16 Jul 22
@jimm619 saidWhen President Obama was elected the Democrats controlled both the House & the Senate. Of course the Democrats forced thru Obamacare & didn’t attempt to work with Republicans at all, assuming they didn’t need to attempt a bipartisan bill, as they had all the power.
OBAMA was hamstrung by The GOP. A good example is his nomination of Garland to SCOTUS. The ONLY GOP AGENDA, self admitted, was to make OBAMA a one term President, and, after that, to obstruct his agenda....and they continue to do so w/ BIDEN.
Obamacare became law without a single Republican vote!
In the midterm elections, Democrats suffered one of the biggest losses in both the House & the Senate, with Republicans gaining control of both the House & the Senate eventually.
So don't give us the old "he was hamstrung" crap.
Hey Jim, what's it like always swinging from some black guys nuts?
16 Jul 22
@wildgrass
...and the Democrats aren't Democrats anymore either.
Bunch of delusional weirdos.
@beowulf saidThat's fine. I don't want to vote for Democrats when they are Democrats.
@wildgrass
...and the Democrats aren't Democrats anymore either.
Bunch of delusional weirdos.
I want to vote for limited government. I guess the problem must be money? Huge donor political contributions? Like, why can't anyone, anyone, govern that way anymore?
And the numbers are very very clear on this: Republican leaders spend MORE money that Democrats. They are bigger government than Democrats. That seems backwards but it's true. I can't vote for Republicans anymore.
Federal Spending has increased twice as fast under Republican Presidents than under Democratic Presidents
Democratic Presidents' annual spending increased by an average of $36.9 billion per year
Republican Presidents' annual spending increased by an average of $78.6 billion per year
Federal budget deficits under Republican Presidents collectively are 54% higher than under Democratic Presidents (as a percentage of GDP, Republican Presidents have been 65% higher than Democratic Presidents).
Democratic Presidents' annual deficits averaged 2.07% of GDP
Republican Presidents' annual deficits averaged 3.42% of GDP
Total Democratic Budget Deficits: $8,085.1 billion
Total Republican Budget Deficits: $12,442.5 billion
Lots talk about Biden spending to clean up the Trump mess. But these are HISTORICAL numbers since WWII.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
16 Jul 22
@earl-of-trumps saidExcept that we've seen recently that in your country, they're too lily-livered to do that.
It's kinda like - the only thing the police do is to try to stop the criminals from doing what they do.
Rather a bunch of children get shot so bad even their parents can't recognise them, than that the "Blue Lives Matter" get an ouchie on their phone thumbs, right?
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
16 Jul 22
@wildgrass said...no. No, it's not. It's just throwing money at Big Farmer, which is no more left-wing and no less right-wing than throwing it at Big Pharma.
Think about Trump's strategy with farm country. He was told by political strategists that farmers were turning on his tariff policies, because their soybeans were no longer competitive on the global market, so his solution was to give them $40 billion. That's quite a liberal strategy for a so-called conservative.
Now, if he'd given money to small farmers growing local crops for local markets... that would have been left-wing. But he didn't. He gave it to the multinational agricultural industry.
16 Jul 22
2 edits
@shallow-blue saidI did not write left-wing. I wrote liberal. Conservatives are proponents of limited government, as in less spending overall. A conservative would let the old school huge monoculture pesticide-ridden, GMO farmers fail in favor of new farming strategies that can compete with local, regional and global markets (depending on their business model).
...no. No, it's not. It's just throwing money at Big Farmer, which is no more left-wing and no less right-wing than throwing it at Big Pharma.
Now, if he'd given money to small farmers growing local crops for local markets... that would have been left-wing. But he didn't. He gave it to the multinational agricultural industry.
16 Jul 22
2 edits
@quackquack saidThat's cool. But libs gonna lib. It doesn't make an argument that Trump was a conservative. He massively accelerated the expansion of the federal government from the Obama years.
Trump spent 4.109B in 2018 and 4.447 in 2019. Biden spent 6.011B in 2022 and the estimates for future years increase. It doesn't look like Trump spent and Biden doesn't.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
17 Jul 22
@wildgrass saidIn that case, there are no conservatives anywhere, and never have been - at least, not in power.
I did not write left-wing. I wrote liberal. Conservatives are proponents of limited government, as in less spending overall. A conservative would let the old school huge monoculture pesticide-ridden, GMO farmers fail in favor of new farming strategies that can compete with local, regional and global markets (depending on their business model).
@wildgrass saidThere is a simple solution. So simple, why didn’t Americans think of it, one wonders. Enact two amendments to the Constitution which compel all future legislation to conform to two sensible and easily comprehensible principles. Not even AverageJoe would object to them, since they don’t take away his guns or his self-sufficiency.
That's fine. I don't want to vote for Democrats when they are Democrats.
I want to vote for limited government. I guess the problem must be money? Huge donor political contributions? Like, why can't anyone, anyone, govern that way anymore?
And the numbers are very very clear on this: Republican leaders spend MORE money that Democrats. They are bigger government than D ...[text shortened]... s talk about Biden spending to clean up the Trump mess. But these are HISTORICAL numbers since WWII.
Amendment 28. No tax without a plebiscite. This means that if the fed. (Congress) wants to implement a new tax or raise an existing one, there must be a vote of the people who would have to pay it; if the fed. says yes and the voters say no, the nos have it.
Amendment 29. All funds levied by a specific tax (gasoline tax, cigarettes tax, for example) must be spent for that purpose (road maintenance, cancer therapy for smokers) and no other. The fed. cannot reroute money to someone’s pet project (such as building a couple of miles of wall in TX.)
A solid recipe for fiscal responsibility. To see how it works in practice, look at Switzerland. (And y’all can keep yr gaddamn guns!).
17 Jul 22
1 edit
@shallow-blue saidThis is a fair point.
In that case, there are no conservatives anywhere, and never have been - at least, not in power.
Although I would say - again - that if the statistics of the so-called conservative party clearly show that you expand government size at a greater rate than the so-called liberal party, then you shouldn't really be calling yourselves conservative by comparison.
17 Jul 22
1 edit
@moonbus saidAmerican politicians won't propose or vote for these things because there's too much money and power at stake. I'm old enough to remember when John McCain tried to reform elections, multiple times, by limiting corporate campaign contributions. Dead on arrival every time, by both parties.
There is a simple solution. So simple, why didn’t Americans think of it, one wonders. Enact two amendments to the Constitution which compel all future legislation to conform to two sensible and easily comprehensible principles. Not even AverageJoe would object to them, since they don’t take away his guns or his self-sufficiency.
Amendment 28. No tax without a plebiscite. ...[text shortened]... bility. To see how it works in practice, look at Switzerland. (And y’all can keep yr gaddamn guns!).
I mean, is anybody dense enough to think that corporate campaign contributions are not bribes? These are publicly traded companies. Of course they expect a return on investment.