G.O.P. Succumbs To Rare Outbreak Of Sanity

I'd appreciate it. The main source of racism and bigotry in this country currently comes from the right wing, so I don't want to be any part of it. Yeah, religion has a lot to do with it too, but they would have been powerless without politics backing it up.

Oh, were you? Anyhow, I honestly don't know. I used to listen to NPR to get the news but fell out of the habit when I had to replace my mp3 player with one that lacked an FM tuner. I haven't had cable TV in over half a decade. I just know that MSNBC is the network that makes lots of noise on behalf of liberal issues.

If merely saying outrageous and indefensible things was cause for being fired, Fox News would be replacing its entire staff of talking heads every 6 hours. Liberals have an irritating habit of bending to external pressure, like when conservatives lose their ***and start protesting in exactly the same way they've been protested themselves. The problem with the Democrats is that they're enablers and pleasers trying to cooperate with a bunch of manipulative doms. It works out great for the Republicans and Fox News.

Well sure. I also have disdain towards any political party when I think of everyone as an extreme stereotype of the people who belong to it.

Your objection would carry more weight if this wasn't how the bigger names on both sides tend to portray themselves. The ones that stray from party lines get roundly beaten for it, as suggested by the (admittedly very biased) OP we haven't been discussing. Remember what happened to poor John McCain when he became a front-runner for the Presidential nomination? They took away his anti-crazy pills or whatever the hell and he stumbled into la-la land.

So at what point do you go from 'Well, it's just a few people' to 'Ok, they're all a bunch of loons'?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/12/idaho-bill-would-allow-doctors-or-cops-to-refuse-service-to-lgbt-people-on-religious-grounds/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story

Generally when I visit the ffxiah.com P&R forums.

So you're not going to answer that one either. I suppose I'll stop trying.

Lol, ask more specific questions then. I don't have time to analyze every one and give some profound answer.

"What is the liberal media?"
Do you want a 20-page report on your desk by morning?

"So at what point do you go from 'Well, it's just a few people' to 'Ok, they're all a bunch of loons'?"
I don't know, because the conservatives I know personally aren't like that?

But you are supposed to, damn it!

Liberals on this website not only expect you to know the answer they are looking for, but also the correct answer.

Since that is impossible to do, they just settle for the answer they are looking for.

So, my answer is...

Works every time!

Hmm....you know what this reminds me of? "What papers do you read?"

And I didn't ask you 'What is the liberal media'. I'm asking 'Who is the liberal media'. Just name a few media outlets you think are part of the liberal media.

Trust me, these aren't gotcha questions.

What a terrible thing to expect someone to provide when questioned. Clearly such expectations are outrageous and warrant burning at the stake.

Gentle reminder that Bush was given a ~200 billion dollar surplus by a democrat and the fiscally conservative party of personal responsibility took us to a ~1.2 trillion dollar deficit.

You probably hear that often because Bush was a terrible president.

Leave it to yet another democrat to control our spending. 2014's deficit is projected to around 530 billion.

You talk about the deficit like it's everything. The debt has raised more in Obama's presidency (so far) than it did in Bush's. The debt/GDP ratio (99%) is also higher now than it's been since World War II. I'm not defending Bush by any means, just pointing out additional things to take into account.

The debt is dictated by the deficit. Are you sure you're a statistician? You don't seem to understand basic mathematical principles. Picture the deficit line on a graph. The area under the line is what the debt is. Bush started from -200 and shot it up to +1200. You can almost think of it as a 90 degree triangle. Obama started from +1200 and has to work his way down.

Here, I'll draw you a picture. Give me a second.

Even as one who understands that the government needs to have the ability to run a deficit at times, and that a balanced budget for the Federal government would be a short sided idea, and wouldn't last.

The deficit is still way too high, but we have to pay our obligations: we shouldn't have started unneeded wars.

That being said: the government should look into ways to reduce unneeded spending in the realm of the "justice" system, and also add revenue by doing things like regulating/taxing the sale of marijuana instead of continuing it's illogical ban.

The articles title alone leans directly to the left. The republicans screwed up trying to tie in a repeal of the ACA without a clean resolution.

The only reason I would say that this passed so easily is because they don't want to look bad again fighting for something that the public doesn't agree with.

The scary thing is (and it is probably the best strategy for them) that they would rather let the administration fall on it's face than to get another black eye and take a stand.

I don't care who's fault the deficit is. What is important is who is going to step up and help clean it up?

The Administration appears to offer no focus on it, and the Republicans are too scared to even touch any notion of stopping the administration now to preserve what votes they can.

Things that are hidden from the general budget also affect the debt. It IS possible to have budget surpluses as well as a rising debt. Just saying.

Oh also speaking of the budget/deficit/debt: it's worth noting that a lot of the debt that suddenly appeared on the books when Obama took office is from 2 wars.

You know, part of that transparency thing. (honestly Obama's not very good at that, so surprising he did that much).

I know how the deficit works. But I appreciate the intellectual superiority you seem to think you have. Keep in mind that the deficit tripled in 2009, meaning a large chunk of debt was added before it fell again.

Then how did it go down?

During an economic meltdown.

No, no it did not.

The sense of intellectual superiority I'm slapping you around with is not unfounded. Just give me a moment to put this together.

I don't have a problem with a democrat in the house, just this one doesn't appear to push us in the right direction of getting us out of debt.

You're correct. The government basically borrowed money from itself. If you count that, then we did not have a surplus, but most people don't.

A lot of the reduced deficit can be attributed to:

1. a strong focus on economic and financial policies in D.C. by the voters

2. sequestration and large budget cuts to publicly unpopular funds.

A good deal of my company's business is government, and I can tell you that our fed sales went down ~85% in the last 5 years.

Um...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/17/09-budget-deficit-tripled-to-14-trillion/?page=all

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33348615/#.Uv2saH-2yE8

Edit: Note that Fox News was not a source.

Ya, Jassik I know what you mean.

I'd say my biggest complaint about government spending is subsidizing benefits.

My biggest complaint is selective assistance. Tax credits and subsidies for businesses that continue to ship jobs overseas, farm subsidies for producing useless crops, spend it or lose it funding of government agencies, and billions spent debating and legislating morality (mostly the constant fighting against LGBT rights and imprisoning minor drug offenders at the taxpayer's expense).

And for another resource about the debt from 1929-2013 to compare the debt added during this presidency and the last:

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/a/National-Debt-by-Year.htm