patrick.net

ZippyDDoodah says

I believe it’s simpleton thinking to assert that “real” campaign reform is accomplished by ending corporate contributions. Can we end union contributions too? Especially since many union members have no choice when their union bosses decide to use union dues to advance political agendas which individual union members often oppose.. for their own good, of course.

Definitely--end union contributions too.

ZippyDDoodah says

And what of the “soft money” loopholes? I haven’t seen a plan/suggestion to limit corporate campaign contributions which doesn’t also unfairly restrict the freedom of individuals and companies to contribute to candidates of their choice.

To which freedom are you refering? How is bribing politicians "speech" exactly? That is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. Why should money decide our elections?

ZippyDDoodah says

A larger point is that government power has grown too large and all encompassing, making it overly important to know who is contributing what to whom.

Size has nothing to do with it (in this case, at least). You can buy votes regardless of how large the government is--local politicians get kickbacks more often than national ones do, I'd guess.

To which freedom are you refering? How is bribing politicians “speech” exactly? That is the biggest load of crap I’ve ever heard. Why should money decide our elections?

But is it really a "bribe" to contribute to politicians who represent (or who claim to represent) your interests and values? If I, or corporations want politicians who believe in limited govt and control of our borders, we should be free to contribute to those politicians. It's a freedom issue.

When Enron started to go down the tubes, did all their political contributions get them a returned phone call? No it didn't, so it appears your "bribe" characterization is far off the mark, wouldn't you agree?

ZippyDDoodah says

But is it really a “bribe” to contribute to politicians who represent (or who claim to represent) your interests and values? If I, or corporations want politicians who believe in limited govt and control of our borders, we should be free to contribute to those politicians. It’s a freedom issue

How is that a freedom issue? You are free to vote for them. That is your speech. Why should money be involved?

ZippyDDoodah says

When Enron started to go down the tubes, did all their political contributions get them a returned phone call? No it didn’t, so it appears your “bribe” characterization is far off the mark, wouldn’t you agree?

No I wouldn't.

Ray--

Wasn't it you who said that conservatives give much more to charity? I'd expect that you, AdHom, Zippy, and Abe would be leading the pack in donations...

tatupu70 says

Ray–
Wasn’t it you who said that conservatives give much more to charity? I’d expect that you, AdHom, Zippy, and Abe would be leading the pack in donations…

It wasn't me. Besides, this isn't charity. This is something all liberals believe in; BIG GOVERNMENT. This site offers a chance for liberals to put their collective money where their collective mouth is. If you believe in big government, why wait for tax increases to show your support?

https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?nc=1271991815942&agencyFormId=23779454&source=patrick.net

RayAmerica says

It wasn’t me. Besides, this isn’t charity. This is something all liberals believe in; BIG GOVERNMENT. This site offers a chance for liberals to put their collective money where their collective mouth is. If you believe in big government, why wait for tax increases to show your support?

You really like to tell everyone what liberals believe.. Unfortunately you're only an expert on straw man arguments....

Do I take that to mean you're not going to give?

I tought that said "Weiner Germany" .... and, well, I laughed.

Spend money at the local coffee shop and tip big ... that will help the local economy. That's what I do (besides giving to the Church and Boy Scots and Kids Sports and School Fundraisers)

Bap33 says

I tought that said “Weiner Germany” …. and, well, I laughed.
Spend money at the local coffee shop and tip big … that will help the local economy. That’s what I do (besides giving to the Church and Boy Scots and Kids Sports and School Fundraisers)

No girl scout cookies? I hear they're made from real girl scouts...

read close, it says "Boy Scots" ... a Celtic group I support. Bwwaaaa haaa ha ha

I honestly stopped buying GScookies due to their prices being unreal. And their ONLY function for my 7 year old daughter was fundraising (for the most part). I guess I just aint a fan right now.

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Keebler-Fudge-Shoppe-Cookies-Grasshopper-Mint-10-oz/11045813

Ain't no need for gs cookies no more...

elliemae says

Second - if I donate, I don’t advertise that I do so. That’s because it’s about me, not about impressing people by bragging about how much I donate to certain causes.

Just for fun, could you make an exception to your rule to never, ever tell anyone (including the charity I presume) what you donate (of course I'm paraphrasing using liberal tactics)? Please tell us how much you've donated to help out the Government. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

RayAmerica says

As to what needs to be done, I’ve previously said it: DRASTIC cuts across the board in all government agencies and programs. Eliminate the Dept. of Education. Bring all troops home from Iraq & Afghanistan. Close down most military bases in Europe, Asia & the Pacific. Drastically cut military spending. Local & state governments need to do the same. The American people need to live within their means and demand their government entities do the same, etc. Please be specific; what do you disagree with?

I agree with all of this, but until the US credit card is destroyed, none of this will happen, IMO. The damage has already been done. History is not my area of expertise. Am I missing something?

CBO ...

History is not on our side. IMO, we are heading towards a complete economic collapse. There is no possible way for us to continue spending at this pace and it's not just the government. The American economy is heavily dependent upon deficit spending, driving a full 70% of our economy via debt financed consumption. What’s even worse is that our exposure to derivatives is so huge it can’t be comprehended. Totalitarian, strong fisted rule usually is the replacement when economies collapse. IMO, we have no more than 10 years to drastically change course and I think I'm being optimistic. When you look at the politicians of both parties, there is very little hope they will do the right thing because it will mean political suicide for them, and maintaining power is their primary goal in life. Furthermore, the voters have been effectively neutralized by thinking their party is marginally better than the other. What we actually have is an oligarchy in which both parties have morphed into one effective ruling party with two separate labels. Obama has proven once again this is true. He has maintained the same basic policies that Bush had along with a lot more spending. IMO, Obama is Bush on steroids, and yet people actually thought he would bring real change. NAFTA is only one example of many. Obama promised on numerous occasions to renegotiate NAFTA. That is completely off the table and predictably, most of his supporters have already forgotten his promise.

+1.

Great post, Ray!

CBO ...
Coming from you that is a real compliment. Thank you.

Troy says

Why should I come to the aid of someone able to effectively argue his point? There is zero value to me in trying to convince you, Ray America, of anything. Other readers, should they exist, can follow the thread well enough without me butting in.

So I take that to mean you favor HYPERINFLATION as a cure for our debts?

RayAmerica says

elliemae says

Second - if I donate, I don’t advertise that I do so. That’s because it’s about me, not about impressing people by bragging about how much I donate to certain causes.

Just for fun, could you make an exception to your rule to never, ever tell anyone (including the charity I presume) what you donate (of course I’m paraphrasing using liberal tactics)? Please tell us how much you’ve donated to help out the Government. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Nah.

Just for fun? Is attacking people for what you perceive to be their beliefs fun? You must be having a blast. Your insistence upon "winning" is tiring, and your condescending attitude detracts from your message. If you have one, that is.

elliemae says

Just for fun? Is attacking people for what you perceive to be their beliefs fun? You must be having a blast. Your insistence upon “winning” is tiring, and your condescending attitude detracts from your message. If you have one, that is.

Your record is broken; you keep repeating the same old boring comment over and over and over again. I really have to remember to read your comments just before I go to bed. Talk about a natural sleep supplement.

Back to the original thread:

Liberal Government Give Meter: $0.00

It's beginning to look like liberals are extremely generous with other people's money.

Many Founding Fathers considered themselves "liberals". Free speech & many other concepts that were quite radical and progressive and dare I say.... revolutionary. By contrast, the NeoCons would be the Tories, always looking out for the elite. It's easy to draw a line from Tories to Whigs to Republicans.

What the term "liberal" is taken to mean today is a far cry from the meaning it had back in the Founders' day. I should have titled this thread: "A Wonderful Site for Leftists."

Liberal, uh I mean Leftist Government Give Meter is still stuck at $0.00.

RayAmerica says

What the term “liberal” is taken to mean today is a far cry from the meaning it had back in the Founders’ day

Interesting. Please share some more detail on that. What exactly did liberal mean back then that it doesn't mean now?

tatupu70 says

Interesting. Please share some more detail on that. What exactly did liberal mean back then that it doesn’t mean now?

The Founders certainly did not advocate a statist welfare system in which vast sums of money would be taken by force (taxation) from producers and given to non producers. Liberals, or I should say leftists, believe strongly in an expansionist, centralized government. If there is a leftist that calls for balanced budgets and a drastic reduction in the size and power of the Federal Government, please tell me who that might be. Jefferson, a “liberal” in his day is often quoted: “the government that governs best is the government that governs least.” Again, please show me the modern “liberal” that adheres to that dictum.

RayAmerica says

The Founders certainly did not advocate a statist welfare system in which vast sums of money would be taken by force (taxation) from producers and given to non producers. Liberals, or I should say leftists, believe strongly in an expansionist, centralized government. If there is a leftist that calls for balanced budgets and a drastic reduction in the size and power of the Federal Government, please tell me who that might be. Jefferson, a “liberal” in his day is often quoted: “the government that governs best is the government that governs least.” Again, please show me the modern “liberal” that adheres to that dictum.

The last President to have a balanced (more or less) budget was a Democrat--or did you forget?

And you didn't really answer the question at all. You just stated your opinoin as to what the Founding Fathers believed and what you think liberals believe (which is almost always a strawman)..

RayAmerica says

elliemae says

Just for fun? Is attacking people for what you perceive to be their beliefs fun? You must be having a blast. Your insistence upon “winning” is tiring, and your condescending attitude detracts from your message. If you have one, that is.

Your record is broken; you keep repeating the same old boring comment over and over and over again. I really have to remember to read your comments just before I go to bed. Talk about a natural sleep supplement.

As long as you attack people personally, don't expect to be taken seriously. It's cute that you think of me as you fall asleep. I am pretty awesome.

tatupu70 says

The last President to have a balanced (more or less) budget was a Democrat–or did you forget?

Several things for you to ponder regarding Mr. Clinton. First, Clinton benefitted from the end of the Cold War which enabled him to drastically slash military spending. Second, he refinanced a huge portion of our long term debt into far riskier short term debt which dramatically in turn reduced our interest payments. Third, he was more or less forced into welfare reform by the somewhat conservative GOP congress (Newt Gingrich, et all), further reducing social spending. Forth, Clinton removed over $300 billion from Social Security, replaced it with special T Bill IOUs (that by law cannot be sold) and spent this via the General Fund. Being that I’m not a GOPer, I have no use for the Republicrats that are reckless spenders. But for you to claim the Democrats are somehow fiscal conservatives is laughable (Obama and company are living proof). IMO, both parties are leading this country into the fiscal abyss.

RayAmerica says

Clinton benefitted from the end of the Cold War which enabled him to drastically slash military spending.

This is not fact, it is....

Truthiness

The fact remains, Clinton did cut military spending dramatically and spent far less than Bush Jr. I also noticed that neither one of you addressed the other points that were made. I wonder why?

What is your defintion of dramatically? Further, he cut military spending. That is the point. Presidents are judged by what happens under their watch and the budget was very nearly balanced under his watch. End of story.

tatupu70 says

End of story.

Sorry, it's not the end of the story. Collectively, Clinton still ran a huge deficit for his 8 years in office. That part of the "story" always seems to be missing by the Clintonistas.

Breakdown of one of Clinton's "surpluses." I wonder if this qualifies as "truthiness?"

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_surplus_did_the_US_have_when_Clinton_left_office

RayAmerica says

Breakdown of one of Clinton’s “surpluses.” I wonder if this qualifies as “truthiness?”
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_surplus_did_the_US_have_when_Clinton_left_office

I don't recall claiming that Clinton had a surplus. Only that he more or less balanced the budget--which he did. There is no doubt that his record compares very favorably to Reagan or W. Bush....

" Collectively, Clinton still ran a huge deficit for his 8 years in office"

Debt Held By The Public (in trillions)

1993 $3,248.4 (last Bush budget)
1994 3,433.1 (first Clinton budget)
1995 3,604.4
1996 3,734.1
1997 3,772.3
1998 3,721.1
1999 3,632.4
2000 3,409.8
2001 3,319.6 (last Clinton budget)

Part of the problem with talking with reactionary conservatives is they don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Clinton left office with a external national debt $71B higher than he found it in 1993. It is true that Federal gov't accounts rose from $1.1T from FY93 to $2.5T in FY01, but this was by design -- to have the baby boomers pre-fund their retirement by over-taxing FICA payers and putting the resulting FICA surplus in treasuries.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0458.pdf

Clinton did not run up a huge deficit, the late 90s was a model of fiscal conservatism -- if W had followed the Clinton example we'd have retired our external debt by now and would have had only to raise taxes to cover the increasing draw of the social security and medicare funds on the general fund.

Instead, W and his "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" policy makers inherited an external national debt of $3.3T and ran it up to $7.5T, more than doubling the national debt. Gov't accounts also rose $1.9T.

This was highly irresponsible and anyone talking sh-- about Clinton's budgets needs to have their head replaced. Their current one simply isn't working.

RayAmerica says

Liberal, uh I mean Leftist Government Give Meter is still stuck at $0.00.

Latest UPDATE: $0.00

Latest UPDATE: Contributions by rayray to N.O.W. and Planned Parenthood = $0.00

And why does this matter? It doesn't. Just like it doesn't matter whether or not Liberals give to the government. Is there a point to this? No, but rayray thinks that there is.

simchaland says

Latest UPDATE: Contributions by rayray to N.O.W. and Planned Parenthood = $0.00
And why does this matter? It doesn’t. Just like it doesn’t matter whether or not Liberals give to the government. Is there a point to this? No, but rayray thinks that there is.

But where does he get his info? I just looked at my paycheck, and I donated.

elliemae says

simchaland says

Latest UPDATE: Contributions by rayray to N.O.W. and Planned Parenthood = $0.00
And why does this matter? It doesn’t. Just like it doesn’t matter whether or not Liberals give to the government. Is there a point to this? No, but rayray thinks that there is.

But where does he get his info? I just looked at my paycheck, and I donated.

Shhhhh! Don't you know? Rayray must be one of those spooks who bugged our phones through AT&T under the Patriot Act under the Bush Regime. He knows everything. Just ask him.