republican congress throwing a hissy fit

[speeds]

Google adsense...

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/25/congress.threats/index.html?hpt=T2

 

[maxiep]

It's always based in politics, when both parties do it.

I disagree. Dennis Kucinich has a deep and honest opposition to war. Ron Paul has a deep and honest opposition to expansionist government. When you see Betsy Markey change her vote from "no" to "yes" on health care because it's more important that the President has a victory than her opposing parts of the legislation, then that's political.

You may be for small government, but neither of the two major parties are. Both parties have identical views of government: limited government when the other party is in power, big government when they, themselves, are in power.

Neither side currently believes in limited government as a principle. Both want to use government for their agenda and decry government when used for another agenda.

Well, no kidding. But it's not a binomial relationship. Not every Democrat will vote to increase the size of government nor will every Republican vote to shrink it. It's a matter of degrees, and the Republicans are by and large in favor of a more limited government than are the Democrats.

I'm sorry, but when you're creating so much new government that you can't even secure Olympia Snowe's vote, then that's one radical-ass bill. I'll state again that the votes for health care legislation was no bi-partisan; only the opposition to it was.

 

[Minstrel]

It's a matter of degrees, and the Republicans are by and large in favor of a more limited government than are the Democrats.

I don't agree with that at all. Pretty much each administration/majority has been competing with the previous one for who can grow the budget more. There are exceptions (and of course debates over who was responsible for that exception), but it's certainly not as if the budget expands under Democrats and contracts, or even grows at a slower rate, under Republicans as a rule. How the budget grows seems pretty much unconnected with party.

I was going to say that Republicans talk a better small-government game, but then I remembered Democratic congresspeople constantly bemoaning the alarming expansion of government under W. Bush.

 

[maxiep]

I don't agree with that at all. Pretty much each administration/majority has been competing with the previous one for who can grow the budget more. There are exceptions (and of course debates over who was responsible for that exception), but it's certainly not as if the budget expands under Democrats and contracts, or even grows at a slower rate, under Republicans as a rule. How the budget grows seems pretty much unconnected with party.

I was going to say that Republicans talk a better small-government game, but then I remembered Democratic congresspeople constantly bemoaning the alarming expansion of government under W. Bush.

I was outraged by the growth of government by GWB, but to pretend that President Obama spends just the same is to ignore reality. He's quadrupled the highest deficit GWB ever posted and equaled the debt GWB added in eight years in just 14 mos.

 

[Minstrel]

I was outraged by the growth of government by GWB, but to pretend that President Obama spends just the same is to ignore reality.

You keep saying "To say/pretend X" about my comments when I clearly say the opposite.

"Pretty much each administration/majority has been competing with the previous one for who can grow the budget more."

He's quadrupled the highest deficit GWB ever posted and equaled the debt GWB added in eight years in just 14 mos.

Neat stat. I remember similar stats used about deficit growth under Reagan.

 

[maxiep]

You keep saying "To say/pretend X" about my comments when I clearly say the opposite.

"Pretty much each administration/majority has been competing with the previous one for who can grow the budget more."

I think we can call President Obama the big winner. Unfortunately, we're all the losers.

Neat stat. I remember similar stats used about deficit growth under Reagan.

And I disagreed with those policies as well.

 

[Minstrel]

I think we can call President Obama the big winner.

To this point. The "winner" has been changing quite a bit. Are you certain that a future "big spending winner" won't be a Republican? I'm not.

And I disagreed with those policies as well.

I wasn't calling you inconsistent. I said that in relation to my original point that big spending is pretty integral to both parties. Unless they are in the minority, in which case they suddenly become small-government advocates.

 

[maxiep]

To this point. The "winner" has been changing quite a bit. Are you certain that a future "big spending winner" won't be a Republican? I'm not.

President Obama is the Michael Jordan of Government spending. His performance is not likely to ever be surpassed.

 

[Minstrel]

President Obama is the Michael Jordan of Government spending. His performance is not likely to ever be surpassed.

Eh okay. Agree to disagree!

 

[maxiep]

Eh okay. Agree to disagree!

Okay, Bill Russell? Magic Johnson? Oscar Robertson? Charlie Yelverton?

 

[Minstrel]

Okay, Bill Russell? Magic Johnson? Oscar Robertson? Charlie Yelverton?

I'm disturbed by your racism at comparing Obama to people purely because he's black.

Larry Bird was such an easy comparison and would have avoided all this controversy...

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

LOL

 

[Shooter]

It's treason, pure and simple.

If you want to talk about treason, how about the fact that Obama and the radical wing of the Democratic party rammed this bill through despite the fact that Americans were opposed to it by a margin of almost 3 to 1 . . .

That's a clear violation of the will of the people.

Even 34 Democratic members of Congress voted against this monstrosity, which ought to tell you something.