Are Republicans holding the US back?

[Grenartia]

<snip>

The primary reason for conservative presidents' spending is to protect American freedom. Bush's spending is always viewed as high because of the war he brought us in to. Same could be said for Reagan. Liberals spend taxpayers' money on useless bullshit that ends up hurting the economy in the long-run.

The last sentence is more of a generalization, but it can be applied to today's liberal presidents (Clinton, Obama, etc.)

Can you source it?

[Quovis Celestis]

<snip>

The primary reason for conservative presidents' spending is to protect American freedom. Bush's spending is always viewed as high because of the war he brought us in to. Same could be said for Reagan. Liberals spend taxpayers' money on useless bullshit that ends up hurting the economy in the long-run.

The last sentence is more of a generalization, but it can be applied to today's liberal presidents (Clinton, Obama, etc.)

You and I have very different ideas of the word useless bullshit, for example I would say that going to war over things that I knew didn't exist would be bullshit and that food for the hungry is compassionate, but hey. To each his own.

[Neutraligon]

<snip>

The primary reason for conservative presidents' spending is to protect American freedom. Bush's spending is always viewed as high because of the war he brought us in to. Same could be said for Reagan. Liberals spend taxpayers' money on useless bullshit that ends up hurting the economy in the long-run.

The last sentence is more of a generalization, but it can be applied to today's liberal presidents (Clinton, Obama, etc.)

What???? Exactly how is getting into two wars at the same time protecting American freedoms, especially we did a preemptive strike? Whatever happened to Innocent until proven guilty.

[Wamitoria]

<snip>

The primary reason for conservative presidents' spending is to protect American freedom.

By which I assume you mean "hand out money to my campaign contributers."

Bush's spending is always viewed as high because of the war he brought us in to. Same could be said for Reagan. Liberals spend taxpayers' money on useless bullshit that ends up hurting the economy in the long-run.

War is rarely good for the economy in the long run. The Vietnam War helped cause inflation to skyrocket, Iraq blew up the national deficit (with the help of generous tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans), and Reagan's military expansion blew up the national deficit and caused money to be diverted from things that needed to be fought in the 80s, like rising poverty and the AIDS epidemic. WWII and the American Civil War are more exceptions than the rule because of the large amounts of industrialization that occurred, the complete devastation of European economic competition during the former, and large amount of rebuilding that was necessary in the South during the latter.

I don't understand how healthcare and urban renewal are somehow bad for the economy in the long run. Could you explain it to me?

[Euronion]

If by "holding the US back" you mean stopping the US from blindly speeding over a cliff to its death and decline, then yes, the Republicans are holding the US from doom and I'd really like them to continue doing it. Perhaps they can even start steering us back on the road of prosperity.

[Twilliamson]

Spoken truly like someone whose never lived in poverty.

I live simpler than many people getting food stamps and welfare (although by choice). I have no fridge, no cable TV, no washing machine (must wash clothes by hand), and no car. I am able to survive. Many 'poor' people I have seen buy name brand clothes (brand new as well) when they could save by going to a thrift store. Hard to feel sorry for them.

People should have the freedom to work for whatever wage they choose. Minimum wage is anti-freedom.

yeah because freedom is being able to pay your empolyess unliveable wages. Yeah and haveing to pay your employes a resonable amount is goverment tyranny.

[Polkopia]

The primary reason for conservative presidents' spending is to protect American freedom. Bush's spending is always viewed as high because of the war he brought us in to. Same could be said for Reagan. Liberals spend taxpayers' money on useless bullshit that ends up hurting the economy in the long-run.

The last sentence is more of a generalization, but it can be applied to today's liberal presidents (Clinton, Obama, etc.)

You and I have very different ideas of the word useless bullshit, for example I would say that going to war over things that I knew didn't exist would be bullshit and that food for the hungry is compassionate, but hey. To each his own.

I think that the president should focus on America's problems rather than using our money to give to others. Once the USA is back on track, then yes, I would support using our money to feed to homeless.

As far as the war goes, are you saying terrorism doesn't exist? Because events that took place around the globe in 2001, 2004, and 2005 could easily disprove your theory.

[Nationalist Eminral Republic]

As Admiral General Aladeen said

Why are you guys so anti-dictatorship? Imagine if America was a dictatorship! You could let 1% of the people have all the nation’s wealth. You could help your rich friends get richer by cutting their taxes and bailing them out when they gamble and lose. You could ignore the needs of the poor for health-care and education. Your media would appear free; but would secretly be controlled by one person and his family. You could wire-tape phones. You could torture foreign prisoners. You could have rigged elections. You could lie about why you go to war. You could fill your prisons with one particular racial group and no one would complain. You could use the media to scare the people into supporting policies that are against their interests.

[Euronion]

As Admiral General Aladeen said

Why are you guys so anti-dictatorship? Imagine if America was a dictatorship! You could let 1% of the people have all the nation’s wealth. You could help your rich friends get richer by cutting their taxes and bailing them out when they gamble and lose. You could ignore the needs of the poor for health-care and education. Your media would appear free; but would secretly be controlled by one person and his family. You could wire-tape phones. You could torture foreign prisoners. You could have rigged elections. You could lie about why you go to war. You could fill your prisons with one particular racial group and no one would complain. You could use the media to scare the people into supporting policies that are against their interests.

Because a fictional movie character is always the best source of information on politics.

[Neutraligon]

You and I have very different ideas of the word useless bullshit, for example I would say that going to war over things that I knew didn't exist would be bullshit and that food for the hungry is compassionate, but hey. To each his own.

I think that the president should focus on America's problems rather than using our money to give to others. Once the USA is back on track, then yes, I would support using our money to feed to homeless.

As far as the war goes, are you saying terrorism doesn't exist? Because events that took place around the globe in 2001, 2004, and 2005 could easily disprove your theory.

America's problems includes the fact that people cannot afford basic necessities for themselves or their family. By helping these people, we increase the size of the consumer base, which in turn helps the economy since these people will buy things. This in turn means that companies will hire new people to keep up with the increased demand. Now those people who have been hired can also buy things.

Oh also, how does the president focus on those things when it is congress that creates laws?

What did Iraq have to do with terrorism?

[Khodoristan]

Are republicans holding America back? No. Conservatism is what's holding America back.

[Polkopia]

I think that the president should focus on America's problems rather than using our money to give to others. Once the USA is back on track, then yes, I would support using our money to feed to homeless.

As far as the war goes, are you saying terrorism doesn't exist? Because events that took place around the globe in 2001, 2004, and 2005 could easily disprove your theory.

America's problems includes the fact that people cannot afford basic necessities for themselves or their family. By helping these people, we increase the size of the consumer base, which in turn helps the economy since these people will buy things. This in turn means that companies will hire new people to keep up with the increased demand. Now those people who have been hired can also buy things.

What did Iraq have to do with terrorism?

At the time, we thought that Saddam was supporting al-Qaeda (I think that's how you spell it), but it turned out that Saddam was against Osama. 9/11 was originally thought to be Iraq's fault.

As for your other statement, there is a good portion of citizens who face bankruptcy and are threatened to be thrown out on the streets. For the past 100 years, America has been the would superpower, but now we're beginning to decline.

[The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol]

As far as the war on iraq, my main qualm is bush's dishonesty: If he had said outright that the point was to aquire oil, which we need, or to depose saddamh hussein, and then aquire oil, I would have been fine, but bullshitting nuclear weapons doesn't really sit well with me- I believe countries have the right to be as expansionist as they want, but only if their citizens support them knowing exactly what it going on.

[Tmutarakhan]

America's problems includes the fact that people cannot afford basic necessities for themselves or their family. By helping these people, we increase the size of the consumer base, which in turn helps the economy since these people will buy things. This in turn means that companies will hire new people to keep up with the increased demand. Now those people who have been hired can also buy things.

What did Iraq have to do with terrorism?

At the time, we thought that Saddam was supporting al-Qaeda (I think that's how you spell it)

What you mean "we", kemo sabe? Most of us knew it was bullshit from the get-go.

[Nationalist Eminral Republic]

As Admiral General Aladeen said

Because a fictional movie character is always the best source of information on politics.

Its not, but that quote symbolizes what's happening in US.

[Wamitoria]

At the time, we thought that Saddam was supporting al-Qaeda (I think that's how you spell it)

What you mean "we", kemo sabe? Most of us knew it was bullshit from the get-go.

Most Americans believed the lies, though. I know I did at the time.

[Vettrera]

That's what makes them republicans...

¤*¨¨*¤.¸¸ ...¸.¤\
\ GoHillary *2016 \
.\¸.¤*¨¨*¤ .¸¸.¸.¤*
..\
☻/
/▌
/ \

[Neutraligon]

America's problems includes the fact that people cannot afford basic necessities for themselves or their family. By helping these people, we increase the size of the consumer base, which in turn helps the economy since these people will buy things. This in turn means that companies will hire new people to keep up with the increased demand. Now those people who have been hired can also buy things.

What did Iraq have to do with terrorism?

At the time, we thought that Saddam was supporting al-Qaeda (I think that's how you spell it), but it turned out that Saddam was against Osama. 9/11 was originally thought to be Iraq's fault.

As for your other statement, there is a good portion of citizens who face bankruptcy and are threatened to be thrown out on the streets. For the past 100 years, America has been the would superpower, but now we're beginning to decline.

Really, if I remember correctly we went into Iraq sue to them having weapons of mass destruction (or so President Bush claimed). It was only after we went in and found nothing that the reason changed (humanitarian). You're second comment has what to do with my comment. Maybe you should tell us what you mean by democrats bullshit spending. Please be specific.

[Neutraligon]

What you mean "we", kemo sabe? Most of us knew it was bullshit from the get-go.

Most Americans believed the lies, though. I know I did at the time.

And the lie was that they had weapons of mass destruction. The lie was not that they were in league with al-Qaeda.

[Democratic Republic of Sapientia]

As far as the war on iraq, my main qualm is bush's dishonesty: If he had said outright that the point was to aquire oil, which we need, or to depose saddamh hussein, and then aquire oil, I would have been fine, but bullshitting nuclear weapons doesn't really sit well with me- I believe countries have the right to be as expansionist as they want, but only if their citizens support them knowing exactly what it going on.

I am glad that you accept the dishonesty of the Bush administration but the problem with your contention that all nations have If all nations believed it was their right to expand there borders it would violate the right of nations with less military power to exist. I believe one of the positive aspects of the currant age we live in is the loss of the notion that powerful nations have the right to conquer small nations. Empires only lead to oppression and more unnecessary war.

[Euronion]

I just love how the OP is so one sided. I know that you like to view yourself in an epic battle between good and ebil Republicans, but all I have seen is a complete and total misinterpretation of the argument.

You reference Homosexuals getting married. Republicans oppose this because they believe marriage is a term used for religious purposes and it should not be a term forced upon every church and religious institution in the United States because you want it to. In this respect they are protecting the rights of the religious against the intrusion of the state into religious matters. That is why republicans like myself advocate civil unions, if the state wants to give homosexuals equal treatment then they can give them civil unions that would have the same legal status as a marriage. Yet you accuse the Republicans of trying to hold America back and acting childish. I do not view standing up for the rights of others as childish.

You reference the right to choose, but you completely ignore the fact that most Republicans believe the fetus is a living human, as I do. In this sense allowing abortion is no less then allowing murder. It is nothing more than government sanctioned genocide. Approximately 55 million abortions have been performed in the United States since Roe v. Wade and I find that unacceptable and sickening to think that 1/6th of the US population was killed because their mothers didn't want to let them live. It is selfish, it is disgusting, it is no better than a holocaust. There is adoption, there is contraception. To Republicans who are Pro-Life like myself, abortion is a horrid horrid thing that should not be permitted. I have met a woman who had sex without protection multiple times and let the men ejaculate inside her every time, she must have gotten pregnant at least ten times in High School and used Abortion as her birth control. I think that is wrong. There are those who come to this country to abort their female fetuses because they want to try again for a male one. I think that is wrong. Abortion is not compulsory, but the fetus has no say, the human inside the woman has no say at all. I cannot abide the hypocritical mind that smacks of rights to justify their argument yet ignores the most fundamental of those rights, the right to live. Yet you accuse the Republicans of trying to hold America back and being childish. I do not view trying to stop the mass genocide of infants as childish.

You state that the Congress has control over the budget, not the President, and while this is true, any modifications to the budget need to be passed by the House and Senate and approved by the President. The House does not want to raise taxes because you do not raise taxes in a recovery. We are waiting on those spending cuts Obama promised us after we agreed to raise taxes. Obama however has once again gone into campaign and vacation mode and instead of staying at the Capital trying to find a solution for the Sequester (which would only cut 2-4% of the budget) when we have a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit, he goes running around the country trying to scare people. My view is this: we cannot saddle the next generation with trillions of dollars in debt with no hope of paying it back. We need to balance the budget and we cannot balance the budget by taking from the rich to break even. We need a surplus. Since it was big spending that got us into this mess, spending needs to be cut to get us out. The American people want a solution where they can maintain all government programs as they are, but don't want to have to pay more money and don't want to hear about their nation being in debt. That is an infeasible solution. We cannot continue to spend big, our current status is unsustainable, yet all the Democrats propose is "higher taxes, higher taxes, higher taxes, dodge budget cuts, dodge budget cuts" any time taxes are raised Democrats always go on a spending rampage because there is more money flowing into the treasury. Then when people become too poor to pay the large taxes or you have the ebil corporations, businesses, and rich people fleeing the country in droves to avoid taxation, and tax revenue goes way down, the Democrats always want to raise more taxes. Republicans however simply want to cut spending, let people spend the money that they have and that they make to stimulate the economy. We were perfectly fine when we had lower spending, we should be perfectly fine to cut 2% of the budget. If we can't even do that, it's game over for every American.

I suggest you educate yourself further on those of opposing views before you picture them as "the bad guys" and you as "the good guys" and accuse them of holding you back while complete ignoring what they stand for.

[Frisivisia]

I just love how the OP is so one sided. I know that you like to view yourself in an epic battle between good and ebil Republicans, but all I have seen is a complete and total misinterpretation of the argument.

You reference Homosexuals getting married. Republicans oppose this because they believe marriage is a term used for religious purposes and it should not be a term forced upon every church and religious institution in the United States because you want it to. In this respect they are protecting the rights of the religious against the intrusion of the state into religious matters. That is why republicans like myself advocate civil unions, if the state wants to give homosexuals equal treatment then they can give them civil unions that would have the same legal status as a marriage. Yet you accuse the Republicans of trying to hold America back and acting childish. I do not view standing up for the rights of others as childish.

You reference the right to choose, but you completely ignore the fact that most Republicans believe the fetus is a living human, as I do. In this sense allowing abortion is no less then allowing murder. It is nothing more than government sanctioned genocide. Approximately 55 million abortions have been performed in the United States since Roe v. Wade and I find that unacceptable and sickening to think that 1/6th of the US population was killed because their mothers didn't want to let them live. It is selfish, it is disgusting, it is no better than a holocaust. There is adoption, there is contraception. To Republicans who are Pro-Life like myself, abortion is a horrid horrid thing that should not be permitted. I have met a woman who had sex without protection multiple times and let the men ejaculate inside her every time, she must have gotten pregnant at least ten times in High School and used Abortion as her birth control. I think that is wrong. There are those who come to this country to abort their female fetuses because they want to try again for a male one. I think that is wrong. Abortion is not compulsory, but the fetus has no say, the human inside the woman has no say at all. I cannot abide the hypocritical mind that smacks of rights to justify their argument yet ignores the most fundamental of those rights, the right to live. Yet you accuse the Republicans of trying to hold America back and being childish. I do not view trying to stop the mass genocide of infants as childish.

You state that the Congress has control over the budget, not the President, and while this is true, any modifications to the budget need to be passed by the House and Senate and approved by the President. The House does not want to raise taxes because you do not raise taxes in a recovery. We are waiting on those spending cuts Obama promised us after we agreed to raise taxes. Obama however has once again gone into campaign and vacation mode and instead of staying at the Capital trying to find a solution for the Sequester (which would only cut 2-4% of the budget) when we have a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit, he goes running around the country trying to scare people. My view is this: we cannot saddle the next generation with trillions of dollars in debt with no hope of paying it back. We need to balance the budget and we cannot balance the budget by taking from the rich to break even. We need a surplus. Since it was big spending that got us into this mess, spending needs to be cut to get us out. The American people want a solution where they can maintain all government programs as they are, but don't want to have to pay more money and don't want to hear about their nation being in debt. That is an infeasible solution. We cannot continue to spend big, our current status is unsustainable, yet all the Democrats propose is "higher taxes, higher taxes, higher taxes, dodge budget cuts, dodge budget cuts" any time taxes are raised Democrats always go on a spending rampage because there is more money flowing into the treasury. Then when people become too poor to pay the large taxes or you have the ebil corporations, businesses, and rich people fleeing the country in droves to avoid taxation, and tax revenue goes way down, the Democrats always want to raise more taxes. Republicans however simply want to cut spending, let people spend the money that they have and that they make to stimulate the economy. We were perfectly fine when we had lower spending, we should be perfectly fine to cut 2% of the budget. If we can't even do that, it's game over for every American.

I suggest you educate yourself further on those of opposing views before you picture them as "the bad guys" and you as "the good guys" and accuse them of holding you back while complete ignoring what they stand for.

Brick of rant text, did not read.

[Euronion]

As far as the war on iraq, my main qualm is bush's dishonesty: If he had said outright that the point was to aquire oil, which we need, or to depose saddamh hussein, and then aquire oil, I would have been fine, but bullshitting nuclear weapons doesn't really sit well with me- I believe countries have the right to be as expansionist as they want, but only if their citizens support them knowing exactly what it going on.

Except the CIA had intelligence that there were Nuclear Weapons in Iraq. Would you have been angrier had Bush not gone in and Israel had been nuked and intelligence come out that the President received reports that there were Nuclear Weapons in Iraq yet he did not pursue them or if Bush had gone in on intelligence and found no weapons? I would have been most certainly angry about the former. You talk of the Bush Administration but you forget that there were only 2-3 votes against the measure in Congress.

[The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol]

As far as the war on iraq, my main qualm is bush's dishonesty: If he had said outright that the point was to aquire oil, which we need, or to depose saddamh hussein, and then aquire oil, I would have been fine, but bullshitting nuclear weapons doesn't really sit well with me- I believe countries have the right to be as expansionist as they want, but only if their citizens support them knowing exactly what it going on.

I am glad that you accept the dishonesty of the Bush administration but the problem with your contention that all nations have If all nations believed it was their right to expand there borders it would violate the right of nations with less military power to exist. I believe one of the positive aspects of the currant age we live in is the loss of the notion that powerful nations have the right to conquer small nations. Empires only lead to oppression and more unnecessary war.

That's why I added qualifiers to my statement: by taking over another country, those people should be considered citizens of the conquering nation, thus giving them the political cloud to hopefully stop oppression. Of course, this rarely, if ever, happened, but that's how I feel it should be.

[Euronion]

I just love how the OP is so one sided. I know that you like to view yourself in an epic battle between good and ebil Republicans, but all I have seen is a complete and total misinterpretation of the argument.

You reference Homosexuals getting married. Republicans oppose this because they believe marriage is a term used for religious purposes and it should not be a term forced upon every church and religious institution in the United States because you want it to. In this respect they are protecting the rights of the religious against the intrusion of the state into religious matters. That is why republicans like myself advocate civil unions, if the state wants to give homosexuals equal treatment then they can give them civil unions that would have the same legal status as a marriage. Yet you accuse the Republicans of trying to hold America back and acting childish. I do not view standing up for the rights of others as childish.

You reference the right to choose, but you completely ignore the fact that most Republicans believe the fetus is a living human, as I do. In this sense allowing abortion is no less then allowing murder. It is nothing more than government sanctioned genocide. Approximately 55 million abortions have been performed in the United States since Roe v. Wade and I find that unacceptable and sickening to think that 1/6th of the US population was killed because their mothers didn't want to let them live. It is selfish, it is disgusting, it is no better than a holocaust. There is adoption, there is contraception. To Republicans who are Pro-Life like myself, abortion is a horrid horrid thing that should not be permitted. I have met a woman who had sex without protection multiple times and let the men ejaculate inside her every time, she must have gotten pregnant at least ten times in High School and used Abortion as her birth control. I think that is wrong. There are those who come to this country to abort their female fetuses because they want to try again for a male one. I think that is wrong. Abortion is not compulsory, but the fetus has no say, the human inside the woman has no say at all. I cannot abide the hypocritical mind that smacks of rights to justify their argument yet ignores the most fundamental of those rights, the right to live. Yet you accuse the Republicans of trying to hold America back and being childish. I do not view trying to stop the mass genocide of infants as childish.

You state that the Congress has control over the budget, not the President, and while this is true, any modifications to the budget need to be passed by the House and Senate and approved by the President. The House does not want to raise taxes because you do not raise taxes in a recovery. We are waiting on those spending cuts Obama promised us after we agreed to raise taxes. Obama however has once again gone into campaign and vacation mode and instead of staying at the Capital trying to find a solution for the Sequester (which would only cut 2-4% of the budget) when we have a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit, he goes running around the country trying to scare people. My view is this: we cannot saddle the next generation with trillions of dollars in debt with no hope of paying it back. We need to balance the budget and we cannot balance the budget by taking from the rich to break even. We need a surplus. Since it was big spending that got us into this mess, spending needs to be cut to get us out. The American people want a solution where they can maintain all government programs as they are, but don't want to have to pay more money and don't want to hear about their nation being in debt. That is an infeasible solution. We cannot continue to spend big, our current status is unsustainable, yet all the Democrats propose is "higher taxes, higher taxes, higher taxes, dodge budget cuts, dodge budget cuts" any time taxes are raised Democrats always go on a spending rampage because there is more money flowing into the treasury. Then when people become too poor to pay the large taxes or you have the ebil corporations, businesses, and rich people fleeing the country in droves to avoid taxation, and tax revenue goes way down, the Democrats always want to raise more taxes. Republicans however simply want to cut spending, let people spend the money that they have and that they make to stimulate the economy. We were perfectly fine when we had lower spending, we should be perfectly fine to cut 2% of the budget. If we can't even do that, it's game over for every American.

I suggest you educate yourself further on those of opposing views before you picture them as "the bad guys" and you as "the good guys" and accuse them of holding you back while complete ignoring what they stand for.

Brick of rant text, did not read.

Then continue being uneducated. Though do not go around claiming Republicans hold you back and portraying them as "the bad guys" when you do not even understand why the Republicans stand for what they stand.