression lasted from 1929 to 1933, while the Do-Nothing Herbert Hoover and his fellow Republicans were in office. Hoovervilles were Hoover's legacy to the American people. When FDR took office, in 1933, he began a federal works program which put millions of people back to work."
-CJP
Again, how can you make the claim that Hoover did nothing when in my previous comment I said federal spending increased 250% over the length of the great depression? Then compare the federal spending timeline thru the great depression to federal spending under Obama. Your Bashing the days of Hoover spending like crazy and you stand by Obama spending in the same way. What is the difference? Will history remember conservatives as the one that saved the economy in 2012?
Casey-
Trying to get liberals to admit when their wrong is worse than pulling teeth!
"Trying to get liberals to admit when their wrong is worse than pulling teeth!"---Brandon
You know, Ann Coulter (I love to bring her up---it gets them so lathered up! :}) Anyway...Coulter says that "liberalism is a mental disorder" I think that I understand what she is saying. Logic and consistancy have no place here.
This whole thing about FDR and the Great Depression has been proven wrong by non partisan EXPERTS. Still, they cling to the myth because it fits what they want to believe in.
No, you won't get a response from your post. Facts and logic have no place here.
"liberalism is a mental disorder"
Uh, I would say believing in an all powerful imaginary being, who tells you to help the poor and to seek wealth in heaven and not on earth, then doing the opposite, is a mental disorder.
Casey
Funny how I can write a comment with good questions in it and the only response you can get is because of name calling. I guess liberals are not interested in facts, only name calling.
Raygun
Why dont you address my comment since it seems CJP isnt interested in it?
"So, CJP, how can you claim that the republicans did nothing during the 1930? During the great depression congress was spending like crazy, why did the great depression linger? Liberals want everyone to believe they must spend more to help the economy and not spending is what caused the great depression to linger! Perhaps your wrong and wasting tax dollars isnt the answer. Its to bad Obama is going to waste TRILLIONS of our tax dollars to find that out the hard way."
-Brandon
"Actually, Brandon, the Great Depression lasted from 1929 to 1933, while the Do-Nothing Herbert Hoover and his fellow Republicans were in office. Hoovervilles were Hoover's legacy to the American people. When FDR took office, in 1933, he began a federal works program which put millions of people back to work."
-CJP
Again, how can you make the claim that Hoover did nothing when in my previous comment I said federal spending increased 250% over the length of the great depression? Then compare the federal spending timeline thru the great depression to federal spending under Obama. Your Bashing the days of Hoover spending like crazy and you stand by Obama spending in the same way. What is the difference? Will history remember conservatives as the one that saved the economy in 2012?
BB, I am not a history major. I do know the times have changed. And I know the Faux News pundit heads don't know as much as the people Obama has at his disposal.
I'll make a few concessions. The government, state and federal, needs to cut pay and benefits and jobs. I read the average comp to a fed worker is now 119,000 per year. Not bad for government work. I have also read where all gov jobs combined, there has only been around 144,000 layoffs.
It's a little irritating that my hair stylist's husband works 2 days a week (48 hours) at the fire station, and that's a full week, then another day + for what, time and a half or double time. She has 2 kids and drives a 60k Suv and has recently quite hair cutting because her husband can make so much in overtime and she can stay home and take care of the kids. We can't afford that anymore. The money is not there anymore. It trickled up. We need to increase taxes on the wealthy to RayGuns days levels, and lay of some workers, cut pay, and cut the military.
Taxes and cutting military, cons won't stand for it.
"Taxes and cutting military, cons won't stand for it."
-Raygun
I am fine with cutting military and raising taxes, but only if we get something in return. Another social program is not what I am talking about, pay down our debt and save everyone alot in interest. But raising taxes on the wealth also is not the answer, raise taxes on everyone alittle and only for awhile, massive cuts in spending and pay down the dept. In ten years our country will be a stronger and MUCH better place to live and work. Could you imagine how much we could cut taxes if our county was debt free and we cleaned up the waste in D.C.?
I will never expect this to happend under the liberals because they dont know how to cut spending and unfortunatly I dont see conservatives raising enough funds to accomplish this. That is where the tea party movement come in with their push for a balanced budget and paying down the debt and instead of supporting them liberals, like yourself, mock them.
"...cleaned up the waste in D.C.?"
Same tired old con song. Be specific.
"They are number one in food production, a renewable resource."
Who harvests and grows the food? And who takes care of their kids?
""...cleaned up the waste in D.C.?"
Same tired old con song. Be specific."
-Raygun
Are you serious? How many times do I have to spell it out for you?
CUT:
-Social Security
-Medicare
-Obamacare
-Unemployment benifits/No more than 6 months
-Cut foreign aid/why is Ireland recieving aid
-Cut military spending
-Cut benifits for federal employees
and all this could be done AFTER Obama goes back to the 2008 Bush budget. I think that would save well over 1 TRILLION DOLLARS EVERY YEAR. Why is this so hard for you liberals to understand? Obama raised the federal budget about 1 trillion dollars a year from what Bush was spending in 2008, why?
If you dont think D.C. is wasting our tax dollars you need your head examined!
-Social Security - just lost 60 million votes
-Medicare - just lost 60 million votes
-Obamacare - ?
-Unemployment benifits/No more than 6 months - just lost 10 million votes
-Cut foreign aid/why is Ireland recieving aid - lost maybe 6 million votes.
-Cut military spending - Cons love their military, just lost 40 million votes
-Cut benifits for federal employees - lost 55 million votes.
BB bud, you just lost the election.
"-Social Security - just lost 60 million votes
-Medicare - just lost 60 million votes
-Obamacare - ?
-Unemployment benifits/No more than 6 months - just lost 10 million votes
-Cut foreign aid/why is Ireland recieving aid - lost maybe 6 million votes.
-Cut military spending - Cons love their military, just lost 40 million votes
-Cut benifits for federal employees - lost 55 million votes.
BB bud, you just lost the election."
-Raygun
I would run on balancing the budget and then I would follow thru on my campaign promise. Within one year the budget would be balanced and we would be paying down the nation debt! By the end of my term I would have paid trillions off on the debt! I am sorry your liberal friends dont have the balls to cut a program!
"I am sorry your liberal friends dont have the balls to cut a program!
"
Neither do the teabagging cons. They just promise to cut waste, then spend away on their pet project, the military (the biggest waste of all time, in this day and age)
" (the biggest waste of all time, in this day and age)"
-Raygun
Your ignorant! We need a strong military we are the top dog in the world and many countries look to us for protection. Are you saying your willing to hand out money to dip shits who are to lazy to work but not willing to fight to save another persons life?
"We need a strong military we are the top dog in the world"
You fool. We are Rome and we are burning.
BB said:
"-Federal spending during the great depression increased over 250%."
CC said:
"The war is what ended the depression. Period. "
So dear rational cons, how much did gov spending increase (military spending) in WW 2? Guessing 5000 percent. So you proved the point, Obama is not spending enough to get us out of the current con created depression.
We are spending on your 2 existing beloved wars, but apparently not enough, as dear CC pointed out, as the depression has not ended. Cons solution, start another bigger war?
Cons once again show their brilliance at being wrong about absolutely everything.
To Obama: Spend Baby Spend.
New Rule of Wisdom: If cons say it, you know it's not true.
"So dear rational cons, how much did gov spending increase (military spending) in WW 2? Guessing 5000 percent. So you proved the point, Obama is not spending enough to get us out of the current con created depression."
-Raygun
During WWII the unemployment rate fell because everyone who was unemployed went to work in a factory building weapons or was drafted. DUH!
Timeline:
1929-Stock Market Crashes
1933-FDR passes NEW DEAL
1937-Unemployement FALLS from 36% to 20%
1937-FDR passes NEW DEAL 2
1938-Unemployment RAISES to 27%
1941-U.S. Enter WWII
1942-Unemployment is at 7% and falling
During this time period the stock market fell from 386 and remained below 200. So yes creating federally funded jobs will lower the unemployment rate it obviously didnt do much to jump start our economy. Dont forget to take into account the federal government increased the national debt by 4Xs what it was in 1929! I guess what liberals would call a success I would call a complete failure, almost no change in the market and 4xs the debt you started with, is that your idea of a job well done? It would seem as if the government would have spent nothing they would have been in almost the same boat minus all the debt!
It looks like Obama has now broke the 13 trillion dollar mark on our national debt!
sources:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-mbcfBuZQ4c/SWfCfoe3TNI/AAAAAAAABgg/OgMBxJSqHuI/s400/newdealunemploy.jpg
http://www.epips.com/graphs/djia/30s-great-depression.gif
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/wp-content/uploads/201004_blog_dehaven121.jpg
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway
"During WWII the unemployment rate fell because everyone who was unemployed went to work in a factory building weapons or was drafted. DUH!"
You fool. I know cons love war, but think about it, what if instead of building weapons and conscripting people, we build highways or do something else equally useful? Is war useful? Building planes only to be destroyed. What good is war? It only makes cons feel tough? Fools.
To Obama: Spend baby spend.
"You fool. I know cons love war, but think about it, what if instead of building weapons and conscripting people, we build highways or do something else equally useful? Is war useful? Building planes only to be destroyed. What good is war? It only makes cons feel tough? Fools.
To Obama: Spend baby spend."
-Raygun
War is not done for the benifit of our economy! Why would you want Obama to continue spending money our government doesnt have? The economy will recover on its own! Why is this so hard for you liberals to understand, we dont have to spend trillions for our country to recover. Over spending is the problem not the answer!
"Over spending is the problem not the answer!"
But,but,but, Case said after the first great depression, we didn't recover until after massive government spending for WW2. We paid that mostly back didn't we?
Seems to me, in a cons world, spending is ok, as long as a con is deciding where the money is going.
To all money loving cons, you surely must agree that free abortion and free birth control makes huge economic sense? At 12-15k per year per kid for education alone, only a fool would disagree.
"But,but,but, Case said after the first great depression, we didn't recover until after massive government spending for WW2. We paid that mostly back didn't we?
Seems to me, in a cons world, spending is ok, as long as a con is deciding where the money is going."
-Raygun
Again, during WWII the unemployment rate fell but our economy didnt recover until much later. Take a look at the dow jones from the start of the great depression thru the end of WWII, not alot of progress, yet the start of WWII is considered the end of the great depression!
Second, WE STILL HAVENT PAID THE MONEY BACK THAT WE SPENT DURING WWII AND THE GREAT DEPRESSION!
Post a Comment