If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CATO Institute)   Republicans: Obama's first fiscal year shows record high spending, see how fiscally irresponsible he is? Libertarians: Actually, 96% of it was Bush's spending, you unprincipled hacks   (cato-at-liberty.org) divider line 431
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

5915 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Nov 2009 at 6:30 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



431 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-11-29 04:44:17 PM
blog.mrhacks.com

/obligatory
 
2009-11-29 04:47:08 PM
Even the libertarians get it right once in a while. It reminds me why I maintain the "L" on my voter registration.
 
2009-11-29 04:49:29 PM
I recall the thread yesterday griping about how much of a GOP rag CATO is.
 
2009-11-29 04:56:34 PM
img402.imageshack.us
 
2009-11-29 04:59:44 PM
Barakku: I recall the thread yesterday griping about how much of a GOP rag CATO is.

You'll be one of the few that remembers it for this thread.
 
2009-11-29 05:04:00 PM
UNC_Samurai: Even the libertarians get it right once in a while. It reminds me why I maintain the "L" on my voter registration.

Within the broader libertarian movement (Cato, Reason, IHS, Free State Project, Campaign for Liberty, etc.), the LP is actually something of a backwater. It'll limp along forever probably, but it's not really where any of the energy is. Duverger's law pretty much dooms them as long as the electoral system remains the same.
 
2009-11-29 05:05:05 PM
Yeah but that additional 4% destroyed the country as we know it. Forever.
 
2009-11-29 05:08:46 PM
Eyebleach: Barakku: I recall the thread yesterday griping about how much of a GOP rag CATO is.

You'll be one of the few that remembers it for this thread.


No he won't.
 
2009-11-29 05:12:54 PM
I guess I'm still not understanding how the stimulus was Bush's decision. but... OK.
 
2009-11-29 05:15:26 PM
homeschooled: I guess I'm still not understanding how the stimulus was Bush's decision. but... OK.

start here.
 
2009-11-29 05:22:48 PM
Boy I sure am glad that no Democrats in congress voted for the stimulus when Bush was president. That would just look bad. I wasn't aware that the President could authorize appropriations.

/end sarcasm

Stupid azz partisan finger pointing is getting ridiculous. There is plenty of blame to go around. Most of it goes to a citizenry that runs around wanting something for nothing and politicians that are more than willing to give it to them.
 
2009-11-29 05:24:27 PM
homeschooled: I guess I'm still not understanding how the stimulus was Bush's decision. but... OK.

Guess you should have gone to an actual school then.
 
2009-11-29 05:24:39 PM
Are we supposed to be praising CATO for not lying blatantly? Really?
 
2009-11-29 05:29:45 PM
 
2009-11-29 05:36:02 PM
Meh. I still don't really care much what the Cato Institute has to say.
 
2009-11-29 05:41:00 PM
Relatively Obscure: Meh. I still don't really care much what the Cato Institute has to say.

you cared enough to post that you don't care. interesting. do you post that you don't own a TV in threads about TV shows, too?
 
2009-11-29 05:44:20 PM
homeschooled: I guess I'm still not understanding how the stimulus was Bush's decision. but... OK.

What's it like having the memory of a gnat?
 
2009-11-29 05:47:07 PM
Too many Republicans went into hiding among the Libertarians when things got ugly, now we have to decide if it's worth trying to sort out the ok folks from the tainted ones.

Personally, I doubt it's cost effective. Just nuke them from orbit and we can start over with a new conservative party in a few years.
 
2009-11-29 05:50:41 PM
Weaver95: homeschooled: I guess I'm still not understanding how the stimulus was Bush's decision. but... OK.

start here.


There's a big difference between that, and this (new window
 
2009-11-29 05:52:51 PM
Barakku: I recall the thread yesterday griping about how much of a GOP rag CATO is.

CATO support a modified laissez-faire capitalism, which GOP candidates tend to pay lip service to but not follow.

Their economic philosophy is most similar to the Libertarian party (insofar as there is a coherent economic philosophy associated with the LP). They were very influential in modifying the GOP platform in the 1970s and 1980s, so I can understand why someone would make that association, but as the neo-conservatives took more and more control of the GOP and abandoned "conservative" economics entirely, CATO has lost influence with the Republicans and recently been very critical of them.

I personally think that CATO are wrong about economics, and so are the Republicans (and so the Democrats of course), but that does not mean that the two are equivalent- there are lots of ways to be wrong about economics.
 
2009-11-29 05:53:33 PM
homeschooled: Weaver95: homeschooled: I guess I'm still not understanding how the stimulus was Bush's decision. but... OK.

start here.

There's a big difference between that, and this (new window


true - Obama actually imposed restrictions on anyone who got TARP funds. Bush just handed out free money to his buddies and left it up to them if they wanted to pay back the taxpayers or not.
 
2009-11-29 05:54:57 PM
Mordant: Too many Republicans went into hiding among the Libertarians when things got ugly, now we have to decide if it's worth trying to sort out the ok folks from the tainted ones.

Personally, I doubt it's cost effective. Just nuke them from orbit and we can start over with a new conservative party in a few years.


I don't know where you stand politically, but your average left-liberal should be rooting for libertarians to usurp conservatives as the main opposition. When that happens, cultural/social issues go out the window and the Democrats become the pro-war party by comparison.
 
2009-11-29 06:05:37 PM
Churchill2004: Mordant: Too many Republicans went into hiding among the Libertarians when things got ugly, now we have to decide if it's worth trying to sort out the ok folks from the tainted ones.

Personally, I doubt it's cost effective. Just nuke them from orbit and we can start over with a new conservative party in a few years.

I don't know where you stand politically, but your average left-liberal should be rooting for libertarians to usurp conservatives as the main opposition. When that happens, cultural/social issues go out the window and the Democrats become the pro-war party by comparison.


Other than you, the handful of people I most agree with around here are all professed "former Republicans" who haven't necessarily committed to the Libertarians as their new team. That seems to be where I am also. I know what I don't want. Under the circumstances I don't mind being labeled as a lib/democrat, the alternative is a lot worse.
 
2009-11-29 06:06:49 PM
homeschooled: There's a big difference between that, and this (new window

And that is but a portion of the total spending. If you look at the big picture, you find the headline and TFA hold as advertised.
 
2009-11-29 06:06:59 PM
Churchill2004: When that happens, cultural/social issues go out the window

That can't happen soon enough.
 
2009-11-29 06:08:07 PM
Lies, damned lies and statistics.
 
2009-11-29 06:10:58 PM
speaking of the alternative...
 
2009-11-29 06:11:31 PM
Mordant: speaking of the alternative...

Heh, that was beautiful man.
 
2009-11-29 06:12:56 PM
Nice find and so true, subby!
 
2009-11-29 06:12:59 PM
Weaver95: homeschooled: Weaver95: homeschooled: I guess I'm still not understanding how the stimulus was Bush's decision. but... OK.

start here.

There's a big difference between that, and this (new window

true - Obama actually imposed restrictions on anyone who got TARP funds. Bush just handed out free money to his buddies and left it up to them if they wanted to pay back the taxpayers or not.


Companies are paying back TARP money when they are able to. Obama's "stimulus" GAVE money, as a 100% gift, with no intention of it every being repaid. It was given to ridiculous organizations and causes that have nothing to do with stimulating the economy. And it's done absolutely nothing so far. Great comparison.
 
2009-11-29 06:13:27 PM
real shaman: Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Breaking down who is responsible for what number is not statistics.
 
2009-11-29 06:14:18 PM
Animal spirit guide-like typing detected.
 
2009-11-29 06:14:53 PM
homeschooled: It was given to ridiculous organizations and causes that have nothing to do with stimulating the economy.

Such as what organizations and causes?

And it's done absolutely nothing so far.

A lot of road constructions crews would like a word with you.
 
2009-11-29 06:15:25 PM
homeschooled: Companies are paying back TARP money when they are able to. Obama's "stimulus" GAVE money, as a 100% gift, with no intention of it every being repaid. It was given to ridiculous organizations and causes that have nothing to do with stimulating the economy. And it's done absolutely nothing so far. Great comparison.

have you not read the news in the past two years? Bush was the guy who handed out money without the strings. Obama handed out money too (quite a lot of it actually) but he was the one who started putting strings on the money and forcing changes on how wall street behaves. Or did you want to say that Bush started capping out of control CEO salaries and executive bonuses in the wake of the financial scandals rocking wall street over the past year or so?
 
2009-11-29 06:15:29 PM
House of Tards: Animal spirit guide-like typing detected.

*snort*
 
2009-11-29 06:17:16 PM
FlashHarry: Relatively Obscure: Meh. I still don't really care much what the Cato Institute has to say.

you cared enough to post that you don't care. interesting. do you post that you don't own a TV in threads about TV shows, too?


I certainly could if I wanted to. Thanks for caring.
 
2009-11-29 06:17:59 PM
Mordant: Other than you, the handful of people I most agree with around here are all professed "former Republicans" who haven't necessarily committed to the Libertarians as their new team. That seems to be where I am also. I know what I don't want. Under the circumstances I don't mind being labeled as a lib/democrat, the alternative is a lot worse

You're never going to see the LP replace the GOP, absent extremely unlikely electoral reform. The best that can be hoped for is a libertarianized Republican Party. I'd be shocked if you don't see some Ron Paul-type candidate in every Presidential primary from here on out. Gary Johnson in 2012, for example. They won't win in the next few cycles, but they're a growing chunk of the party's base, dragging the GOP in that direction.
 
2009-11-29 06:25:20 PM
Relatively Obscure: Meh. I still don't really care much what the Cato Institute has to say.

Oh, cause they're attacking your brand of soda now, and not the brand that you hate? Try thinking outside the box.
 
2009-11-29 06:29:15 PM
Churchill2004: Mordant: Other than you, the handful of people I most agree with around here are all professed "former Republicans" who haven't necessarily committed to the Libertarians as their new team. That seems to be where I am also. I know what I don't want. Under the circumstances I don't mind being labeled as a lib/democrat, the alternative is a lot worse

You're never going to see the LP replace the GOP, absent extremely unlikely electoral reform. The best that can be hoped for is a libertarianized Republican Party. I'd be shocked if you don't see some Ron Paul-type candidate in every Presidential primary from here on out. Gary Johnson in 2012, for example. They won't win in the next few cycles, but they're a growing chunk of the party's base, dragging the GOP in that direction.


The interesting thing about that solution is that it could benefit from accidentally dragging along a good sized chunk of the republican base who only care about the (R) itself and only know the stereotypical ideas about the parties. Someone like homeschooled, for example would probably jump at the chance to mail in ballots right now for the next 10 elections as long as he can check off the party he wants. If the party changes out from under him then it could be a win.
 
2009-11-29 06:31:01 PM
Weaver95: homeschooled: Companies are paying back TARP money when they are able to. Obama's "stimulus" GAVE money, as a 100% gift, with no intention of it every being repaid. It was given to ridiculous organizations and causes that have nothing to do with stimulating the economy. And it's done absolutely nothing so far. Great comparison.

have you not read the news in the past two years? Bush was the guy who handed out money without the strings. Obama handed out money too (quite a lot of it actually) but he was the one who started putting strings on the money and forcing changes on how wall street behaves. Or did you want to say that Bush started capping out of control CEO salaries and executive bonuses in the wake of the financial scandals rocking wall street over the past year or so?


My point IS NOT if Bush did it correctly. MY POINT is that Obama made the decision to do the 2nd stimulus. Not Bush.

WhyteRaven74: Such as what organizations and causes?

Here's a good one.
Link (new window)
Oh here's another...
I'm really glad these pervs got some stimulation! (new window)

Let's face it.... the stimulus package, BUSH, OBAMA, whoever... is complete bull shiat. Markets have adjustment periods, and all this money is just an excuse to get bigger government and more control of corporations.
 
2009-11-29 06:32:53 PM
Mordant: Someone like homeschooled, for example would probably jump at the chance to mail in ballots right now for the next 10 elections as long as he can check off the party he wants. If the party changes out from under him then it could be a win.

I'm a she not a he. I'm a registered Independent. Voted for Ron Paul. I don't care who I am associated with, I just happen to dislike Obama quite a bit.
 
2009-11-29 06:35:27 PM
I like the finger pointing at Bush even though Obama supported all of the spending while he was in the Senate and continues the same trend now as President. So gloat away in your partisan hackery libs. Whatever makes you feel better I guess.
 
2009-11-29 06:37:08 PM
InspectorZero: Relatively Obscure: Meh. I still don't really care much what the Cato Institute has to say.

Oh, cause they're attacking your brand of soda now, and not the brand that you hate? Try thinking outside the box.


What? No, I STILL don't like them. I don't care who's "brand of soda" they appear to be attacking while pursuing their goals. I expressed the same thing when they were "attacking" the other guys in some thread, what, yesterday?
 
2009-11-29 06:38:05 PM
homeschooled:
My point IS NOT if Bush did it correctly. MY POINT is that Obama made the decision to do the 2nd stimulus. Not Bush.


Yeah, but I tend to slam Bush far far more heavily for initiating the wall street bailout than I do Obama. For example - the Republican party platform for the 2008 election SPECIFICALLY said 'no wall street bailouts by the federal government'. Republican fiscal ideology also (theoretically) ruled out government intervention in the supposedly free market activities of wall street. Everything the Republicans said they believed in said that bailing out wall street was a bad move.

And yet, that is exactly what Bush did. He opened up the public coffers and poured money into the accounts of his buddies on wall street. Despite the fact that his ideology, his party platform itself, said it was NOT what the Republicans stood for and objected to in the strongest of possible language.

I expect a Democrat President to hand out taxpayer money like it was candy. It's just what they do. But Republicans are supposed to be the fiscally responsible ones. That's why I believe that Bush's actions have essentially destroyed the Republican party.
 
2009-11-29 06:38:25 PM
I'm a registered Independent. Voted for Ron Paul. I don't care who I am associated with, I just happen to dislike Obama quite a bit.

You left out "so vote republican"
 
2009-11-29 06:38:56 PM
Republicans are dishonest political hacks who distort even the most blatantly obvious truths in an attempt to convince inbred fools to continue voting for them? Somebody get the smelling salts, I think I'm going down from the shock of this revelation.

Relatively Obscure Meh. I still don't really care much what the Cato Institute has to say.

Says the anonymous nobody posting on Fark.
 
2009-11-29 06:40:17 PM
Shaggy_C: I like the finger pointing at Bush even though Obama supported all of the spending while he was in the Senate and continues the same trend now as President. So gloat away in your partisan hackery libs. Whatever makes you feel better I guess.

ROFL.

let's see if you can comprehend the following:

statement: the government needs to spend money to prime the economic pump and prevent collapse.
democrats: yep
republicans: GOVERNMENT SPENDING IS ALWAYS BAD NO MATTER WHAT

so the fact that "obama supported all of the spending while he was in the senate" is moot. it is congruent with his party's beliefs. the fact that bush spent like a drunken sailor on shore leave is incongruent with his party's beliefs. see the problem with your statement now?

no, you probably don't.
 
2009-11-29 06:40:49 PM
homeschooled: Obama's "stimulus" GAVE money, as a 100% gift, with no intention of it every being repaid.

Yep. Like the largest tax cut in U.S. history. That was the largest single aspect of Obama's stimulus. So why are morons always biatching about the need for tax cuts while criticizing the stimulus? Because they're morons, obviously.
 
2009-11-29 06:40:54 PM
Weaver95: have you not read the news in the past two years? Bush was the guy who handed out money without the strings. Obama handed out money too (quite a lot of it actually) but he was the one who started putting strings on the money and forcing changes on how wall street behaves. Or did you want to say that Bush started capping out of control CEO salaries and executive bonuses in the wake of the financial scandals rocking wall street over the past year or so?

YES I have read the news for the last 2 years. Why are you twisting my words into support for Bush? I don't support anything that farker did in office. I don't support either of the stimulus packages. I think the government needs to let the market adjust and cut spending. I also think we have NO BUSINESS capping CEO salaries, because we shouldn't be buying into these companies.
 
2009-11-29 06:42:08 PM
homeschooled: Here's a good one.

a valid study into plutonium contamination in the environment, which is a worthwhile study. You don't exactly want plutonium leaching into ground water or getting into what people eat.

Link (new window)

The Army Corps of Engineers? Really? You're going to criticize them? And over $450? Really? And they put it to good use, what they wanted to do didn't work out, so they figured hell with it and helped out some other people.

Oh here's another...

That has little to do with stimulus, has to do with the Pell Grant program, operates the same way year after year, just that the maximum amount was increased.

I'm really glad these pervs got some stimulation! (new window)

And there the NEA chairmen says they didn't use any stimulus funds, also lists the specific restrictions on NEA funding.

Also, here is a list of every President to sumbit a budget with no arts funding.



And there you have it.
 
Displayed 50 of 431 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report