This video tells it like it is! Thank you! I'm so sick of Republicans playing their phony-ass bullshit about being for smaller government. I know I don't deserve to be screwed by stupid Republicans every election because I don't vote for the damn fools, but I feel like all the suckers who do vote for them because they feel the Democrats are worse DO deserve to get fucked over and over again. As long as people keep voting Republican, I say let the morons keep suffering.
Where do you get your statistics? I don't necessarily doubt that what you're saying is true; I just don't know where to look. Office of Management and Budget?
@shanedk In the 19th century the Democrats were the party of limited government whereas the GOP was the Federalist & Whig heir to big governmentalism. I agree with you about Cleveland and the deplorable "Honest Abe" and most of your other evaluations although I'd probably would've given Hayes and Arthur a much better score. Libertarian historian Ivan Eland wrote a great book of presidential ratings called Recarving Rushmore in which he turn the standard ratings system on its head.
@sleedolfine15 "I'd probably would've given Hayes and Arthur a much better score."
They still raised the tariffs, expanded the scope of government, and left it bigger than they found it. You can say that they're head and shoulders above any of today's politicians (save Ron Paul), but that's a fairly low bar.
The president isn't King of the Country... that's what people fail to understand. In my opinion, republics FAIL because they let every Tom, Dick, and Harry vote (even if they don't exist); from all walks of life and from varying levels of intelligence.
The problem with our republic is that the smartest man's vote is worth exactly as much as the dumbest man's vote. People don't vote for skill for a job anymore, they vote for the popular politician. Fair and Equality spells DOOM for this country.
@Boss5414 ...Actually google the phrase "wisdom of the crowds" it's scientifically proven that as a group, people are actually pretty smart. Plus we don't have a straight up popular vote on anything because of the tyranny of the majority (pure democracy is gang rape --5 people say "yes" one person says "no".
@sinistar99 Does everyone vote? Can people be manipulated? Do people put competence over party?
Citing one thing and ignoring all the rest is ignorant... plus I didn't state that we should have a pure democracy. I'm just showing a point that people are manipulated. I challenge you to find ONE political news website/station that is not biased!
@destroyOCTS Answer this question honestly, if a moron doesn't understand accounting, but still has an opinion about it, what does it matter what accounting standards you use?
@destroyOCTS I don't care about your questions, you've been caught lying numerous times to make your points, and when you are called out on it you attempt to change the subject and goal post shift.
The government is responsible for a lot of things. The fact that you are a liar and a moron isn't among them?
In debate, a draw is generally when both sides have relevant points, each of which have roughly equal tradeoffs against the other. That's not what's happened here.
What we can call this is you having lied, been caught, and disqualified.
The ONLY way that you could get rid of this CBO score on Clinton's performance is to have the guy indicted and we all know what happened last time... LOL! Listen: I'm not rooting for the guy, but I do care about the facts. Clinton might have swindled the country during his time, but according to the agency that scored his performance, he had budget SURPLUSES in his years. And since the Gov't CANNOT be held to the same accounting standards as corporations, any claims to the contrary are moot.
@destroyOCTS As long as you resort to desperate measures to deny reality, yes. You KNOW you're clinging on to a bogus metric, yet you have the desperation to at least call for a draw.
@shanedk Are you SERIOUS??? LOL! I'm giving you a chance to end this since you conceded that depending on which metric you look at, it would make ANY of the two statements true. You can call the CBO score bogus until you're blue in the face, but until you can get Clinton indicted (which we both know it's not gonna happen) then ANY claims against the CBO score are moot. You know it, I know it. Let's move on.
@destroyOCTS "I'm giving you a chance to end this since you conceded that depending on which metric you look at, it would make ANY of the two statements true. "
No, your inability to understand accounting isn't a valid premise. What does indicting Clinton have to do with the fact you made an erroneous claim?
Yep, the long and short of it is that we haven't had a president since Grover Cleveland who actually did any meaningful cuts to our budget and that the economic boom under both Truman can be attributed to most of our competitors being destroyed by WWII. Historically the GOP has been about big government (Lincoln was a major league Mercantile ideologue) and Democrats sort of joined in on the act later with Woodrow Wilson when he betrayed the Bourbon Democratic platform.
@hellsunicorn Actually, it had more to do with the fact that the war spending ended--the last time there was any meaningful reduction in the budget. Spending was cut 60%, taxes 30%, and 10 million workers came home.
@destroyOCTS In short: Clinton borrowed money from Social Security to paper over the deficit. But despite the fact that this was in fact more debt, he DIDN'T count the debt toward the deficit. So he DID count the revenues as assets, but NOT the debt as liabilities! Could you IMAGINE any private company doing that? Could you imagine how the SEC and the stockholders would go after them for such clearly fraudulent activity?
@shanedk "They're not "playing along," it's how they've ALWAYS done the budget. Clinton just found a way to manipulate it." Clinton didn't invent borrowing from the SS fund. He had a couple of examples before him to learn from. He really should have hidden a trillion or two in "emergency spending" bills! That's how real gangstas roll.
@sinistar99 "Clinton didn't invent borrowing from the SS fund."
But he and the Republican Congress DID come up with the idea of using the money borrowed from SS to pay off Treasury bills, making it appear there was a surplus!
@vspqbd Shane is WHAT? Right? Not really... It's all a matter of perception. Two different set of numbers; two different ways of interpreting them. The fact of the matter is that Gov't standards are different from corporate standards when it comes to how they keep their books. So BOTH statements are true. Is it right for Gov't to "get away" with such accounting "shortcuts"? Probably not. But what can we do about it??? Can we REALLY do anything about it? Nope...
@destroyOCTS "It's all a matter of perception. Two different set of numbers; two different ways of interpreting them."
No matter WHICH set of numbers you use, no matter HOW you interpret them, the INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT of the matter is that the American people WERE saddled with a greater national debt EVERY SINGLE YEAR OF THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION.
@shanedk Shane: The FACT OF THE MATTER is that you can repeat the same thing over and over 'til you turn blue in the face... That will not change the reality of how Gov't keeps it's books. Honestly: Can you do ANYTHING about it?
Now, I'll agree with you on the fact that BOTH Bush and Obama have spent us into oblivion... I really doubt we'll ever recover from all this. Nice talking to y'all.
That's why I asked you TWICE if you remembered my original statement... Would it be too much to ask for you to entertain us on how Clinton spent more than all his predecessors combined when he had SURPLUSES during his years...
@destroyOCTS "Would it be too much to ask for you to entertain us on how Clinton spent more than all his predecessors combined when he had SURPLUSES during his years"
It is mathematically possible if he had more revenue as well.
Of course Clinton had deficits in every one of his years in office.
@destroyOCTS Figures DIRECT from the Treasury: gooDOTgl/tHx2W 09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06 09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86 09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43 09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62 09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34 09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73 09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39 09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32 09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38 See? The debt went UP EACH YEAR! There were NO FUCKING SURPLUSES!!!
@shanedk "The debt went UP EACH YEAR! There were NO FUCKING SURPLUSES!!!" OK I see now why you're so worked up.... You're fighting the "Obama spent more than bla bla bla combined" rubbish. Good luck with that. Keep explaining till you're blue in the face.
@destroyOCTS Here's a good article showing the REAL numbers and the financial gymnastics Clinton and the Republican Congress went through to make it APPEAR there was a surplus: gooDOTgl/qWk8C
@shanedk That's not Clinton saying it... That's out of the CBO report that YOU sent me! Page 9, "Historical Trends". Are you trying to imply that the CBO is wrong when they say that?
@destroyOCTS The CBO doesn't look at off-budget items. READ THE ARTICLE:
"Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intragovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intragovernmental holdings) went up...What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt...by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security)."
@shanedk According to Victor Gold, when the left took over the democratic party in the 70's the old democrats who were pushed out took over the republican party so essentially what we have today is the old democrats vs. the new democrats. You're right though, the vast majority of Goldwater republicans were voters which is why they feed us all the small government lies every election season.
NOW I agree with you! It should never be a question of "smaller" or "bigger" government though. Anything based on such a broad over-simplified vision is absurd. For example if we would just take away the government regulations against, say, child porn --hey less government! That should be good right? Why not let the free market decide if child porn is good or not?
The reason for that is because regulations punish everyone. They are guilty until proven innocent. Fill out the forms to prove you aren't hoarding child porn. Even if there is no problem cause to believe a person has; much less makes any.
@vspqbd While I have to respect the consistency here, the argument fails.. In our system, out of the 1100 or so cases, about half were acquitted or thrown out. What you'd expect from a fair system. So if I were in the woefully unenviable position of being falsely accused I'd much rather be in this system than the alternative --a mob of angry parents with a noose.You can't blame government for guilty until proven innocent.. that's human nature.Only the rule of law has the inverse or even tries.
@sinistar99 "In our system, out of the 1100 or so cases, about half were acquitted or thrown out."
That's only justice if only half of them were innocent. Yet there are MANY people sentenced to a lifetime of Megan's Law whom we KNOW never did anything wrong.
And the mob is still very much at play! Even those who are acquitted find their lives ruined by it.
@sinistar99 The original design is that the federal government handled foreign policy & the states took care of domestic policy. So, child porn would be illegal because no one in the country would allow their state government to legalize it.
@KenMacMillan Oooh that's why they had a federal house and senate and supreme court... to... handle foreign policy only... I suppose Thomas Jefferson's free government funded public university was only to teach foreign policy and only for foreigners. Or maybe Foreigner the band.... "I wanna know what love is..... " Wait... what were we talking about?
@shanedk Woah take it easy there! I did READ IT but not so selectively as you apparently. You know that pesky part in article 1 section 8 where it says:To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper..." You can't tell me that the first 10 amendments had only to do with foreign policy and that congress has no power make laws necessary for carrying into Execution of them. Kind of like that "other duties as needed" at the end of everybody's job description.
@shanedk Hahah calm down! I only used ellipsis because of the limit on characters! Take a zanax or something.
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Got a rational argument or just call me more names? Anti-federalists have been on the loosing end of this provision for 200 years now.
@sinistar99 Yes, operative phrases: "the foregoing Powers" and "all other Powers vested by this Constitution"--it is NOT just carte blanche for them to do whatever! It MUST relate to a power SPECIFICALLY granted by the Constitution!
If it's not in the Constitution, the Federal government CANNOT DO IT! END OF!
@shanedk NOT TRUE! AIRPLANES ARE NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION, however air traffic crosses state lines so the congress is completely within their power to create maintain fund regulate draw little pictures about it make an FAA and good job for them doing it! END OF!
@sinistar99 The Constitution is about PRINCIPLES, NOT specifics. Amazing how many people resort to desperate examples like that.
You know what? Eating food isn't in the Constitution, either! Maybe you don't have a right to eat food! Maybe government can take it away and make you starve!
@shanedk That's exactly what IM SAYING! But it's not about the government "taking" it's about what it gives. People say "it's not the government's job to " this or that and it's ridiculous. The government's job is whatever we want it to be it's our government. It's not a foreign entity it's a machine we created to make our lives better and it's us. And it works so fantastically we can grumble in our historically unprecedented ridiculous amount of comfortable safe free time over nuances.
Maybe we ought to regulate what you can say too, because your voice could cross state lines, and so congress has the power to regulate it too. Maybe they ought to use FCC right upto your mouth and ears. That would be totally justified because we have bit-torrent and it is not 1768, today. (what 1768 or modern technology has to do with rights and privileges... is curiously never specified)
@sinistar99 ""To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,"
So it is your contention that the Necessary and Proper clause literally justifies any law? If it did, why did they bother writing the rest of the Constitution Enumerating other powers.
"Anti-federalists have been on the loosing end of this provision for 200 years now. "
@johnrainrules Is it YOUR contention that we should selectively completely ignore this clause and rigidly pretend it's 1768 and we live in an agrarian society with a hand full or so of states? I'd say yes it literally justifies ANY law such that it fits the criteria of this clause (necessary and proper for carrying into the execution of the foregowing Powers.") After all that's what it says and it's in the constitution.
@sinistar99 "Is it YOUR contention that we should selectively completely ignore this clause and rigidly pretend it's 1768 and we live in an agrarian society with a hand full or so of states?"
It is my contention we don't use a sentence fragment to pretend the constitution somehow means we can detain random people indefinitely and put out cigarettes on their genitals.
"proper for carrying into the execution of the foregowing Powers"
"Is it YOUR contention tha we should selectively completely ignore this clause and rigidly pretend it's 1768 and we live in an agrarian society with a hand full or so of states?"
What about modern society makes it so different? Is theft not theft, that we have iphones? Is rape not rape today because we have hybrid cars? This claim that we don't live in 1768 and so ... whatever the supreme court decides must be true? Whatever Bush or Obama decide to do is okay? whatever congress decides to do is okay?
If this is what you think the constitution is about, then its good that it is being destroyed piece by piece. Such a document is worthlessly evil.
@shanedk .... It's not about Might. . it's about promoting the general welfare and common defense and basic rights according to the will of the people. You're putting strict enumeration of powers over the principles they are trying to uphold as though that's a principle in itself. It isn't. The Preamble is the reason it's all there. The rest is just a practical plan for making it happen the best way they know how.
@shanedk ...And before you continue missing my point entirely it's just that a pedantic Procrustean adherence to your narrow interpretation of a construct made by people who rode horses and buggies and owned slaves is retarded. Still, they were smart enough to add this kind of flexibility even though future idiots wouldn't get it. I don't think it was their intention that basic human rights shouldn't be strong enough to cross state lines. Otherwise why bother with the first 10 amendments?
@shanedk Jefferson argued for state government in favor of federal because and I quote, "...it is impossible to govern from the distance..." Sure when horseback messenger is your fastest form of communication. We can tweet our senators and we have flying machines now. States are useless. I've worked for them trust me.
@shanedk NO! it was about transparency and accountability! Scale? How do you figure? That makes no sense! You're obsessed with "Big or Small" It makes a guy wonder.
@sinistar99 Jefferson believed--and this still holds up today--that people have a far greater say in their local government than in their state government, and in their state government than in the Federal government. THAT is what he was talking about, not how long it took you to get there on a donkey!
@shanedk But distance does matter. I'm not saying it's all that matters of course you have more say in a local government (but the difference isn't nearly as much as it was back then). In fact back then it was impossible. Not just bad or good for Democracy, but completely impossible. Also there are some overall things local governments shouldn't have jurisdiction over. Sorry "The South" and "Utah" but that's how it is and how it should be.
@sinistar99 "I'm not saying it's all that matters of course you have more say in a local government (but the difference isn't nearly as much as it was back then). "
Given the numbers involved it is actually worse.
"Also there are some overall things local governments shouldn't have jurisdiction over."
9th and 10th amendments. And there are things no government should have jurisdiction over.
@shanedk AND YES it was about distance! Jefferson really had a problem with certain kings governing him from a distance. And it wasn't about the scale of the monarchy. It was about representation.
The drug war- The intervention in self-destructive behaviors.
Metacommunication- " Darwin was wrong about 'only the strong survive'. God wants us to save you from yourself."
My response: At $24,000+ a year to imprison a substance abuser, the cost outweighs the benefit to society. Consider, I am not including the costs of rehabilitation! I believe the drug war picks on the weak. I find this intervention in the natural order counterproductive and narcissistic, which seem to go hand in hand.
@destroyOCTS You could say that about Bush and ANY President before them! That's what an exponential growth curve looks like--no matter where you are on it! Bush spent more than all of the ones before him, Clinton spent more than all the ones before him, etc., etc., etc.
Until you get rid of this bogus partisan dogma we will NEVER fix the problem, and the next President--REGARDLESS of whether he's a Democrat or Republican--will spend more than the ones that came before him.
@shanedk Here's where you will mess up with your rhetorical stuff... Please ADMIT that what I stated before is not your typical rhetoric, but FACTUAL and then we'll continue our discussion. Until then, so long.
@destroyOCTS No, it's misleading because you made out like Obama was somehow different. He's NOT. As long as growth continues exponentially, it will look like that NO MATTER WHICH PARTY IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE. That's what an exponential growth curve looks like--and it looks like that NO MATTER WHAT POINT YOU ARE IN IT.
@destroyOCTS He has, and the CBO's show exactly what he just said. Every president spends more than all of the ones before. Of course they don't all pretend they are for a smaller government.
Chart out the figures under the column "outlays." You'll see that, since the "Great Society" of the late 1960s, it's pretty much an exponential curve the whole way! There's a bit of a bump in the '80s for Reagan's spending, and then one in the mid-2000s leading up to the housing crisis, but aside from those very minor deviations it's a classic exponential growth curve!
@destroyOCTS Look at Shane's video on What Should Be Done About the Economy where he shows how Bush and Obama follow the same policies of big government with the same result.
@johnrainrules Could you explain to me how the video that you referenced to explains this flawed theory by shanedk??? He claims that since our growth is exponential, every White House incumbent has SPENT more than his predecessor? Please try to apply this theory to the Clinton years.
@destroyOCTS "He claims that since our growth is exponential, every White House incumbent has SPENT more than his predecessor? Please try to apply this theory to the Clinton years."
According to the VERY SAME CBO LINK I just gave you, spending his first fiscal year was $1,258.7 billion, ending with $1,991.4 billion--over 36% MORE than his predecessor!
@destroyOCTS Do you remember his response? Do you think that might save you some time from going over the same thing over and over again to cover up the fact you don't have an argument?
@destroyOCTS Obama and Clinton increased it by pretty much the same exponential degree, as the growth curve shows. YOU tried to claim that Obama was somehow unique in this; HE ISN'T. When you were called out as being wrong on this, you dropped the combined; now when you're STILL shown to be wrong you put it back in. It's like arguing with a particularly stupid creationist!
@destroyOCTS "I dropped the "combined"??? Just Now??? Really??? You, sir are a Joke!"
Here's your later claim: "He claims that since our growth is exponential, every White House incumbent has SPENT more than his predecessor? Please try to apply this theory to the Clinton years."
YES, you dropped the "combined"! Seems like YOU'RE the joke...
@destroyOCTS Do you remember why your original statement was a lame attempt to excuse Bush's socialism by using other presidents faults. If a President kills a hooker can he claim another one killed two.
@destroyOCTS"Could you explain to me how the video that you referenced to explains this flawed theory by shanedk" Did they change the definition of flawed to mean true 100% of the time?
"? He claims that since our growth is exponential, every White House incumbent has SPENT more than his predecessor? Please try to apply this theory to the Clinton years."
Clinton spent more than Bush Sr., Bush Jr. spent more than Clinton, Obama spent more than Bush Jr. It's really complicated.
Republicans today are pretty stupid. If they had supported OWS it would have been a success and bankers and lobbyists would have been arrested and a clear message for any further attempts of similar crimes.
But no, they heard FOX say they were "lefties" and "dirty hippies" and then they hid their children and wet their own pants out of despair.
@theawesomebeliever What justification is there for arresting the bankers and lobbyists without also arresting or at least impeaching the politicians without whom they wouldn't have been able to do ANY of that? The power and corruption originated from the politicians; leaving them blame-free will NOT solve the problem.
@theawesomebeliever "If the conservatives had joined this could have been solved by now, just look at how SOPA went down fast."
The conservatives and libertarians I know who tried (myself included, as well as John Stossel and many prominent ones) got SCREAMED out of the movement by people calling them greedy liars!
@shanedk Do you mean on the OWS protest or the Union created acts claiming for a revolution? As I said here before (and in some of my videos) was that the left tried to claim the movement as theirs, I was one of the people trying to bring awareness to this fact, and it seems to have worked as police officers and marines joined the efforts.
And if you are doing the right thing you shoud never be cowered back, because this is what socialist try to do.
@theawesomebeliever "Anonymous also wanted the big gov punished on their manifesto calling for the protest on Wall Street, did you not read all I wrote just below?"
I was talking about OWS, not Anonymous. You didn't even MENTION Anonymous in that post!
The hideously destructive Title IX? You were making sense up to that point. I'm glad I'm not beholden to any one particular ideology, because as attractive as libertarianism is on the one hand, it would be impossible to maintain as a society. You've got to take the best ideas, debate them vigorously, and then have the courage to act on them. Civil Rights legislation was a necessary legislation at the time--one of several actions that kept our social structure from imploding.
@crazispeedemon Title IX has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for civil rights, but has decimated college sports and cost them innumerable income. The only civil rights legislation we needed was to just get rid of the Jim Crow laws. Government is the CAUSE of segregation, so saying we needed it as the solution is just insane!
Libertarian is the only party truly for small government
ddkk1000 4 days ago
This video tells it like it is! Thank you! I'm so sick of Republicans playing their phony-ass bullshit about being for smaller government. I know I don't deserve to be screwed by stupid Republicans every election because I don't vote for the damn fools, but I feel like all the suckers who do vote for them because they feel the Democrats are worse DO deserve to get fucked over and over again. As long as people keep voting Republican, I say let the morons keep suffering.
heartthrobbk 1 week ago
Where do you get your statistics? I don't necessarily doubt that what you're saying is true; I just don't know where to look. Office of Management and Budget?
IJUSTLOVETURTLES 2 weeks ago
@IJUSTLOVETURTLES usgovernmentspendingDOTcom.
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@shanedk In the 19th century the Democrats were the party of limited government whereas the GOP was the Federalist & Whig heir to big governmentalism. I agree with you about Cleveland and the deplorable "Honest Abe" and most of your other evaluations although I'd probably would've given Hayes and Arthur a much better score. Libertarian historian Ivan Eland wrote a great book of presidential ratings called Recarving Rushmore in which he turn the standard ratings system on its head.
sleedolfine15 13 hours ago
@sleedolfine15 "I'd probably would've given Hayes and Arthur a much better score."
They still raised the tariffs, expanded the scope of government, and left it bigger than they found it. You can say that they're head and shoulders above any of today's politicians (save Ron Paul), but that's a fairly low bar.
shanedk 10 hours ago
The president isn't King of the Country... that's what people fail to understand. In my opinion, republics FAIL because they let every Tom, Dick, and Harry vote (even if they don't exist); from all walks of life and from varying levels of intelligence.
The problem with our republic is that the smartest man's vote is worth exactly as much as the dumbest man's vote. People don't vote for skill for a job anymore, they vote for the popular politician. Fair and Equality spells DOOM for this country.
Boss5414 1 month ago
@Boss5414 ...Actually google the phrase "wisdom of the crowds" it's scientifically proven that as a group, people are actually pretty smart. Plus we don't have a straight up popular vote on anything because of the tyranny of the majority (pure democracy is gang rape --5 people say "yes" one person says "no".
sinistar99 1 month ago
@sinistar99 Does everyone vote? Can people be manipulated? Do people put competence over party?
Citing one thing and ignoring all the rest is ignorant... plus I didn't state that we should have a pure democracy. I'm just showing a point that people are manipulated. I challenge you to find ONE political news website/station that is not biased!
Boss5414 1 month ago
Better yet: Since when has Gov't had the obligation to be cost-effective???
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS Better yet since it was your claim isn't it your obligation, not the Governments to make sure you aren't talking out of your ass?
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules I'm not making the claim. Go take YOUR bitch fit to the CBO.
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS Your claim was based on the CBO figures you can't read. But then you do have to lie and twist figures for your weird political dogma.
These are positions that can't be held honestly.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
Let's call it the "Clinton did, but he didn't" paradox.
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS Lets call it the moron didn't do his research and then threw a bitch fit when he was called on his lack of math skills paradox.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules Answer this question HONESTLY: Can the Gov't be held to the same accounting standards as a corporation?
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS Answer this question honestly, if a moron doesn't understand accounting, but still has an opinion about it, what does it matter what accounting standards you use?
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules You are not answering the question... You can call me what you want... That's the beauty of the internet.
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS I don't care about your questions, you've been caught lying numerous times to make your points, and when you are called out on it you attempt to change the subject and goal post shift.
The government is responsible for a lot of things. The fact that you are a liar and a moron isn't among them?
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules I see you have no valid argument... I don't blame you for trying to get rid of me.
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS Funny since your arguments have all been exposed as you lying about CBO reports.
But then a Bush supporter who claims to be for small government is by necessity dishonest.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules That's where you are totally wrong... When did I state that I support Bush?
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS Several times, you also complain that this video was unfair although everything in it was accurate.
But then since honesty isn't a value for you and your a moron you keep trying to change the subject with your "questions".
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules When have I stated all this? Now I wonder who's talking out their ass?
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS How about the guy who keeps getting caught lying and then asks for a "draw".
Now that sounds like creationists.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
So let's call it a draw and finally get out of this revolving door, please.
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS
In debate, a draw is generally when both sides have relevant points, each of which have roughly equal tradeoffs against the other. That's not what's happened here.
What we can call this is you having lied, been caught, and disqualified.
/watch?v=IDcj7KWW8yo
rkyeun 1 month ago
The ONLY way that you could get rid of this CBO score on Clinton's performance is to have the guy indicted and we all know what happened last time... LOL! Listen: I'm not rooting for the guy, but I do care about the facts. Clinton might have swindled the country during his time, but according to the agency that scored his performance, he had budget SURPLUSES in his years. And since the Gov't CANNOT be held to the same accounting standards as corporations, any claims to the contrary are moot.
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS If they were surpluses, then why did the National Debt rise?
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Talk about pathetic, deluded and dogmatist... Are we gonna visit this again?
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS As long as you resort to desperate measures to deny reality, yes. You KNOW you're clinging on to a bogus metric, yet you have the desperation to at least call for a draw.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Are you SERIOUS??? LOL! I'm giving you a chance to end this since you conceded that depending on which metric you look at, it would make ANY of the two statements true. You can call the CBO score bogus until you're blue in the face, but until you can get Clinton indicted (which we both know it's not gonna happen) then ANY claims against the CBO score are moot. You know it, I know it. Let's move on.
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS "I'm giving you a chance to end this since you conceded that depending on which metric you look at, it would make ANY of the two statements true. "
No, your inability to understand accounting isn't a valid premise. What does indicting Clinton have to do with the fact you made an erroneous claim?
johnrainrules 1 month ago
This reminds me of the "Chicken and the egg"... Can we call it a draw? Because that's the only mature thing we can do here.
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS "Can we call it a draw?"
It's not really a draw when one side cheats, is it?
shanedk 1 month ago
Yep, the long and short of it is that we haven't had a president since Grover Cleveland who actually did any meaningful cuts to our budget and that the economic boom under both Truman can be attributed to most of our competitors being destroyed by WWII. Historically the GOP has been about big government (Lincoln was a major league Mercantile ideologue) and Democrats sort of joined in on the act later with Woodrow Wilson when he betrayed the Bourbon Democratic platform.
hellsunicorn 1 month ago
@hellsunicorn Actually, it had more to do with the fact that the war spending ended--the last time there was any meaningful reduction in the budget. Spending was cut 60%, taxes 30%, and 10 million workers came home.
shanedk 1 month ago
"After peaking at $290 billion in 1992,
deficits declined each year, dropping to a
level of $22 billion in 1997. In 1998, the
Nation recorded its first budget surplus ($69.3
billion) since 1969. As a percent of GDP,
the budget bottom line went from a deficit
of 4.7% in 1992 to a surplus of 0.8% in
1998, increasing to a 2.4% surplus in 2000." What's this about? (And that's your own source... LOL!)
destroyOCTS 1 month ago 2
@destroyOCTS The CBO does NOT take into account off-budget items. Did you read the article I sent you or not?
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk I glanced at it... Who's right?
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS The article explains EXACTLY what Clinton did and why it doesn't show up in the CBO figures.
Note that in the table there's no column for intragovernmental holdings.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk One step at a time... The problem here is that we are looking at 2 different sets of numbers.
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS The problem is that there ARE two sets of numbers!
shanedk 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS In short: Clinton borrowed money from Social Security to paper over the deficit. But despite the fact that this was in fact more debt, he DIDN'T count the debt toward the deficit. So he DID count the revenues as assets, but NOT the debt as liabilities! Could you IMAGINE any private company doing that? Could you imagine how the SEC and the stockholders would go after them for such clearly fraudulent activity?
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Then, would you care to entertain on WHY the CBO would play along on this?
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS They're not "playing along," it's how they've ALWAYS done the budget. Clinton just found a way to manipulate it.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk So, depending on which set of numbers you look at, it will make any of the two statements true.
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS Yes, but the only number that REALLY matters is, did the National Debt increase? And yes, it absolutely did!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "They're not "playing along," it's how they've ALWAYS done the budget. Clinton just found a way to manipulate it." Clinton didn't invent borrowing from the SS fund. He had a couple of examples before him to learn from. He really should have hidden a trillion or two in "emergency spending" bills! That's how real gangstas roll.
sinistar99 1 month ago
@sinistar99 "Clinton didn't invent borrowing from the SS fund."
But he and the Republican Congress DID come up with the idea of using the money borrowed from SS to pay off Treasury bills, making it appear there was a surplus!
shanedk 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS
Shane is.
vspqbd 1 month ago
@vspqbd Shane is WHAT? Right? Not really... It's all a matter of perception. Two different set of numbers; two different ways of interpreting them. The fact of the matter is that Gov't standards are different from corporate standards when it comes to how they keep their books. So BOTH statements are true. Is it right for Gov't to "get away" with such accounting "shortcuts"? Probably not. But what can we do about it??? Can we REALLY do anything about it? Nope...
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS "It's all a matter of perception. Two different set of numbers; two different ways of interpreting them."
No matter WHICH set of numbers you use, no matter HOW you interpret them, the INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT of the matter is that the American people WERE saddled with a greater national debt EVERY SINGLE YEAR OF THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION.
DEAL with it.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Shane: The FACT OF THE MATTER is that you can repeat the same thing over and over 'til you turn blue in the face... That will not change the reality of how Gov't keeps it's books. Honestly: Can you do ANYTHING about it?
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS
Oh, sweet irony.
vspqbd 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS Just stop insisting that Clinton ran a surplus when he DIDN'T. According to the formula the GAO uses, they absolutely were deficits!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk That's what hurts you, right? The CBO figures say otherwise. And you can't deny that FACT in it's entirety, can you?
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS The CBO figures DO NOT INCLUDE EVERYTHING!!! What's it going to take to get that fact into your pathetic, deluded dogmatist mind???
shanedk 1 month ago
Now, I'll agree with you on the fact that BOTH Bush and Obama have spent us into oblivion... I really doubt we'll ever recover from all this. Nice talking to y'all.
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS "I'll agree with you on the fact that BOTH Bush and Obama have spent us into oblivion"
Yup, that's what happens when you have a two party system where both parties are committed to government growth.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
Not gonna lie, Shane, the amount of partisan bullshit in the comments is rather unnerving.
They do realize you're not a liberal OR a conservative, right?
You're a Libertarian.
vspqbd 1 month ago
That's why I asked you TWICE if you remembered my original statement... Would it be too much to ask for you to entertain us on how Clinton spent more than all his predecessors combined when he had SURPLUSES during his years...
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS LOL!
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS "Would it be too much to ask for you to entertain us on how Clinton spent more than all his predecessors combined when he had SURPLUSES during his years"
It is mathematically possible if he had more revenue as well.
Of course Clinton had deficits in every one of his years in office.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS Clinton had NO surpluses. Stop with the lies and propaganda.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Clinton had NO SURPLUSES??? I'll give you 1 chance to take that sorry excuse of a statement back.
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
shanedk 1 month ago
I tried three times to format that post as a table and YouTube won't play along. Still, you can see the numbers going up, up, up each and every year!
Your Holy Saint Clinton LIED ABOUT THE SURPLUS. DEAL with it.
shanedk 1 month ago
Comment removed
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@shanedk "The debt went UP EACH YEAR! There were NO FUCKING SURPLUSES!!!" OK I see now why you're so worked up.... You're fighting the "Obama spent more than bla bla bla combined" rubbish. Good luck with that. Keep explaining till you're blue in the face.
sinistar99 1 month ago
@sinistar99 No, I'm responding to the LIE that Clinton ran a surplus. And it's "indignant," not "worked up."
shanedk 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS Here's a good article showing the REAL numbers and the financial gymnastics Clinton and the Republican Congress went through to make it APPEAR there was a surplus: gooDOTgl/qWk8C
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk That's not Clinton saying it... That's out of the CBO report that YOU sent me! Page 9, "Historical Trends". Are you trying to imply that the CBO is wrong when they say that?
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS The CBO doesn't look at off-budget items. READ THE ARTICLE:
"Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intragovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intragovernmental holdings) went up...What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt...by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security)."
shanedk 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS And you still haven't shown that Obama has spent more than every other President COMBINED, so your latest insane rant is just that.
shanedk 1 month ago
"Now, let's discuss how Obama has spent more than ALL of these COMBINED! LOL!" Wasn't this my ORIGINAL statement??? Can you say: CHECKMATE???
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
Israel supported Hamas.
KenMacMillan 1 month ago
The Goldwater republicans were for smaller government.
KenMacMillan 1 month ago
@KenMacMillan There weren't many of them.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk According to Victor Gold, when the left took over the democratic party in the 70's the old democrats who were pushed out took over the republican party so essentially what we have today is the old democrats vs. the new democrats. You're right though, the vast majority of Goldwater republicans were voters which is why they feed us all the small government lies every election season.
KenMacMillan 1 month ago
NOW I agree with you! It should never be a question of "smaller" or "bigger" government though. Anything based on such a broad over-simplified vision is absurd. For example if we would just take away the government regulations against, say, child porn --hey less government! That should be good right? Why not let the free market decide if child porn is good or not?
sinistar99 1 month ago
@sinistar99
Actually, yes, that would be a good thing.
(Waits for you to finish shitting your pants)
The reason for that is because regulations punish everyone. They are guilty until proven innocent. Fill out the forms to prove you aren't hoarding child porn. Even if there is no problem cause to believe a person has; much less makes any.
vspqbd 1 month ago
@vspqbd While I have to respect the consistency here, the argument fails.. In our system, out of the 1100 or so cases, about half were acquitted or thrown out. What you'd expect from a fair system. So if I were in the woefully unenviable position of being falsely accused I'd much rather be in this system than the alternative --a mob of angry parents with a noose.You can't blame government for guilty until proven innocent.. that's human nature.Only the rule of law has the inverse or even tries.
sinistar99 1 month ago
@sinistar99 "In our system, out of the 1100 or so cases, about half were acquitted or thrown out."
That's only justice if only half of them were innocent. Yet there are MANY people sentenced to a lifetime of Megan's Law whom we KNOW never did anything wrong.
And the mob is still very much at play! Even those who are acquitted find their lives ruined by it.
shanedk 1 month ago
@sinistar99 The original design is that the federal government handled foreign policy & the states took care of domestic policy. So, child porn would be illegal because no one in the country would allow their state government to legalize it.
KenMacMillan 1 month ago
@KenMacMillan Oooh that's why they had a federal house and senate and supreme court... to... handle foreign policy only... I suppose Thomas Jefferson's free government funded public university was only to teach foreign policy and only for foreigners. Or maybe Foreigner the band.... "I wanna know what love is..... " Wait... what were we talking about?
sinistar99 1 month ago
@sinistar99 "Oooh that's why they had a federal house and senate and supreme court... to... handle foreign policy only..."
The Constitution says what they're for. READ IT.
"I suppose Thomas Jefferson's free government funded public university"
Funded by the STATE OF VIRGINIA, NOT the Federal government. And even then it gets less than half its funding from the state!
MORON.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Woah take it easy there! I did READ IT but not so selectively as you apparently. You know that pesky part in article 1 section 8 where it says:To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper..." You can't tell me that the first 10 amendments had only to do with foreign policy and that congress has no power make laws necessary for carrying into Execution of them. Kind of like that "other duties as needed" at the end of everybody's job description.
sinistar99 1 month ago
@sinistar99 "I did READ IT but not so selectively as you apparently."
YOU are clearly the one reading selectively. I read the WHOLE THING; you apparently just wanted to glean what you wanted out of the text.
"You know that pesky part in article 1 section 8 where it says:To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper...""
WHAT DID IT SAY AFTER THE ELLIPSIS, LIAR???
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Hahah calm down! I only used ellipsis because of the limit on characters! Take a zanax or something.
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Got a rational argument or just call me more names? Anti-federalists have been on the loosing end of this provision for 200 years now.
sinistar99 1 month ago
@sinistar99 Yes, operative phrases: "the foregoing Powers" and "all other Powers vested by this Constitution"--it is NOT just carte blanche for them to do whatever! It MUST relate to a power SPECIFICALLY granted by the Constitution!
If it's not in the Constitution, the Federal government CANNOT DO IT! END OF!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
That's the bit of enumerated powers iirc.
vspqbd 1 month ago
@shanedk NOT TRUE! AIRPLANES ARE NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION, however air traffic crosses state lines so the congress is completely within their power to create maintain fund regulate draw little pictures about it make an FAA and good job for them doing it! END OF!
sinistar99 1 month ago
@sinistar99 The Constitution is about PRINCIPLES, NOT specifics. Amazing how many people resort to desperate examples like that.
You know what? Eating food isn't in the Constitution, either! Maybe you don't have a right to eat food! Maybe government can take it away and make you starve!
MORON.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk That's exactly what IM SAYING! But it's not about the government "taking" it's about what it gives. People say "it's not the government's job to " this or that and it's ridiculous. The government's job is whatever we want it to be it's our government. It's not a foreign entity it's a machine we created to make our lives better and it's us. And it works so fantastically we can grumble in our historically unprecedented ridiculous amount of comfortable safe free time over nuances.
sinistar99 1 month ago
@sinistar99 "The government's job is whatever we want it to be it's our government."
No, that's that "social contract" garbage again.
And you claiming that it works is just hilarious!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
The Social Contract: Justifying tyranny since 500 BCE.
vspqbd 1 month ago
@sinistar99 "That's exactly what IM SAYING! But it's not about the government "taking" it's about what it gives."
A bunch of corpses in the Middle East?
"The government's job is whatever we want it to be"
Even if that were true, we doesn't mean you.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@sinistar99
Maybe we ought to regulate what you can say too, because your voice could cross state lines, and so congress has the power to regulate it too. Maybe they ought to use FCC right upto your mouth and ears. That would be totally justified because we have bit-torrent and it is not 1768, today. (what 1768 or modern technology has to do with rights and privileges... is curiously never specified)
utubehayter 1 month ago
@sinistar99 ""To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,"
So it is your contention that the Necessary and Proper clause literally justifies any law? If it did, why did they bother writing the rest of the Constitution Enumerating other powers.
"Anti-federalists have been on the loosing end of this provision for 200 years now. "
Never heard of the War of 1812?
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules Is it YOUR contention that we should selectively completely ignore this clause and rigidly pretend it's 1768 and we live in an agrarian society with a hand full or so of states? I'd say yes it literally justifies ANY law such that it fits the criteria of this clause (necessary and proper for carrying into the execution of the foregowing Powers.") After all that's what it says and it's in the constitution.
sinistar99 1 month ago
@sinistar99 "Is it YOUR contention that we should selectively completely ignore this clause and rigidly pretend it's 1768 and we live in an agrarian society with a hand full or so of states?"
It is my contention we don't use a sentence fragment to pretend the constitution somehow means we can detain random people indefinitely and put out cigarettes on their genitals.
"proper for carrying into the execution of the foregowing Powers"
Foregoing means specifically enumerated.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@sinistar99
"Is it YOUR contention tha we should selectively completely ignore this clause and rigidly pretend it's 1768 and we live in an agrarian society with a hand full or so of states?"
Appeal from time (argumentum ad tempus)
vspqbd 1 month ago
@sinistar99
What about modern society makes it so different? Is theft not theft, that we have iphones? Is rape not rape today because we have hybrid cars? This claim that we don't live in 1768 and so ... whatever the supreme court decides must be true? Whatever Bush or Obama decide to do is okay? whatever congress decides to do is okay?
If this is what you think the constitution is about, then its good that it is being destroyed piece by piece. Such a document is worthlessly evil.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@sinistar99 "Anti-federalists have been on the loosing end of this provision for 200 years now."
Yeah, because might makes right, principles be damned!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk .... It's not about Might. . it's about promoting the general welfare and common defense and basic rights according to the will of the people. You're putting strict enumeration of powers over the principles they are trying to uphold as though that's a principle in itself. It isn't. The Preamble is the reason it's all there. The rest is just a practical plan for making it happen the best way they know how.
sinistar99 1 month ago
@sinistar99 "You're putting strict enumeration of powers over the principles they are trying to uphold as though that's a principle in itself."
Uh yes, strictly enumerated powers was a principle of the Constitution.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@shanedk ...And before you continue missing my point entirely it's just that a pedantic Procrustean adherence to your narrow interpretation of a construct made by people who rode horses and buggies and owned slaves is retarded. Still, they were smart enough to add this kind of flexibility even though future idiots wouldn't get it. I don't think it was their intention that basic human rights shouldn't be strong enough to cross state lines. Otherwise why bother with the first 10 amendments?
sinistar99 1 month ago
@sinistar99 And it would be untrue if I denied that I wasn't not sorry about the double negatives in that last post!
sinistar99 1 month ago
@sinistar99 Yeah, what does that 10th Amendment say again?
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Jefferson argued for state government in favor of federal because and I quote, "...it is impossible to govern from the distance..." Sure when horseback messenger is your fastest form of communication. We can tweet our senators and we have flying machines now. States are useless. I've worked for them trust me.
sinistar99 1 month ago
@sinistar99 It's not about distance, it's about scale--and Jefferson was VERY clear on that point! So you're lying about him, too!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk NO! it was about transparency and accountability! Scale? How do you figure? That makes no sense! You're obsessed with "Big or Small" It makes a guy wonder.
sinistar99 1 month ago
@sinistar99 Jefferson believed--and this still holds up today--that people have a far greater say in their local government than in their state government, and in their state government than in the Federal government. THAT is what he was talking about, not how long it took you to get there on a donkey!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk But distance does matter. I'm not saying it's all that matters of course you have more say in a local government (but the difference isn't nearly as much as it was back then). In fact back then it was impossible. Not just bad or good for Democracy, but completely impossible. Also there are some overall things local governments shouldn't have jurisdiction over. Sorry "The South" and "Utah" but that's how it is and how it should be.
sinistar99 1 month ago
@sinistar99 "I'm not saying it's all that matters of course you have more say in a local government (but the difference isn't nearly as much as it was back then). "
Given the numbers involved it is actually worse.
"Also there are some overall things local governments shouldn't have jurisdiction over."
9th and 10th amendments. And there are things no government should have jurisdiction over.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@shanedk AND YES it was about distance! Jefferson really had a problem with certain kings governing him from a distance. And it wasn't about the scale of the monarchy. It was about representation.
sinistar99 1 month ago
Comment removed
Boss5414 1 month ago
The drug war- The intervention in self-destructive behaviors.
Metacommunication- " Darwin was wrong about 'only the strong survive'. God wants us to save you from yourself."
My response: At $24,000+ a year to imprison a substance abuser, the cost outweighs the benefit to society. Consider, I am not including the costs of rehabilitation! I believe the drug war picks on the weak. I find this intervention in the natural order counterproductive and narcissistic, which seem to go hand in hand.
riverlioness 1 month ago
To FDRs credit he was for free trade and he ended alcohol prohibition,the only good things FDR did domestically.
fenderboy88 1 month ago
Now, let's discuss how Obama has spent more than ALL of these COMBINED! LOL!
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS You could say that about Bush and ANY President before them! That's what an exponential growth curve looks like--no matter where you are on it! Bush spent more than all of the ones before him, Clinton spent more than all the ones before him, etc., etc., etc.
Until you get rid of this bogus partisan dogma we will NEVER fix the problem, and the next President--REGARDLESS of whether he's a Democrat or Republican--will spend more than the ones that came before him.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Here's where you will mess up with your rhetorical stuff... Please ADMIT that what I stated before is not your typical rhetoric, but FACTUAL and then we'll continue our discussion. Until then, so long.
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS No, it's misleading because you made out like Obama was somehow different. He's NOT. As long as growth continues exponentially, it will look like that NO MATTER WHICH PARTY IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE. That's what an exponential growth curve looks like--and it looks like that NO MATTER WHAT POINT YOU ARE IN IT.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Let's do this: Use the CBO's figures... Make a video using those figures... Simple.
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS He has, and the CBO's show exactly what he just said. Every president spends more than all of the ones before. Of course they don't all pretend they are for a smaller government.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS Do it yourself: gooDOTgl/e4gMw
Chart out the figures under the column "outlays." You'll see that, since the "Great Society" of the late 1960s, it's pretty much an exponential curve the whole way! There's a bit of a bump in the '80s for Reagan's spending, and then one in the mid-2000s leading up to the housing crisis, but aside from those very minor deviations it's a classic exponential growth curve!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk And I wonder how you would apply this "NO MATTER WHAT POINT YOU ARE IN IT" theory in the Clinton years...
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS Look at Shane's video on What Should Be Done About the Economy where he shows how Bush and Obama follow the same policies of big government with the same result.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules Could you explain to me how the video that you referenced to explains this flawed theory by shanedk??? He claims that since our growth is exponential, every White House incumbent has SPENT more than his predecessor? Please try to apply this theory to the Clinton years.
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS "He claims that since our growth is exponential, every White House incumbent has SPENT more than his predecessor? Please try to apply this theory to the Clinton years."
According to the VERY SAME CBO LINK I just gave you, spending his first fiscal year was $1,258.7 billion, ending with $1,991.4 billion--over 36% MORE than his predecessor!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk PM me the link. Now, Let's not mix up the Gov't expenditure figures with the GDP...
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS "PM me the link."
Copy and paste the link he provided you, but replace the "DOT" with a "."
vspqbd 1 month ago
@vspqbd I mean really, is it THAT difficult?
shanedk 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS As I told you, it's the column labeled "Outlays." That's GovCo spending.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk I will ask you again: Do you remember what my original statement was?
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS Do you remember his response? Do you think that might save you some time from going over the same thing over and over again to cover up the fact you don't have an argument?
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules Listen: You just have to be careful with blanket statements...
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS "Listen: You just have to be careful with blanket statements..."
You're one to talk.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS Yes; do you remember my response to it?
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Can you HONESTLY say that Clinton spent more that EVERY OTHER President COMBINED???
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS Obama and Clinton increased it by pretty much the same exponential degree, as the growth curve shows. YOU tried to claim that Obama was somehow unique in this; HE ISN'T. When you were called out as being wrong on this, you dropped the combined; now when you're STILL shown to be wrong you put it back in. It's like arguing with a particularly stupid creationist!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk I dropped the "combined"??? Just Now??? Really??? You, sir are a Joke!
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS "I dropped the "combined"??? Just Now??? Really??? You, sir are a Joke!"
Here's your later claim: "He claims that since our growth is exponential, every White House incumbent has SPENT more than his predecessor? Please try to apply this theory to the Clinton years."
YES, you dropped the "combined"! Seems like YOU'RE the joke...
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk And STICK to Gov't expenditures, please...
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS
"And STICK to Gov't expenditures, please..."
When isn't he?
vspqbd 1 month ago
@shanedk Now, Do you remember what my original statement was?
destroyOCTS 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS Do you remember why your original statement was a lame attempt to excuse Bush's socialism by using other presidents faults. If a President kills a hooker can he claim another one killed two.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@destroyOCTS"Could you explain to me how the video that you referenced to explains this flawed theory by shanedk" Did they change the definition of flawed to mean true 100% of the time?
"? He claims that since our growth is exponential, every White House incumbent has SPENT more than his predecessor? Please try to apply this theory to the Clinton years."
Clinton spent more than Bush Sr., Bush Jr. spent more than Clinton, Obama spent more than Bush Jr. It's really complicated.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
Didn't Reagan also raise farm subsidies also?
waterhead001 1 month ago
@waterhead001 He did LOTS of things that wouldn't fit in the video.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Wow! Good video, very imformative. Thanks.
waterhead001 1 month ago
Republicans today are pretty stupid. If they had supported OWS it would have been a success and bankers and lobbyists would have been arrested and a clear message for any further attempts of similar crimes.
But no, they heard FOX say they were "lefties" and "dirty hippies" and then they hid their children and wet their own pants out of despair.
Republicans today are pathetic.
theawesomebeliever 1 month ago
@theawesomebeliever What justification is there for arresting the bankers and lobbyists without also arresting or at least impeaching the politicians without whom they wouldn't have been able to do ANY of that? The power and corruption originated from the politicians; leaving them blame-free will NOT solve the problem.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk what justification?
Anonymous also wanted the big gov punished on their manifesto calling for the protest on Wall Street, did you not read all I wrote just below?
The responsible involved to be put in jail.
I never said lobbyists were to be left blame free, check my videos if you did not read what already wrote in here. :)
If the conservatives had joined this could have been solved by now, just look at how SOPA went down fast.
This was what Anonymous wanted to do with OWS.
theawesomebeliever 1 month ago
@theawesomebeliever "If the conservatives had joined this could have been solved by now, just look at how SOPA went down fast."
The conservatives and libertarians I know who tried (myself included, as well as John Stossel and many prominent ones) got SCREAMED out of the movement by people calling them greedy liars!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Do you mean on the OWS protest or the Union created acts claiming for a revolution? As I said here before (and in some of my videos) was that the left tried to claim the movement as theirs, I was one of the people trying to bring awareness to this fact, and it seems to have worked as police officers and marines joined the efforts.
And if you are doing the right thing you shoud never be cowered back, because this is what socialist try to do.
Assuming what you say is true.
theawesomebeliever 1 month ago
@theawesomebeliever There's video of it happening. It's true.
shanedk 1 month ago
@theawesomebeliever "Anonymous also wanted the big gov punished on their manifesto calling for the protest on Wall Street, did you not read all I wrote just below?"
I was talking about OWS, not Anonymous. You didn't even MENTION Anonymous in that post!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk If you did not know who called for OWS I dont blame you.
They had announced it weeks before the event - they are the ones who set the date, I thought it was a well known fact by now.
Ah the left, always trying to take credit for other people's work. :)
theawesomebeliever 1 month ago
I think you should do some research about the Afganistan thing and the Soviet Union parts, but aside from that this video appears to be sound.
xxpeniskingxx 1 month ago
Screen froze at 14 seconds. I am so happy at this moment I have slow internet
vaderman003 1 month ago
@vaderman003 Try dropping the resolution.
shanedk 1 month ago
The hideously destructive Title IX? You were making sense up to that point. I'm glad I'm not beholden to any one particular ideology, because as attractive as libertarianism is on the one hand, it would be impossible to maintain as a society. You've got to take the best ideas, debate them vigorously, and then have the courage to act on them. Civil Rights legislation was a necessary legislation at the time--one of several actions that kept our social structure from imploding.
crazispeedemon 1 month ago
@crazispeedemon Title IX has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for civil rights, but has decimated college sports and cost them innumerable income. The only civil rights legislation we needed was to just get rid of the Jim Crow laws. Government is the CAUSE of segregation, so saying we needed it as the solution is just insane!
shanedk 1 month ago