The Political Party

[Mr.NiceGuy]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

Mr.NiceGuy wrote:

---

It's still a fact that Obmo's budget got NOWHERE in the Democratic Senate. Spin it however you want. 

---

I'm spinning nothing.  It got nowhere because the Pubs altered it.   Use some common sense---you really think his budget was so awful that it couldn't get a single vote in either the House or the Senate?? 

But it's worked just the way the Pubs wanted it to.  It's become a very nice talking point for the right to repeat endlessly.  Certainly got YOU fired up, didn't it?

I wouldn't worry so much about Jake Tapper being a shill for anyone, if I were you.   (who generally is pretty tough on the Obama administration, BTW) I'd worry about being led about by the nose by the propagandists on my own side.

---

Yes, I know that his budget was so terrible that not one single Dem would even present it for consideration, much less vote for it. You can repeat Jay Karneys press releases all you want;just don't accuse me of repeating anyone's talking points while you do it.

I'm not fired up, but I am getting bored with this argument. Aren't you?  Let's just agree that we're getting screwed and leave it at that. ok?

[guido61]

---

Mr.NiceGuy wrote:

---

---

Yes, I know that his budget was so terrible that not one single Dem would even present it for consideration, much less vote for it. You can repeat Jay Karneys press releases all you want;just don't accuse me of repeating anyone's talking points while you do it.

I'm not fired up, but I am getting bored with this argument. Aren't you?  Let's just agree that we're getting screwed and leave it at that. ok?

---

It's one thing to have an ideological position or even be partisan.  But when you let it cloud your critical thinking, then it's probably gone too far.

Seriously---not a SINGLE DEM votes for his budget and that doesn't raise a red flag for you that there's probably some political hanky-panky going on?  It would only take about 5 seconds of thinking beyond the surface to figure that out.  But that WOULD require thinking for 5 seconds, of course.

Instead, Sean Hannity--or whoever you pay attention to--throws out some line about "the budget was so awful that not even the Dems would vote for it--and that just sounds SO GOOD to you that you toss out any critical thinking and run with it.   But, as is usual with life, if something sounds too good to be true it probably is.

And now think about where you are.  You've become so obsessed with a single political POV that even though you spend countless hours every week paying attention to politics, all you're doing is just trying to  support your agenda.  You're no longer thinking beyond the surface at all.

You're no better than the lady who spends no time paying attention to politics but is going to vote for Obama because she thinks he'll pay her rent.  Or somebody who votes for the candidate they think is the best looking.

Except you've spent countless hours paying attention to politics that might have been better spent doing something else, perhaps.

[Mr.NiceGuy]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

Mr.NiceGuy wrote:

---

---

Yes, I know that his budget was so terrible that not one single Dem would even present it for consideration, much less vote for it. You can repeat Jay Karneys press releases all you want;just don't accuse me of repeating anyone's talking points while you do it.

I'm not fired up, but I am getting bored with this argument. Aren't you?  Let's just agree that we're getting screwed and leave it at that. ok?

---

It's one thing to have an ideological position or even be partisan.  But when you let it cloud your critical thinking, then it's probably gone too far.

Seriously---not a SINGLE DEM votes for his budget and that doesn't raise a red flag for you that there's probably some political hanky-panky going on?  It would only take about 5 seconds of thinking beyond the surface to figure that out.  But that WOULD require thinking for 5 seconds, of course.

Instead, Sean Hannity--or whoever you pay attention to--throws out some line about "the budget was so awful that not even the Dems would vote for it--and that just sounds SO GOOD to you that you toss out any critical thinking and run with it.   But, as is usual with life, if something sounds too good to be true it probably is.

And now think about where you are.  You've become so obsessed with a single political POV that even though you spend countless hours every week paying attention to politics, all you're doing is just trying to  support your agenda.  You're no longer thinking beyond the surface at all.

You're no better than the lady who spends no time paying attention to politics but is going to vote for Obama because she thinks he'll pay her rent.  Or somebody who votes for the candidate they think is the best looking.

Except you've spent countless hours paying attention to politics that might have been better spent doing something else, perhaps.

---

Are you talking about me or yourself?

One last time...yes ! Obmo's budget was introduced into the Senate by Repubs. Aren't you even curious why?  Clearly it is because the Dems saw it as such a pie in the sky, crayons on construction paper attempt that they were not even going to introduce it. I don't blame the Repubs for introducing it just to illustrate the fact that it was so sophomoric that it was getting zero support from the President's own party.

I really don't get much out of Sean Hannidity except "Yer a great American!", but I don't follow Mr Tapper much either.

[RogueGnome]

---

Mr.NiceGuy wrote:

"I can tell you specifically what I find abhorrent in the Ryan budget.

• Investments in science, medical research, space, and technology would be cut by more than $100 billion over the next decade. The number of new grants  from NIH for promising research projects would shrink by more than 1,600 in 2014 and by over 16,000 over a decade, potentially curtailing or slowing research to fight Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, and AIDS.  The National Science Foundation would cut over 11,000 grants over the next decade, eliminating support for over 13,000 researchers, students, and teachers in 2014 alone. 
• Roughly two million slots in Head Start would be eliminated over the next decade — cutting 200,000 children from the program in 2014 alone. "

Arguably wonderful things to spend other people's money on. Unfortunately those "other people" have run out and we are borrowing about 40% of the money we spend every day. And it will continue until Dems are back in the minority.

---

It's arguable only if you're through investing in the United States of America, because that's what keeps this country alive.

Just as the roof over your head or cutting your lawn, if you don't take care of it you will lose it.

I know bullets and bombs are much sexier, but they don't do much for our infrastructure, and certainly not for any one else's.

[guido61]

---

Mr.NiceGuy wrote:

---

One last time...yes ! Obmo's budget was introduced into the Senate by Repubs. Aren't you even curious why?  Clearly it is because the Dems saw it as such a pie in the sky, crayons on construction paper attempt that they were not even going to introduce it. I don't blame the Repubs for introducing it just to illustrate the fact that it was so sophomoric that it was getting zero support from the President's own party.

I really don't get much out of Sean Hannidity except "Yer a great American!", but I don't follow Mr Tapper much either.

---

Talking about myself?  I'm not the one repeating poltical talk-show propaganda.

Yeah, Obama's budget didn't get voted on in its original form in the House because only the leadership can present bills for a vote.  In the Senate, the minority can block bringing things to a vote.  So Obama's budget got brought up by the GOP in an altered form so they could make a poltical statement.  Why would the GOP bring it up at all?  Think about it.

And I don't "follow" Tapper either.  He's not a partisan or in the business of opinion.  He's simply a reporter.  And one who has been notoriously tough on Obama in the past.

[Graeca]

---

Fred Fartboski wrote:

Historically, government spending goes up. Dem or Pub in office there's no way of reversing it. Rising population, wars and inflation make increased government spending inevitible.

Government spending is never going to go down.

---

Reality is not the GOP's strong point...

[Mr.NiceGuy]

---

RogueGnome wrote:

---

Mr.NiceGuy wrote:

"I can tell you specifically what I find abhorrent in the Ryan budget.

• Investments in science, medical research, space, and technology would be cut by more than $100 billion over the next decade. The number of new grants  from NIH for promising research projects would shrink by more than 1,600 in 2014 and by over 16,000 over a decade, potentially curtailing or slowing research to fight Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, and AIDS.  The National Science Foundation would cut over 11,000 grants over the next decade, eliminating support for over 13,000 researchers, students, and teachers in 2014 alone. 
• Roughly two million slots in Head Start would be eliminated over the next decade — cutting 200,000 children from the program in 2014 alone. "

Arguably wonderful things to spend other people's money on. Unfortunately those "other people" have run out and we are borrowing about 40% of the money we spend every day. And it will continue until Dems are back in the minority.

---

It's arguable only if you're through investing in the United States of America, because that's what keeps this country alive.

Just as the roof over your head or cutting your lawn, if you don't take care of it you will lose it.

I know bullets and bombs are much sexier, but they don't do much for our infrastructure, and certainly not for any one else's.

---

Investing to a collectivist is quite different from what it means to a capitalist. That term came into vogue during Clintons turn. "Invest" is more palatable than "take it from you so we can give it to them".

[John Ellis]

Soooo
GOP takes over the house and spending drops.

Who the fuck would be surprised by this? lol

[RogueGnome]

---

Mr.NiceGuy wrote:

---

Investing to a collectivist is quite different from what it means to a capitalist. That term came into vogue during Clintons turn. "Invest" is more palatable than "take it from you so we can give it to them".

---

Thanks for the history lesson.

Educating children is everyone's responsibilty.

Or maybe as a virtuous capitalist, you think children should get a paper route and pay for their own education.

Public support of research and development is the reason we have the lion's share of the major tech companies in this country.

Silicon Valley wouldnt exist were it not for US Federal investment.

A long fricking time before Clinton got to Washington, son.

[Mr.NiceGuy]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

Mr.NiceGuy wrote:

---

One last time...yes ! Obmo's budget was introduced into the Senate by Repubs. Aren't you even curious why?  Clearly it is because the Dems saw it as such a pie in the sky, crayons on construction paper attempt that they were not even going to introduce it. I don't blame the Repubs for introducing it just to illustrate the fact that it was so sophomoric that it was getting zero support from the President's own party.

I really don't get much out of Sean Hannidity except "Yer a great American!", but I don't follow Mr Tapper much either.

---

Talking about myself?  I'm not the one repeating poltical talk-show propaganda.

I'm not repeating talk-show propaganda either. But you linked up an editorial that bolsters your argument based on Jay Karney quotes.

Yeah, Obama's budget didn't get voted on in its original form in the House because only the leadership can present bills for a vote.

Oh. I wonder why Nancy Pelosi didn't present Obmo's budget,then.

 In the Senate, the minority can block bringing things to a vote.

Unless H.Reid gets his way. stay tuned.

 So Obama's budget got brought up by the GOP in an altered form so they could make a poltical statement.  Why would the GOP bring it up at all?  Think about it.

Obviously to score a political point. I know, only the Dems are allowed to play that way.

And I don't "follow" Tapper either.

Okay. I guess someone else linked his blog and built his opinions around it.

 He's not a partisan or in the business of opinion.

You linked a political blog/editorial. By definition that is opinion.

 He's simply a reporter.  And one who has been notoriously tough on Obama in the past.

I'll take your word for this. But not based on what you linked.

Not looking at this,sorry.

---

[Mr.NiceGuy]

---

RogueGnome wrote:

---

Mr.NiceGuy wrote:

---

Investing to a collectivist is quite different from what it means to a capitalist. That term came into vogue during Clintons turn. "Invest" is more palatable than "take it from you so we can give it to them".

---

Thanks for the history lesson.

Educating children is everyone's responsibilty.

Or maybe as a virtuous capitalist, you think children should get a paper rout and pay for their own education.

Public support of research and development is the reason we have the lion's share of the major tech companies in this country.

Silicon Valley wouldnt exist were it not for US Federal investment.

A long fricking time before Clinton got to Washington, son.

---

Leftist historical revisionism.  Just your version of Obmo's "You didn't build this! ".

[RogueGnome]

Mr. niceguy, if you knew anything at all of the history of Silcon Valley you wouldn't post your drivel.

Please continue to demonstrate your ignorance.

[guido61]

---

Mr.NiceGuy wrote:

---

Not looking at this,sorry.

---

---

Of course you're not.  Why would you?  It might run counter to the propaganda you wish to believe.

[Mr.NiceGuy]

No, I'm content to let you have the last word,Gnome. I will grant you the courtesy of assuming that you are not an absolutist about the role of govt. if you will be nice enough not to assume I am an absolutist about NO government involement. Fair enough?

[Mr.NiceGuy]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

Mr.NiceGuy wrote:

---

Not looking at this,sorry.

---

---

Of course you're not.  Why would you?  It might run counter to the propaganda you wish to believe.

---

Nah, just get enough of that dipwad without wasting my bandwidth on it. Sorry. I'll believe it says what you say it does. ok?

[RogueGnome]

---

Mr.NiceGuy wrote:

No, I'm content to let you have the last word,Gnome. I will grant you the courtesy of assuming that you are not an absolutist about the role of govt. if you will be nice enough not to assume I am an absolutist about NO government involement. Fair enough?

---

Henry Ford built the automobile, and he got the gov't to build the roads.

The railroad companies built their trains, but the gov't wouldn't lay track for them.

This country has a long history of "picking winners" as the GOP likes to say.

I've always wondered how the Ford Motor Company would have done if Henry had to pay for all the streets. That was a good investment this country made. And Eisenhower doubled down on that with the interstate highway system. It's been a long time since this country has embarked on any projects like that.

We used to build bridges and canals and dams and levies. You can argue the environmental impact of dams but that's another story. These projects employed lots of people, Whole towns were created as a result sometimes, where homes and churches, book stores and bars, as well as schools were built, Businesses sprung up. Good things came of it; there's no denying.

We're a United States because we have common interests and (yes) investments.

These investments make it easier for more inventors and more entrepreneurs and more capitalists to strike out on their own and hire more folks and get rich. Common good.

Have a nice day, Mr. NiceGuy.

[Mr.NiceGuy]

---

RogueGnome wrote:

---

We're a United States because we have common interests and (yes) investments.

Have a nice day, Mr. NiceGuy.

---

Common interests and a Constitution,but yes. I agree. We can argue details of how and to what degree without getting anywhere, so...

Thanks. And you as well.

[yanktar]

When did the Right-wing-nuts stop understanding the concept of a "public good" and started calling them "Socialism!!!!!"?

Teddy Roosevelt understood that the "public good" of national parks would protect is unique about the USA. Eisenhower knew we needed the "public good" of an interstate highway system. Nixon understood that the "public good" of clean air, water and land was critical. Gerry Ford understand the "public good" of energy self-sufficiency.

But since 1981 more and more Republicans have abandoned the idea that there IS such a thing as a "public good"--the dams, roads, bridges, ports, harbors, waterways, etc.

[guido61]

---

yanktar wrote:

But since 1981 more and more Republicans have abandoned the idea that there IS such a thing as a "public good"--the dams, roads, bridges, ports, harbors, waterways, etc.

---

They don't want to be taxed to pay for that stuff.  They'd probably prefer it all be privatized and they be charged a toll by the private corporation who owns the roads and bridges.  They'd CHEER paying THAT fee.

These people are nuts.