^ our freedoms have increased in the past months, not decreased.

And you can't blame "the left" for this because if McCain had won the same spending would have happened.

And this spending increase represents 2% of our current outstanding obligations. Obama is 1/50th of the problem of getting stuck with a bill that we can't pay.

Also I feel like a soothsayer:

Quote :

"I'm glad the gov. is going about more honest ways of detaining our enemies, but I also don't get the exuberance some on the left have for this move. I always thought this was somewhat of a minor issue, because I don't think anyone is going to believe that we'll still don't have CIA Black sites in operation. I've always viewed Guantanamo and Waterboarding as the Red Herrings for our real torture operations. "

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=555960&page=1#12542542

[Edited on February 14, 2009 at 10:05 AM. Reason : ]

2/14/2009 10:03:09 AM

I must say, it took less than a month for republicans to become more hysterical than liberals were in year 8 of bush.

2/14/2009 11:52:14 AM

^
That's probably because the dems are doing the same amount of spending in one single bill. It took the repubs 8 years.

And they've only just begun

[Edited on February 14, 2009 at 11:57 AM. Reason : .]

2/14/2009 11:55:11 AM

^^you are kidding me right???

were you awake the last 8 years??

Thats just funny...

[Edited on February 14, 2009 at 11:56 AM. Reason : .]

2/14/2009 11:55:51 AM

ok i've been thinking about it all morning

trying to figure out how obama's gonna rule this new fascist state with an iron fist... since he's gonna weaken our military and leave us vulnerable to terrorist attack at the same time

but then i realized that he's just gonna turn all our nuclear device car keys over to the extremist Muslims, so that could provide an explanation

BUT

then i realized the Illuminati would never let it get that close and probably solve the problem like they did with jfk

and then all was Right in the world again

[Edited on February 14, 2009 at 12:03 PM. Reason : and good lord all our best generals are still neocons]

2/14/2009 12:02:03 PM

I could have sworn bush signed TARP. silly me

2/14/2009 12:27:26 PM

And true conservatives were just as pissed at Bush about it as we are at Obama

2/14/2009 1:28:28 PM

From the third Presidential Debate: October 15, 2008.

Quote :

" SCHIEFFER: All right. Let's go to another topic. It's related. So if you have other things you want to say, you can get back to that. This question goes to you first, Senator Obama. We found out yesterday that this year's deficit will reach an astounding record high $455 billion. Some experts say it could go to $1 trillion next year. Both of you have said you want to reduce the deficit, but the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget ran the numbers on both of your proposals and they say the cost of your proposals, even with the savings you claim can be made, each will add more than $200 billion to the deficit. Aren't you both ignoring reality? Won't some of the programs you are proposing have to be trimmed, postponed, even eliminated? Give us some specifics on what you're going to cut back. Senator Obama? OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think it's important for the American public to understand that the $750 billion rescue package, if it's structured properly, and, as president, I will make sure it's structured properly, means that ultimately taxpayers get their money back, and that's important to understand. But there is no doubt that we've been living beyond our means and we're going to have to make some adjustments. Now, what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut. I haven't made a promise about... SCHIEFFER: But you're going to have to cut some of these programs, certainly. OBAMA: Absolutely. So let me get to that. What I want to emphasize, though, is that I have been a strong proponent of pay-as- you-go. Every dollar that I've proposed, I've proposed an additional cut so that it matches."

2/14/2009 2:29:36 PM

hahahahahahahahahaha

"im a proponent of pay as you go"

hahahahahahahahahaha

2/14/2009 4:16:34 PM

to be fair, things are a lot different now then during that debate.

2/14/2009 4:44:32 PM

Quote :

"to be fair, things are a lot different now then during that debate."

Like what? If I remember correctly, this debate occurred after the credit crisis began. Pretty much everyone predicted that we would be where we are now at that point. If anything, certain financial statistics are actually better than many forecasted.

I haven't heard Obama talking about cutting any sort of programs at all. Hell, this "stimulus" plan is funding many unneeded programs and studies that could be cut till we have the money to actually fund them.

2/14/2009 5:23:17 PM

Quote :

"to be fair, things are a lot different now then during that debate. "

I honestly cant think of anything...but i could be wrong.....what am i not thinking of??

2/14/2009 6:31:36 PM

he became president

2/14/2009 6:49:27 PM

^we have a winner!

2/14/2009 7:34:47 PM

Quote :

"he became president"

Let the back-pedaling begin!

2/14/2009 11:06:31 PM

I dont think the full extent of the problem was realized during the time of the debates. his statements are fair game, but since when do we hold Presidents to the BS of the debates?

2/15/2009 12:05:30 PM

but this is Obama....he is different politician....supposedly.

[Edited on February 15, 2009 at 12:17 PM. Reason : w]

2/15/2009 12:14:47 PM

oh i'm sure a mccain presidency would look exactly like his debate performance

confused, muddled, argumentative, and prone to walking around

2/15/2009 12:30:03 PM

^^^I'll give him credit, he fooled an awful lot of voters with his campaign rhetoric ... including a few people on this site.

2/15/2009 3:31:24 PM

I think I've said this before on this site, but anyone who votes for a candidate based solely on campaign positions is an idiot. Since politicians can't see the fucking future and they aren't dictators, their platforms are speculation combined with wishes.

(Mccain did the same platform two-step between the primaries and the general election. I have no doubt that a mccain presidency would have been different than the mccain campaign, which is what many social conservatives were worried about)

"No plan survives first contact with the enemy." That's why you vote on the leadership qualities of the person rather than a bullshit list of policy positions.

Hence, if your argument is that obama is wrong simply because he said something different during the campaign, then you are an idiot. Hypocrisy arguments are useless and fallacious. (yet the dumber people on this site frequently try to make these arguments)

If your argument is that he shouldn't have changed his mind, then you have a valid starting point.


[Edited on February 15, 2009 at 4:07 PM. Reason : .]

2/15/2009 4:02:39 PM

Obama's record, limited as it was, should have been enough for anyone with an IQ of 35 or higher to vote against him. The problem is, a lot of people ignored actual information about him and got swept up in the bandwagon, emotion, rhetoric, or whatever it was that caused the media and the public to not look at him objectively.

2/15/2009 6:41:11 PM

or they voted for him because of his cool batman signal near Raleigh Times

2/15/2009 8:44:16 PM

^^or maybe not everyone agrees with your worldview. who knows.

2/15/2009 9:13:58 PM

Yeah - i think the thing is that so many people voted for him because he was the "change they could believe in" and was going to be so different and bring all this change to washington....a lot of my friends voted for him just because they liked him and he inspired them to think things could be different (HOPE!!!!!)

turned out to be a lot bullsh#$

2/15/2009 9:31:34 PM

wow, he's fucking up worse than our bball team.

I hate the fucking dems - but damn, I hoped they would actually not fuck this one up.

2/15/2009 9:39:43 PM

from appointing all the Clintonites to the tax cheats to this pork bill to all the marxist wealth redistribution comments, he's shown himself to be a politician who talks out of both sides of his mouth. He didn't run on a solid platform so there are not many real campaign promises to hold him to, but the "change" people are seeing is not what they expected. Even the national media who has been bowing down to his feet are starting to question what he's doing. I just wonder how many of his voters have their heads under rocks and are not actually comprehending what is going on.

2/15/2009 10:01:22 PM

I must have missed where anything bad has actually happened. 3 weeks and the sky has already fallen, eh? that's pure hysteria

2/15/2009 10:11:35 PM

the sky hasn't fallen, but this spending bill is very, very bad.

2/15/2009 10:13:20 PM

well, a lot of his voters are hoping we (the country and Obama) can survive the recession, and once the economy is no longer all-time-consuming for him he can get on to a more progressive agenda that we are looking forward to. Unfortunately for him (and us), these major economic problems could last all through his first term, so who knows what else he will be able to get done.

However, I still don't have an ounce of regret when I think back to the choices that were presented to us last November.

2/15/2009 10:14:12 PM

^^riiight. You mean you think the spending bill will be very bad. There's been a lot of blathering about theoretical bullshit but nothing real. All the idiots pushing theories that got destroyed in the last 10 years are now in hiding, the broken clock people are coming out of the woodwork to spew nonsense, and the rest are pretending that they can suddenly predict what will happen.

I happen to think that nothing too good or bad will happen because the market usually adjusts for any government policy.

But hey, maybe I just believe in the power of markets more than all these chicken littles.

2/15/2009 10:25:09 PM

spending won't fix a recession. FDR tried it and prolonged the depression for years. Flooding the market with money that was just printed up without anything to back it just brings down the value of the currency.

2/15/2009 10:31:44 PM

You mean you assert that FDR's policies prolonged the depression based on hotly debated theories about what happened. This is all convenient since you can't actually test either side, so anyone can claim any bullshit and hope that a few suckers believe. It's like a religious belief.

(Actually, we can test the theories right now. Try a dozen or so different policies in different parts of the country and see what works. But that's probably too practical an idea for zealots to accept)

[Edited on February 15, 2009 at 10:37 PM. Reason : .]

2/15/2009 10:37:04 PM

Quote :

"Try a dozen or so different policies in different parts of the country and see what works."

Isn't that why all powers not expressly given to the federal government are given to the states? That part of the constitution tends to be widely ignored, but states can make better decisions about what is right for them.

2/15/2009 10:40:10 PM

Quote :

"he can get on to a more progressive agenda that we are looking forward to."

I hope not. I hope he pisses off enough voters, so they'll take away his majority in Congress in 2 years...thus shutting down his socialist agenda. I hope the country will see the Nixonian-arrogance and temper tantrums that will surface when he can no longer get his way.

I'm keeping 'Hope' alive

Quote :

"Try a dozen or so different policies in different parts of the country and see what works. "

That's actually a great idea. Unfortunately a big-time statist like Obama isn't going to allow any wavering off the central-planning path.

2/15/2009 10:41:17 PM

Calling left wing policies "progressive" is pretty asinine. They do not result in progress.

2/15/2009 10:43:54 PM

ah yes, the old fall back to some imaginary world where state governments aren't worse than the federal government.

FYI, since this economic fallout shit has happened, it's the state government that was the first to raise taxes to cover their fuckups. I'd prefer an impotent federal government any day of the week over a state government that can quickly act to do anything.

(but hey, i have no problem with letting a few states do what they want as a test. I have full confidence that state government is more incompetent)

North Carolina is the taxachussettes of the south for a reason.

[Edited on February 15, 2009 at 10:50 PM. Reason : .]

2/15/2009 10:46:55 PM

the real problem is that the people keep electing irresponsible politicians that dangle the carrot of a little free money or a pork barrel project in front of them. That's how you wind up with the mess that is in Raleigh, and Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi dictating economic policy.

2/15/2009 10:50:56 PM

awwww its cute that you think carrot-dangling is limited to one party

really, thats precious

PRECIOUS

2/16/2009 3:44:05 AM

Quote :

"it's the state government that was the first to raise taxes "

That's because state gov'ts, unlike the federals, cannot create money out of thin air. They have to get it from taxation. They behave the same way, but their wasteful actions hit the populace faster.

Quote :

"its cute that you think carrot-dangling is limited to one party"

Aren't we jumping to conclusions? I didn't get that thought from bcsawyer's comment that only dems are guilty of carrot-dangling. The dems are in power now, so they are going to get the most flack.

I was very upset during the repub's turn in power. They spent more than Clinton ever dreamed. The problem is giving more and more power to politicians- so that they, in turn, can use it to dangle carrots.

[Edited on February 16, 2009 at 10:54 AM. Reason : .]

2/16/2009 10:45:33 AM

how did i get that he's talking about democrats?

for starters, i haven't seen him criticize both parties yet in this thread

and for shits and giggles

Quote :

"the mess that is in Raleigh, and Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi "

hmmmmm which one of those is a moderate conservative again?

2/16/2009 11:28:03 AM

Quote :

"I happen to think that nothing too good or bad will happen because the market usually adjusts for any government policy. But hey, maybe I just believe in the power of markets more than all these chicken littles."

Here is a slightly more sophisticated critique of excessive government spending, then: Large government outlays tend to crowd out private investment. They rely on deficit spending, which requires the Fed to print out more T-bills, thus driving up the interest rate on government debt (i.e., to attract more buyers). The result is less money available for private investment.

Will the market adjust? Sure, absolutely. But it's a new equilibrium state now, which has less money available for private projects.

I, however, agree with your proposal of allowing states to experiment with policies such that we can see which succeed and which fail. It's unfortunate that more people on both sides of the aisle don't agree with this when it comes to their pet issues.

[Edited on February 16, 2009 at 11:43 AM. Reason : .]

2/16/2009 11:41:30 AM

i thought a big part of all this was that uncoordinated actions (on a worldwide scale at least) would be counterproductive. i have a hard time seeing how that won't scale down to state economies. also, won't it take a long time to see which plans succeed?

2/16/2009 11:47:11 AM

Quote :

"Fascist states are strong centralized gov'ts permitting no criticism or opposition and controlling all affairs of the nation including industrial and commercial."

Yes, you'll recall Obama's swift crackdown and criticism and opposition.

Quote :

"There are different types of fascism...the nazis were racist fascists while Mussolini was closer to the Bush era being a nationalistic fascist. "

Demonstrably false. Fascism always has a central element of nationalism. Racism to various extents is pretty common to fascist states we've seen, though it isn't necessarily requirement and it is always understood in the context of nationalism. What is necessarily a requirement of fascism is the sort of direct and violent action to eliminate opposition viewpoints that you simply don't see in the Bush administration, even if think he might have liked to try.

Quote :

"Socialist states (USSR, communist China, socialist England, Cuba, North Korea) are your basic ownership of means of production, capital, land, etc are all owned by "the people" better known as the state."

Not really. If you think that in England, Sweden, or even China "production, capital, land, etc are all owned by" the government, you're woefully misinformed.

Quote :

"Fascism allows for some private ownership with heavy gov't influence and regulation. Socialism allows for almost no private property."

Fascism allows for private ownership when and where it is convenient. Socialist governments all over the world allow for private property, at times with more protection than you're liable to see under actual fascism.

Quote :

"As far as I'm concerned, though, both systems promote giant, centralized states which trample over individual and property rights. "

And I generally agree, but that doesn't give us permission to throw words around all nimbly-bimbly without consideration for their very real meanings.

2/17/2009 1:02:22 AM

if calling someone socialist doesn't make enough people dislike them

try calling them a fascist!

2/17/2009 2:08:25 AM

Quote :

"Yes, you'll recall Obama's swift crackdown and criticism and opposition"

Obama has the mainstream press do this for him. Granted, they are presently just using words to stamp down opposition...but it's just a hop, skip and a jump to Fairness Doctrines, Sedition laws and then bayonets and tanks.

Again, both socialism and fascism are severe statist systems, both of which are against free-market capitalism. Although we are at the beginning of Obama's presidency, I have seen nothing from him that would lead me to believe he is any fan of capitalism. "Only Government" is his creed.

OK..perhaps he isn't a full-blown fascist in practice yet..just a rabid statist.

2/17/2009 2:23:01 AM

Quote :

"but it's just a hop, skip and a jump to Fairness Doctrines, Sedition laws and then bayonets and tanks. "

2/17/2009 2:28:27 AM

Oh jesus christ will you guys stop with the socialist shit already

We live in a socialist country and have lived in one since the turn of the God damn century.

Who pays for your roads and highways

Who pays for mass transit systems in major cities

Who pays/payed for your utilities to be built

Who pays for schooling for your children

Who pays for the majority of R&D done in this country

Who pays for your security and well being

Who payed for the technology that allows you to be able to spout your retarded, half-baked ideas about concepts you have no clue about

What, you thought Bell Labs received a majority of its income from consumer products?

The only thing this country won't pay for is your care if you get sick and are unemployed.

Q E D

[Edited on February 17, 2009 at 12:16 PM. Reason : >.<]

2/17/2009 12:16:29 PM

Quote :

"Oh jesus christ will you guys stop with the socialist shit already We live in a socialist country and have lived in one since the turn of the God damn century. Who pays for your roads and highways Who pays for mass transit systems in major cities Who pays/payed for your utilities to be built Who pays for schooling for your children Who pays for the majority of R&D done in this country Who pays for your security and well being Who payed for the technology that allows you to be able to spout your retarded, half-baked ideas about concepts you have no clue about What, you thought Bell Labs received a majority of its income from consumer products? The only thing this country won't pay for is your care if you get sick and are unemployed. Q E D"

What? Not much of a surprise, but your post makes no sense. Pretty much everything you listed has nothing to do with socialism at all, unless you have an incredibly broad definition of it.

From Wiki:

Quote :

"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

That is a pretty broad definition, but even that doesn't encompass most of the crap in your list. The key feature of a socialist system would be the state ownership of production. Building roads makes not a government socialist.

2/17/2009 12:49:08 PM

Wow, this thread devolved into a semantics bitchfest real quick.

2/17/2009 12:51:48 PM

Anyone who ends an argument with "QED" should be tared and feathered.

2/17/2009 1:07:33 PM