What are you trying to say here? In 1993, the democratic majorities in the house and senate passed a “pay as you go” requirement in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 on a party line vote. It was this act that was primarily responsible for the surpluses. Not a single Republican voted for this act, just as they let the paygo rules expire in 2002 and fought their reinstatement in 2006 and last year in 2009. You can whine all you want about the irresponsible “tax and spend” Democrats, but no “borrow and spend” Republican has lowered the debt since Nixon (look at this graph). Yet everybody believes that Republicans are the party of Fiscal Responsibility. I just don’t get it. :dubious:
I meant third-way in the sense being in the centre between Democratic Liberalism and Tea-Party Extremnism.
No it isn’t. They’re equally inaccurate.
You voted for Bush in '04?!? After the '03 invasion of Iraq and subsequent WMD developments? Well then, you are part of the problem.
Regardless, you are still saying nothing…just with a bit more venom dripping from your fangs. I’ve already discussed the allegations against Bush and Kerry. As I said, I responded to the OPs selective memory. I don’t give two shits whether Bush’s family pulled strings to keep him out of Vietnam or if Kerry’s flesh wound should be considered injury enough for a Purple Heart. Also, you’ve completely glazed over all the true shit that was mentioned about Kerry’s postwar days during the campaign. You need to take off the blinders.
Once again, I’ll repeat my question from post #42: Out of (morbid) curiosity, exactly what qualifies (for you) as “nationalized”? And exactly what industries were nationalized?
I’d like to know what the wingnut dingbats are positing and what “evidence” they’re claiming in support…
That would cover a lot of the spectrum. Could you be more specific?
Ron Paul, actually. Write-in, of course. Yeah, I know, I’m a wingnut. I’m as close to a neutral party as you’ll find on this board - I don’t like either the Republicans or Democrats generally, although I can evaluate individuals on their own merits. But because I’m willing to call out the absolute BS the Republicans have been spewing for at least a few years, there’s a knee-jerk OH DRINK YOUR LIBERAL KOOL-AID response to me.
You just said that it doesn’t matter to you what the truth of either allegation is, and then you tell me you need to take off the blinders. I’m not sure there’s anything I can do to enlighten you.
Partial nationalization of GM (okay not the whole industry) and nationalization of the student loan industry.
The wingnut dingbats who called the GM takeover a partial nationalization is none other than the washington post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/27/AR2009042700872.html
The undeniable truth is that Bush did not go to Vietnam. He dodged it in the rich guy’s son’s wing of the National Guard.
Whether he put in a full shift there or not is irrelevant.
Chickenhawk war dodger.
Since you responded, it’s clear that you can read…but your comprehension and attention to detail needs a bit of work. I’ll ask again: what’s your definition of “nationalized”? It matters in the case of GM. Specifically, does “nationalization” require governmental exertion of control?
Also, let’s dispense with the stupidity that is “nationalizing student loans”. The loans were already coming from the government. The banks were taking on no risk, as the government guaranteed the loans, repayment or not. If the student loans are now “nationalized”, they also were before. The big difference is that banks were getting paid for…not much.
Perhaps you approve of government giving money away to banks? That would be surprising, coming from someone complaining about the government backing GM…I didn’t have you figured as a “Run Up The Deficit Republican” acolyte. Although I suppose I really shouldn’t be surprised, given the (weak) Republican talking points you’re using, and considering the Republican track record from Reagan onward shows that running up the deficit is simply what modern-day Republicans do.
And since The Washington Post seems to have your approval, here’s a WaPo (higher education) reporter’s blog post that makes the same point about student loans as I did (more succinctly):
The crap you’re spewing just reinforces the thread’s premise…
To put under state control or ownership. The US auto companies have been under state control for some time, and now the state has a majority stake in GM. Obama had the GM CEO resign and is intimately involved with the restructuring of the company. The government screwed the bondholders and gave the UAW a stake in GM. The auto task force also ordered the closing of dealerships (then reversed that desision somewhat) and is dictating what brands GM will sell. Temporary or not, if that is not nationalization I don’t know what is. Are you claiming that there is no government control of the company?
The government changed from being the guarantor of the loans to actually providing the loans to individuals. Is this a huge change? No, which means the student loan industry was functionally nationalized to start with. So, at least we agree on a definition. Now I wonder if all the changes imposed on health insurance companies can be funtionally called nationalization.
[quote=“Digital_Stimulus, post:69, topic:536387”]
Perhaps you approve of government giving money away to banks? That would be surprising, coming from someone complaining about the government backing GM…I didn’t have you figured as a “Run Up The Deficit Republican” acolyte. Although I suppose I really shouldn’t be surprised, given the (weak) Republican talking points you’re using, and considering the Republican track record from Reagan onward shows that running up the deficit is simply what modern-day Republicans do.
[/QUOTE
I don’t approve of the government giving money to banks period. I don’t believe the government should be involved in student loans period. I don’t think the government should have bailed out GM or the banks. Do you see the trend here? Since you are in the business of assuming whatever you like about me, then I will assume that you are in favor of industries being nationalized.
No, the Washington Post should have YOUR approval. They are left of center which is why I chose that cite, and to point out to YOU that it is not wingnut dingbats that belive this is nationalization.
Something like that of the “old” John McCain (not the one currently posturing trying to survive JD Hayworth).
What is your idea of a prominent newspaper that is, in your opinion, “center”?
None, judging by the editorial pages and endorsements for politicians in local and national elections. Most are slanted either left or right. The Washington Post has been slanted left editorially since I’ve started reading it.
The Left regularly used the phrase “Take Back America” during the Bush years. Why are you only getting upset about such phrases NOW?
http://www.amazon.com/We-People-Call-Take-America/dp/1882109384
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0324-12.htm
I wasn’t particularly outraged then, and can’t imagine why any liberal should feel offeneded when the Right uses it now. It’s standard political jargon.
Do I sit around grumbling that a liberal organization calling itself “People for the American Way” is implying that I’m anti-American?
Because they don’t mean, “Take back America for the GOP.” They mean, “Take back America for the white man.” And you fucking know it.
Aw c’mon…you can’t really be serious. Why is any opposition to Obama labeled raaacism?
The same way that Maureen Dowd “knew” that the Congressman “really” meant “you lie, boy”.
If you make an accusation of racism often and loudly enough, some people will believe it without evidence. Indeed, without even thinking.
Regards,
Shodan
No, but YOU obviously f–ing “know” it, just as you “know” all kinds of things that aren’t true.
It’s so typical. A conservative says “Yadda yadda.” Liberals scream that “Yadda yadda” is a vile, evil, offensive thing to say. We demonstrat that liberals have said “Yadda yadda” ten trillion times, but does any liberal acknowledge “Okay, well, maybe we shouldn’t have said that”?
NO! They double down, and insist THEIR use of “Yadda yadda” was completely different.
The Modern Whig Party.
Not for me, but as a courtesy to my fellows here at the SDMB.
We need a 2 party America.
Sounds interesting, but then I dug a little deeper. Under their detailed vision for fiscal responsibility is this:
Nothing there about changing how federal taxes are calculated. So people who live in places with high salaries and a high cost of living (like large cities) will still have higher tax bills, but the government will dole out money to the states based solely on population. “Alabama should not always flip the bill for earmarks that occur in New York”? In 2005, Alabama received $1.66 in federal spending for every dollar that it paid.
Cite.
Nice scam for the rural areas if they can pull it off.