Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2016 - 08:49pm PT
|
It's your assertion, you provide the proof.
It's also my assertion that 2 + 2 = 4 and that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Oh, and that the Earth is a sphere.
My "assertion" is so trivially demonstrated online that I seriously am not going pander to the "prove it" ridiculousness.
Just to point you in the right direction, how about this? http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/21/hillary-hits-bernie-for-offering-free-everything-slammed-jeb-for-making-same-critique-video/
With Sanders, it's so flagrant that even Clinton bags on him about it.
But she's not immune and has to prove her "progressive" (freebies) chops:
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/27/hillary-clinton-hints-at-giant-trump-like-giveaway-to-corporate-america/
Yeah! Clinton the "progressive," indeed.
Or, how about her proposed free universal pre-school? https://www.hillaryclinton.com/the-briefing/fact-sheet-universal-pre-school/
Or her proposed free child-care? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/12/the-enormous-ambition-of-hillary-clintons-child-care-plan/
Awesome!
Let's push for a $15 per hour minimum wage (affecting the very sorts of worker that do child care) and then make it free or heavily-subsidized (at that higher rate of pay). Yayyyy. Free stuff for all (except for the middle class taxpayers that end up paying for everything).
I can do this all night. There's more where this came from.
If you guys are so lame (and still stupidly believing that Hillary is anything but a finger-to-the-wind, big-banking, big-corporate stoolie), then you are not even trying to see the truth of what she really is.
As I said, look for yourself in a spirit of true intellectual honesty, and you'll find piles of evidence of her promised give-aways, just trying to pander to her big-monied interests while still trying to keep up with Bernie (a hard act to follow on his give-away front).
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2016 - 08:51pm PT
|
Since then Republicans have spent more and expanded government far more than Democratic administrations.
Prove it.
Prove exactly how Obama has spent LESS and expanded government LESS than did Bush. Explain how Obamacare was a step toward SMALLER, less-intrusive government. Show how his doubling of the debt was actually a step in the right direction.
Uh huh.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2016 - 08:54pm PT
|
the myth that the Republican party is the party of fiscal conservatism
That much is true. The repubs are sickening in their own right!
But the dems have NO moral high ground here.
It's as I said before, both sides are after their own version of majority faction, with nary a genuine thought about the destruction of the middle class.
Obama: "This is my promise to the American people. If your family makes less than $250,000 per year, you will never see one dime in new taxes."
Uh huh.
|
|
Winemaker
Sport climber
Yakima, WA
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2016 - 08:58pm PT
|
madbolter now changes tune and says 'prove it'. Yet just a minute ago you claimed that
How about you demonstrate a bit of intellectual honesty to find the list yourself. If you care about the truth, it's trivially available online. I'm not going to do your work for you.
Pretty serious intellectual honesty there, cognitive dissonance mb.
Edited to add: Man, you should step back a bit and read your own stuff and then follow your own rules. Weird. But then you'd be going in circles. Sort of a Catch 22. Ever read the book?
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2016 - 09:02pm PT
|
"What she really is" you haven't a clue. Lost such as you are.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2016 - 09:08pm PT
|
madbolter now changes tune and says 'prove it'.
The difference, since you are determined to not detect it, is that my assertions are COMMON knowledge, with even Hillary herself bagging on Sanders about his piles of give-aways. And it's COMMON knowledge (as it made national news) about her recent give-away proposals. I merely asserted what is COMMON knowledge, with my VERY assertion the subject of multiple national news articles. So, you have to be like a flat-earther to deny my assertion.
By contrast, you are trying to assert what is obviously false: that Obama has been more fiscally responsible than Bush, that dems are more "small government" and "responsible spending" than modern repubs. You cannot "obviously" sustain such a claim in the face of Obamacare and Obama doubling the debt during his presidency.
So, unlike my assertions that are flagrantly true and trivially demonstrated as true, your assertions are flagrantly false. I want to see (because I sure can't find it with genuine looking) how you think you can explain Obama's spending as some model of fiscal restraint or "blame it on Bush."
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2016 - 09:13pm PT
|
Lost such as you are.
No, the lost boys are the ones that deny the plain facts in order to blindly follow her wherever she goes.
She is NO progressive (as a few of the libs here have even admitted).
She IS totally bought and paid for by big banking and Wall Street; nobody seriously questions this fact except for a few yahoos on this site.
She tries to pretend that she's pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage, pro-gay in general, and a leftie like Bernie. But she makes it up as she goes along.
She doesn't seriously believe a word that comes out of her own mouth, as she looks in her own mirror and sees a chameleon.
At least Bernie was a what-you-see-is-what-you-get, genuine socialist. Hillary is certainly not that.
Whatever she is, she is not what you think she is. And whatever she is today, she will not be that two years from now.
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2016 - 09:15pm PT
|
Jesus, do a little homework on your own once in a while.
Prove exactly how Obama has spent LESS and expanded government LESS than did Bush.
From Factcheck.org: "Federal spending under Obama has grown faster than inflation, but far more slowly than it did under President Bush."
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/04/obamas-numbers-quarterly-update/
Explain how Obamacare was a step toward SMALLER, less-intrusive government.
I don't have to prove how any single program led to a smaller government to prove my statement--only that spending and government growth overall was smaller. Please read more carefully.
Show how his doubling of the debt was actually a step in the right direction.
Obama has reduced the federal deficit substantially. That is certainly a step in the right direction.
Curt
|
|
Winemaker
Sport climber
Yakima, WA
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2016 - 10:15pm PT
|
Ah, madbolter, 'common knowledge'. Yes, I should have known. What a bunch of BS. So now we each have to define whether something is 'common knowledge' or needs proof. What a nice system this is for you, who are unable to provide any proof at all for what you assert. Take a course in logic then read Catch 22 (have you? Do you actually read, like, books?). A book report is expected by Monday next week and will be graded on a curve.
Seriously, dude. WTF? Are you actually a real, serious adult? Do you have any critical thinking skills at all? Do you even know what that means?
Just yell louder, that seems to work sometimes.
|
|
dikhed
climber
State of fugue and disbelief
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2016 - 10:34pm PT
|
I got one for "Grindr" which is a homosexual hookup site.
Usually goes by what you are searching for NTTIAWWT
|
|
nah000
climber
no/w/here
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2016 - 11:23pm PT
|
here you go mb1:
while maybe you are one of the ones who continues to believe that the best strategy in the face of the recession of the late oughts, that started before obama took office, would have been one of austerity, i think it's pretty clear at this point that if obama had chosen to not increase governmental spending, in part as a strategy to avoid a full on depression, the outcome would have been a far more traumatic one...
unlike the voodoo trickle down economics employed by bush and reagan, whereby they cut taxes, at the same time that they increased spending, it's pretty clear if one accepts basic math that obama and clinton, [except for obama's one time use of the strategy of quantitative easing and increasing governmental spending in the face of decreasing revenues due to the recession] have consistently produced far better short and long term results than their republican counterparts... [and i'm not saying that obama's initial increasing of governmental spending didn't lead to positive short and long term results: am just saying that that one is not as inarguable as the rest of the five presidents' records]
and while i don't know what your stance is on this, it is unfortunate that the mindless fundamentalists get re sold and continue to believe the idea that it is taxes that are too high, and that we just need to decrease taxes and everything will just be a-ok and alrighty...
"the golden stream will trickle down anyday now", they always continue to tell us...
we just need to keep the faith.
even though this has been thoroughly disproven over the last 35ish years...
and all that ever happens is that the lower and middle class continue to get pissed on:
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2016 - 11:31pm PT
|
1 2 3 4 5, this much is true on this thread.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2016 - 05:00am PT
|
MB1, you still arguing fiscal policy with people that don't know the difference between debt and income?
Heck, that's like arguing gun control with Lorenzo. No point in engaging a vacant opponent.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2016 - 07:01am PT
|
OH yes, the ONLY debate that matters is Hitlery and Drumph. Which is to say, there is no debate and very little difference between them where the rubber meets the backs of US citizens.
The only real debate is whether or not our country is going to continue down the path to insolvency, financial ruin and statism. Or are we going to shake off this silly notion that freedom is over rated and return to a place where the government doesn't create problems so that we can ask them to fix it.
That's the REAL debate. Hillary/Trump is something retards debate because they don't have the mental capacity to see past the next election.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2016 - 07:25am PT
|
SCOTUS
Decisions this week demonstrate the essential difference between H and T
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2016 - 07:26am PT
|
Agreed. F#@k Texas.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2016 - 07:39am PT
|
MB1, you still arguing fiscal policy with people that don't know the difference between debt and income?
True dat.
Only Nah makes consistently serious attempts at legitimate debate.
To that point, the charts....
None of them dispute my point, which is that Obama has outspent even the Bushes by a considerable margin.
We don't "climb out of the hole" by digging deeper into it.
Regarding the fiscal policy of "austerity" vs. big-spending, I definitely lean toward the "austerity" side (although defining that word really matters!), and I believe it could have been done without nearly the pain people like to worry about.
As just one example (and remember that Obama was quite prepared to shut down the government at least twice when confronted with an intractable congress), I would have submitted budgets to congress that cut military spending in half within four years. I would have submitted budgets that eliminated corporate subsidies (including for oil and tobacco, etc.). I would have refused to enforce (and would have vetoed any bill containing) the idea of "too big to fail" and bailouts. I would have INSISTED on budgets that paid down debt each year, with the amount of pay-down increasing year-by-year.
But Obama, just like Clinton after him, IS in the pockets of mega-corps and big-banking. And so he "played nice" with special interests instead of telling the American people: "Yes, if the government shuts down, then so be it. I will NOT sign any more bills with special interest riders or that do not increase our total surplus that will be used to pay down debt. The era of special interests, corporate welfare, and deficit budgets is OVER. My administration WILL close with us significantly less in debt than we were when I took office. And I will do this without raising middle-class taxes by one dime. Tell your congress-critters to get on board, or it's going to get ugly. I will not budge. Period."
But Obama didn't have the courage of his (supposed) convictions, there was no change, and Clinton will be just more of the same: SPEND our way "out of the hole."
It would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2016 - 07:56am PT
|
So, nothing bad happens when the government shuts down, I guess.
Promises. All politicians make them. Some keep more than others. They know it's just a wish list and they'll need political deal-making skills to get anything done. Obama did what he could with an obstructionist, tea party-controlled congress.
Clinton will be
Absolutes. She "will be"... It's already written for some. Like the e-mail "scandal", no matter the findings, she's a criminal either way.
Try using "could". Like she was in the Senate, she could be an effective public servant.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2016 - 08:06am PT
|
Report on the Benghazi attack due out today
Politics on both sides swirl around this whole sorry incident
Wait--according to Klimmer, Obama is supposed to testify.
I'm so confused.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!