Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Expert: US on verge of even worse financial crisis « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 5 6 7

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#90 : June 21, 2011, 07:49:00 PM

It is all subjective - right up until someone starts fertilizing...

U would know.
Yea - I read a lot of posts.

You don't  have to get all mad just because I proved you wrong.


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46055
Offline
#91 : June 21, 2011, 10:19:09 PM

LOL - yea, that's what happened.  You are pretty far from reality across the board. 

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#92 : June 22, 2011, 08:44:37 PM

Well since; 1. everything is relative and 2. GWB spent a lot more than I would have, he is more liberal than me, therefore I consider him a fiscal liberal. The fact is every budget Bush proposed was bigger than the last one even adjusting for inflation so he spent "liberally" and was therefore a fiscal liberal.

There are 2 different sets of terms being confused here, Liberal/Conservative and Leftwing/Rightwing. The left wants to more money for social programs, the right wants more money for military and foreign policy programs. A fiscal conservative wants less spending across the board. The only truly fiscally conservative candidate (for PotUS) I've seen in the last 20 years was Ron Paul, he wanted to cut the military, cut welfare, cut EVERYTHING.

Fair enough. My point all along is that it's subjective. Eisenhower and even Nixon might be forced to run as Democrats in the current climate. The Republican party would have neither of them now, and these are men who were two term presidents. Hell, Bill Clinton was probably more conservative than Eisenhower was, and compared to Bush, Clinton was George freaking McGovern.


I think the GOP would LOVE a candidate like DDE, a war hero who was generally likable and who the general electorate saw as very honest. And I have no idea how you can say he was fiscally liberal (that was the discussion "fiscal liberalism-not social) when during his tenure he had multiple years of a budget surplus and the National Debt DECREASED!

And the GOP having nothing to do with Nixon has nothing to do with his spending and any rational person knows that.

I disagree that Clinton was more conservative (fiscally) than DDE, Eisenhower was very laissez-faire, Clinton was not. Also I disagree that compared to GWBush, Clinton was McGovern-like, if anything I'd say Bush was far more liberal with the checkbook than Clinton (and it can be fairly argued that that was because of a conservative congress thru most of Clinton's terms)

There was a conservative congress through most of Bush's terms as well.

No, there was a repub...er Rino Congress. One more time R does not = conservative.


I think we can just agree to disagree as to what makes one a liberal. IMO, it goes much further than simply how much someone spends.

That is because you like to move goalposts. The discussion was on FISCAL Conservatives.

FISCAL: adj. of or relating to government expenditures, revenues, and debt.

Since you seem to either insist on ignoring this or just can't understand it, I have taken the liberty of color coding my post so you can re-read it and finally get it.




CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#93 : June 22, 2011, 09:41:34 PM

Well since; 1. everything is relative and 2. GWB spent a lot more than I would have, he is more liberal than me, therefore I consider him a fiscal liberal. The fact is every budget Bush proposed was bigger than the last one even adjusting for inflation so he spent "liberally" and was therefore a fiscal liberal.

There are 2 different sets of terms being confused here, Liberal/Conservative and Leftwing/Rightwing. The left wants to more money for social programs, the right wants more money for military and foreign policy programs. A fiscal conservative wants less spending across the board. The only truly fiscally conservative candidate (for PotUS) I've seen in the last 20 years was Ron Paul, he wanted to cut the military, cut welfare, cut EVERYTHING.

Fair enough. My point all along is that it's subjective. Eisenhower and even Nixon might be forced to run as Democrats in the current climate. The Republican party would have neither of them now, and these are men who were two term presidents. Hell, Bill Clinton was probably more conservative than Eisenhower was, and compared to Bush, Clinton was George freaking McGovern.


I think the GOP would LOVE a candidate like DDE, a war hero who was generally likable and who the general electorate saw as very honest. And I have no idea how you can say he was fiscally liberal (that was the discussion "fiscal liberalism-not social) when during his tenure he had multiple years of a budget surplus and the National Debt DECREASED!

And the GOP having nothing to do with Nixon has nothing to do with his spending and any rational person knows that.

I disagree that Clinton was more conservative (fiscally) than DDE, Eisenhower was very laissez-faire, Clinton was not. Also I disagree that compared to GWBush, Clinton was McGovern-like, if anything I'd say Bush was far more liberal with the checkbook than Clinton (and it can be fairly argued that that was because of a conservative congress thru most of Clinton's terms)

There was a conservative congress through most of Bush's terms as well.

No, there was a repub...er Rino Congress. One more time R does not = conservative.


I think we can just agree to disagree as to what makes one a liberal. IMO, it goes much further than simply how much someone spends.

That is because you like to move goalposts. The discussion was on FISCAL Conservatives.

FISCAL: adj. of or relating to government expenditures, revenues, and debt.

Since you seem to either insist on ignoring this or just can't understand it, I have taken the liberty of color coding my post so you can re-read it and finally get it.

Neither Clinton nor Eisenhower cut spending down to the nubs, which seems to be all the rage among fiscal conservatives. Both Clinton and Eisenhower raised taxes to increase revenue, which seems to be a blasphemous act among fiscal conservatives. By virtue of those two indisputable facts, your limited definition of simply balancing a budget as what makes one a fiscal conservative is inherently flawed. How's that for moving the goalposts?


John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#94 : June 23, 2011, 08:46:46 PM

Well since; 1. everything is relative and 2. GWB spent a lot more than I would have, he is more liberal than me, therefore I consider him a fiscal liberal. The fact is every budget Bush proposed was bigger than the last one even adjusting for inflation so he spent "liberally" and was therefore a fiscal liberal.

There are 2 different sets of terms being confused here, Liberal/Conservative and Leftwing/Rightwing. The left wants to more money for social programs, the right wants more money for military and foreign policy programs. A fiscal conservative wants less spending across the board. The only truly fiscally conservative candidate (for PotUS) I've seen in the last 20 years was Ron Paul, he wanted to cut the military, cut welfare, cut EVERYTHING.

Fair enough. My point all along is that it's subjective. Eisenhower and even Nixon might be forced to run as Democrats in the current climate. The Republican party would have neither of them now, and these are men who were two term presidents. Hell, Bill Clinton was probably more conservative than Eisenhower was, and compared to Bush, Clinton was George freaking McGovern.


I think the GOP would LOVE a candidate like DDE, a war hero who was generally likable and who the general electorate saw as very honest. And I have no idea how you can say he was fiscally liberal (that was the discussion "fiscal liberalism-not social) when during his tenure he had multiple years of a budget surplus and the National Debt DECREASED!

And the GOP having nothing to do with Nixon has nothing to do with his spending and any rational person knows that.

I disagree that Clinton was more conservative (fiscally) than DDE, Eisenhower was very laissez-faire, Clinton was not. Also I disagree that compared to GWBush, Clinton was McGovern-like, if anything I'd say Bush was far more liberal with the checkbook than Clinton (and it can be fairly argued that that was because of a conservative congress thru most of Clinton's terms)

There was a conservative congress through most of Bush's terms as well.

No, there was a repub...er Rino Congress. One more time R does not = conservative.


I think we can just agree to disagree as to what makes one a liberal. IMO, it goes much further than simply how much someone spends.

That is because you like to move goalposts. The discussion was on FISCAL Conservatives.

FISCAL: adj. of or relating to government expenditures, revenues, and debt.

Since you seem to either insist on ignoring this or just can't understand it, I have taken the liberty of color coding my post so you can re-read it and finally get it.

Neither Clinton nor Eisenhower cut spending down to the nubs, which seems to be all the rage among fiscal conservatives. Both Clinton and Eisenhower raised taxes to increase revenue, which seems to be a blasphemous act among fiscal conservatives.

seems should be "seems to me" unless you speak for some great following.

Your "blasphemous act" is only blasphemous to the "so called" fiscal conservatives. You are confusing RINOs or career politicians that happen to have an (R) after their name as actual fiscal conservatives. TARP was signed by Bush and endorsed by McCain and many other Rs, but NOT by real fiscal conservatives (Ron Paul, Connie Mack IV, to name 2).

Regarding Clinton, I found this rather interesting

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/typesofconservatives/a/FiscalCons.htm

Quote
Modern fiscal conservatives remain weary of government spending and are often more Libertarian than Republican. They advocate lowering the federal budget, paying off the national debt and withdrawing military forces from overseas in an effort to curtail military spending....

...As blasphemous as some Republicans may find them, the cold hard facts are that President Bill Clinton spent less money than even Ronald Reagan, when adjusting for inflation and removing the military budget from the equation.

put the military budget back in and Clinton WAAAAY underspent Reagan.

It was Clinton, not any R POTUS, than promised to "end welfare as we know it" and it was Clinton that signed the Welfare Reform Act of 96 (aka Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act) that put time limits on welfare assistance, instituted stricter conditions for food stamps eligibility, reduced immigrant welfare assistance, and added recipient work requirements. He VETOED 2 previous bills because they didn't go FAR ENOUGH in reforming welfare. Now please tell me how that is "George freaking McGovern"?????

The FACTS which include budget proposals, legislation introduced, bills signed, all point to Bill Clinton being MORE fiscally Conservative than the Bush before him or the one after.



By virtue of those two indisputable facts, your limited definition of simply balancing a budget as what makes one a fiscal conservative is inherently flawed. How's that for moving the goalposts?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservative
Quote
Fiscal conservatism is a political term used to describe a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider reduction of overall government spending and national debt as well as ensuring balanced budget of paramount importance. Free trade, deregulation of the economy, lower taxes, and other conservative policies are also often but not necessarily affiliated with fiscal conservatism.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fiscal_conservative
Quote
One who favors a balanced budget, preferring spending cuts or tax increases to borrowing, and wants to decrease government size, and promote a free market.


http://www.allwords.com/word-fiscal+conservative.html
Quote
One who favors a balanced budget, prefering spending cuts or tax increases to borrowing.


So it is just my limited definition?



spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 6898
Offline
#95 : June 23, 2011, 09:05:12 PM


Neither Clinton nor Eisenhower cut spending down to the nubs, which seems to be all the rage among fiscal conservatives. Both Clinton and Eisenhower raised taxes to increase revenue, which seems to be a blasphemous act among fiscal conservatives. By virtue of those two indisputable facts, your limited definition of simply balancing a budget as what makes one a fiscal conservative is inherently flawed. How's that for moving the goalposts?

Federal spending has increased 24% in less than 2 years. We have got to the point where we cannot raise taxes high enough to cover the bar tab. By virtue of THOSE TWO FACTS cutting spending to balance the budget is neither limited nor simple, it's a necessity.

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#96 : June 24, 2011, 12:01:06 AM

It was Clinton, not any R POTUS, than promised to "end welfare as we know it" and it was Clinton that signed the Welfare Reform Act of 96 (aka Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act) that put time limits on welfare assistance, instituted stricter conditions for food stamps eligibility, reduced immigrant welfare assistance, and added recipient work requirements. He VETOED 2 previous bills because they didn't go FAR ENOUGH in reforming welfare. Now please tell me how that is "George freaking McGovern"?????

Well first off, I never said Clinton Was McGovern like. I said he was George McGovern when compared to Bush.

Secondly, are you sure Clinton vetoed the two previous bills because they didn't go far enough, or was it because he thought that they went too far?

Quote
Whatever divisiveness it has inspired, the bill's enactment is likely to be remembered as a defining moment for Clinton, who vetoed two previous versions and battled with himself over whether to reject this measure as well.

Yesterday, he labeled the measure "far from perfect," criticizing provisions that reduce spending on food stamps and deny aid to many legal immigrants. But he offered an explanation why he was signing it. "We can change what is wrong," Clinton said. "We should not have passed this historic opportunity to do what is right."

-----

In a statement, Republican presidential nominee Robert J. Dole praised the bill and said it would be remembered as a Republican victory. "My only regret today is that President Clinton did not join with us sooner in helping end a welfare system that has failed the taxpayers and those it was designed to serve," Dole said. "After two vetoes of similar welfare reform bills, President Clinton knew he couldn't afford a third strike."

------

Clinton has vowed several times to revisit the food stamp and immigrant provisions in new legislation. And he is considering what can be done without congressional approval to ease impact of the bill.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/welfare/stories/wf082396.htm

One should opt to refrain from revisionism whenever possible.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservative
Quote
Fiscal conservatism is a political term used to describe a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider reduction of overall government spending and national debt as well as ensuring balanced budget of paramount importance. Free trade, deregulation of the economy, lower taxes, and other conservative policies are also often but not necessarily affiliated with fiscal conservatism.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fiscal_conservative
Quote
One who favors a balanced budget, preferring spending cuts or tax increases to borrowing, and wants to decrease government size, and promote a free market.

So it is just my limited definition?

You've provided substantial evidence to prove your definition was a correct one, so I will cede that point to you. But I would just like to point out that I took the liberty of highlighting a few different parts of the definitions you provided.
During his presidency, Clinton increased spending on education, he supported and signed SCHIP into law, and eventually even succeeded in rolling back the Republican cuts in Welfare assistance that you brought up earlier. And lets not forget that one of the primary goals of Clinton's first presidential term was to implement a universal health care plan. None of that is decreasing the size of government one bit. So while I agree that your definition is not incorrect, neither is mine.
: June 24, 2011, 12:03:12 AM CBWx2




Guest
#97 : June 26, 2011, 12:43:06 AM

You want to continue living in that fantasy world while this government destroys the country...have fun...

Keep voting Obama...he'll give you that hope and change!

Once an idiot, always an idiot.

I agree that our economy is in big trouble and I like Jim Rogers. But the adults on this board realize that it's really not about Obama.

Good to see mjs and mtn post.

OBD, use this info. to benefit yourself by investing in things that can make you money when things fall apart, again.
Thanks Joe...I am looking at that now...And mjs your right its been doing it for the past thirty years and Bush accelerated it with the war and Obama isn't doing any better by superficial repairs. mtnman why so positive you ask? Because I don't look horizontial for the answer I look up and know the answer comes from above. I did like your post and about the roundup. Lawyers like the tobacco industry will fight for the owners and CEO's when in the wrong or right...Its all about the money...Good to see some of the ole people posting...I am not old dbucfan just middle aged...I turn 50 in three weeks...thought I be dead by now...Well back to spraying round up on the yard...ttyl...OBD

Speaking of Roundup, have you seen this yet ? What do you think ?

Trailer:


Full movie:


John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#98 : June 26, 2011, 04:55:53 PM

It was Clinton, not any R POTUS, than promised to "end welfare as we know it" and it was Clinton that signed the Welfare Reform Act of 96 (aka Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act) that put time limits on welfare assistance, instituted stricter conditions for food stamps eligibility, reduced immigrant welfare assistance, and added recipient work requirements. He VETOED 2 previous bills because they didn't go FAR ENOUGH in reforming welfare. Now please tell me how that is "George freaking McGovern"?????

Well first off, I never said Clinton Was McGovern like. I said he was George McGovern when compared to Bush.

But Fiscally, he wasn't. Year over year increases in spending under Clinton were quite modest, less than the GDP and tax revenue growth rates. But Bush opened the flood gates on spending before 9/11, after he really went bonkers. And it wasn't just military, he spent tons on creating a new Department-Homeland Security, tons on all kinds of new security measures for all departments (look at the 2003 budget for stuff like 8 billion for security software for Dept of Interior, new IT equipment for Dept of Ag, etc. etc.


Secondly, are you sure Clinton vetoed the two previous bills because they didn't go far enough, or was it because he thought that they went too far?

They didn't go far enough in reforming, not cutting or reducing, reforming.


Quote
Whatever divisiveness it has inspired, the bill's enactment is likely to be remembered as a defining moment for Clinton, who vetoed two previous versions and battled with himself over whether to reject this measure as well.

Yesterday, he labeled the measure "far from perfect," criticizing provisions that reduce spending on food stamps and deny aid to many legal immigrants. But he offered an explanation why he was signing it. "We can change what is wrong," Clinton said. "We should not have passed this historic opportunity to do what is right."

-----

In a statement, Republican presidential nominee Robert J. Dole praised the bill and said it would be remembered as a Republican victory. "My only regret today is that President Clinton did not join with us sooner in helping end a welfare system that has failed the taxpayers and those it was designed to serve," Dole said. "After two vetoes of similar welfare reform bills, President Clinton knew he couldn't afford a third strike."

------

Clinton has vowed several times to revisit the food stamp and immigrant provisions in new legislation. And he is considering what can be done without congressional approval to ease impact of the bill.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/welfare/stories/wf082396.htm

One should opt to refrain from revisionism whenever possible.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservative
Quote
Fiscal conservatism is a political term used to describe a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider reduction of overall government spending and national debt as well as ensuring balanced budget of paramount importance. Free trade, deregulation of the economy, lower taxes, and other conservative policies are also often but not necessarily affiliated with fiscal conservatism.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fiscal_conservative
Quote
One who favors a balanced budget, preferring spending cuts or tax increases to borrowing, and wants to decrease government size, and promote a free market.

So it is just my limited definition?

You've provided substantial evidence to prove your definition was a correct one, so I will cede that point to you. But I would just like to point out that I took the liberty of highlighting a few different parts of the definitions you provided.
During his presidency, Clinton increased spending on education, he supported and signed SCHIP into law, and eventually even succeeded in rolling back the Republican cuts in Welfare assistance that you brought up earlier. And lets not forget that one of the primary goals of Clinton's first presidential term was to implement a universal health care plan. None of that is decreasing the size of government one bit. So while I agree that your definition is not incorrect, neither is mine.
[/quote]


There are 2 different things, social liberalism/conservatism and fiscal. Yes Bush claimed to be very conservative on social issues and he claimed to be conservative on fiscal issues but the results were he was socially conservative but liberal as heck fiscally. Clinton was socially progressive and a big supporter of minority rights, immigrant rights, pro-choice, etc. He ran on a pledge to "end welfare as we know it" because he saw the then current system as detrimental to minorities and the poor, creating dependency rather than fostering self-sufficiency. That is both a socially liberal point of view that leads to a fiscally conservative result.

Quote
  ...And lets not forget that one of the primary goals of Clinton's first presidential term was to implement a universal health care plan.

yeah, but that was mostly Hillary, NOT Bill.
: June 26, 2011, 05:09:46 PM John Galt?

Page: 1 ... 5 6 7
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Expert: US on verge of even worse financial crisis « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools