Somehow No One Seems To Think

"Paul G." wrote in message
...

Clinton produced 4 budget surpluses.

All that surplus and yet the national debt continued to grow every year
under Clinton. I'm impressed with your bookkeeping.

The reality is that Clinton was fiscally responsible, the
Republican't can't stop spending spending spending.

So fiscally responsible that he threw away the Reagan boom and ended up
fathering the dot-com bust which was a huge market loss that cut the average
stock return in half.

"Bill C" wrote in message
...

I told Howard I wasn't gonna do this, but it's amazing to watch the
folks who were slobbering, and wetting themselves to attack Clinton,
who did a better job of being a moderate/conservative than Bushy boy
who they're still all worshipping, and defending despite his being one
of the greatest, sleaziest, out of control spending disasters in
American politics.

Well of course we should therefore elect a President who tells us up front
that he's going to tax us into oblivion, turn the white race into a whipping
boy for every possible minority complaint and disassemble the military and
turn us into a Holland.

On Mar 28, 10:34 am, Donald Munro wrote:
Paul G. wrote:
Think about it- "conservative sex.

I expect it must refer to the evangelical right wingers trying to be
missionaries.

True story- one of those evangelical right wingers came to work all
excited- said he'd caught a glimpse of his wife nekked.

No wonder those guys are so uptight. Clinton should get more credit-
he did more to improve American's sex lives than "Deep Throat".

So what do you do when there's a caucus ?

Caucus? Sounds like one of those double-ender thing-a-ma-jigs. ;-)
-Paul

On Mar 28, 11:51 am, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

On Mar 27, 7:35 pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

The so-called "liberal" in modern pop politics lingo is nothing of the
kind. They are just statists, pure, simple, and stoopid as it is.
Right. Strangely, however, that's also what conservatives are.

"Memo to Jonah Goldberg and National Review: free means free.
Regulation means regulation, whether it is Robert Reich or Jack Kemp
who write the regulations."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman31.html
http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?opt...ask=view&id=46

In a two party system, such as in the USA, LIBERAL (not "liberals" in
retarded pop parlance) are more or less forced to make hay in the
opposition party. "Opposition" in the USA for the last century has
basically meant coalescing to "Republican" because the ideological and
political dominance came from democrats,

I was following perfectly up to this point. Political dominance in the
US does not come from the Democratic party. From 1932 to 1980, I'd buy
that. But today or even in 1996, not so obviously.

who are essentially
socialists. The opposition has been focused on inhibiting the drift to
statism: conservatives oppose because they conserve what already
exists; LIBERALS because they believe in freedom.

I believe in the existence of such people. I believe that they would
have issues with both the Democratic and Republican parties.

A LIBERAL calling a truce with a conservative for the basic point of a
common enemy (democrat-socialist) is really a case of an odd
relationship, but one born of political reality. It so happens that
"Republicans" are a far more diverse coalition due to the fact of
political reality forcing the coalescence of disparate interests into
one opposition, since political realities in democracies become,
unfortunately, binary in nature. So as it goes, the democrat party is
less diverse -- it represents monolithic statism with only minor
detailed differences within.

I almost agree, but not quite. While I agree with your assessment of the
Democrats, I don't see any significant group in the Republican party
that favors liberty either. There are multiple groups in the Republican
party that would deny individual liberties in various ways. The statists
that would deny you the right to own guns and who favor social welfare
programs tend to be Democrats, all the other statists become Republicans.

Yeah, some libertarians vote Republican. But that's only because they
get tired of voting for candidates who lose.

Heck, look at the democrats whacked prez
primary selection procedu it is the height of irony that
"democrats" have no confidence in democracy.

Yep. It was strange when Kennedy made this type of noise in 1980, but
not completely indefensible. He had won a lot of the late primaries and
was more popular than Carter when the convention came around. So the
(lame) argument was that the primary results did not reflect (current)
public opinion. This time there's been no demonstrable shift in public
opinion and Clinton donors are apparently working to promote
overthrowing the primary results. When you threaten to take a
politician's money away, that's unAmerican!

I think you might be asking for too fine of distinctions in a small
post. Statists certainly exist in both _parties_, and I don't
necessarily disagree with you on trends in the last 10-15 years or
so. I am also not saying that any particular Republican was not a
statist or was in opposition to advancing statism. My point was that
more-or-less over the last 80y democrat politicians and the people who
vote democrat are/were more monolithic in their statist impulses, but
you could not be so sure for someone who decided to vote for a
republican, as due to the political structure it was the only place
for opposition to coalesce. "They may be, or they may not be." I am
only suggesting the yardstick of uncertainty has been higher for the
aggregate of persons who voted for a Republican.

If the neo-cons are reaching parity with democrats, it might all be
awash. A vote for either would be about the same, meaning even the
opposition voter had no way to distinguish the margin, as vague as
that notion can be. I'm not quite saying "it would not matter who
gained power in that case," but that the voter would simply have
grossly insufficient clues as to which political party/politician
would turn out to be least bad -- which would harm him/her the least.
The only hope then would be institutional strength (really balance).

Also, I am not saying that _within_ those who have voted Republican in
the past, the percentage of those who were LIBERALs made up a large
fraction. I do think the percentage is probably small, but large
enough to have swayed some prezidential and congressional elections.
I am saying that when those people went and voted Republican, it was
because that was the only place for them to go as _opposition_ to the
dominant statist party (democrat) because of the nature of the
political structure.

To be a LIBERAL is to be in a small minority.

On Mar 28, 1:12*pm, "Paul G." wrote:

-Um- the federal payroll shrank under Clinton ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...federal_budget

You've yet to back a single word of your spew
with one historically _and_ period correct fact or quote.

Maybe in your fantasy world. It's a fact that slavery
was an abomination, and slave owners weren't motivated by humanitarian
concerns- they were motivated by greed.
Those truths are timeless.


Paul, try to follow these "timeless truths"

Not _all_ period abolitionists had good intentions for freed
slaves.(example, Van Buren) Many abolitionist wanted to return freed
slaves to Liberia, FACT. In light of that matter, people who were
anti-slavery organized themselves on behalf of the slaves.
The pro-emancipation movement had to wage their fight on two fronts.
On one hand they had to rally against the pro- slavery supporters.
While on the other they had to stop those who supported the exportation
of 4.5 million freed slaves.
You've read anti-abolitionist as meaning pro-slavery. These are two
very different descriptions of groups of people with very different
agendas.
If you're going to argue historically points you should have an
understanding of the period correct language, it's meaning and the
mindset of those who actually used it.
And you still have yet to comment on Lincoln's Springfield address
where he basically states the Framers & Founders got it right. After
all isn't that why you entered this thread? Stay on point Paul.

just regards - Mike Baldwin

On Mar 28, 2:27 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
On Mar 28, 1:12 pm, "Paul G." wrote:

-Um- the federal payroll shrank under Clinton ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...federal_budget

Good stuff- shows how remarkably successful Clinton was, if you
understand it. I do, but I don't think you do. Note that debt/GDP
soared under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II, yet dropped during both of
Clinton's terms. That's a remarkable achievement, given the fiscal
mess he inherited from Bush I, and the fact Bush II inherited a budget
surplus.

But I didn't see anything there specifically about the federal
payroll, so it's really a non-sequitur.
-Paul

On Mar 28, 3:53*pm, "Paul G." wrote:
On Mar 28, 2:27 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

On Mar 28, 1:12 pm, "Paul G." wrote:

-Um- the federal payroll shrank under Clinton ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms...

Good stuff- shows how remarkably successful Clinton was, if you
understand it. I do, but I don't think you do. Note that debt/GDP
soared under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II, yet dropped during both of
Clinton's terms. That's a remarkable achievement, given the fiscal
mess he inherited from Bush I, and the fact Bush II inherited a budget
surplus.

But I didn't see anything there specifically about the federal
payroll, so it's really a non-sequitur.

I don't care about the federal payroll as much as all federal
spending. I also care about federal regulations that causes spending
in the private sector in order to comply (hidden taxes outside the
federal budget). I don't know why you are hyper-focused on payroll.
I gave you the concise wiki page on federal spending, and of course,
it shows that it did not go down under Clinton.

I also note what Milton Friedman liked point out: Clinton had a
republican congress and that may be the best combination for fiscal
"inhibition," although inhibition is a decidedly loose term when it
comes to the rulers.

On Mar 28, 1:12*pm, "Paul G." wrote:

You can't "pay" a bill by charging it on your
credit card, and either can the gov't.

An individual and private firm are not like the government when it
comes to debt because the individual and private firm cannot create
money by fiat. The government can and does through the federal
reserve.

Now if you were simply to say that not even the fed is powerful enough
to keep up with georgie-porgies spendthrift ways, then I could agree
with you.

But you should not equate the credit situation of guvmints who can
create money by fiat to that of individuals and private firms. The
inflation of the money supply via OMO amounts to another way to tax,
and of course, causes market distortions and malinvestment. The
issuing of guvmint debt too crowds out proper investment. To the
extant a nation is able to export its inflated dollars, this amounts
to a way of exporting taxation. I do not know the magnitude of the
effect.

In article ,
"Paul G." wrote:

On Mar 27, 8:20 am, Donald Munro wrote:
Paul G. wrote:
(I lived in Marin during my bike racing phase. *I* was the conservative,
compared with "Wild Man" Gary Fisher, Joe Breeze, et al. I never expected
to encounter NASCAR fans and people extolling the virtues of slavery in a
bike racing forum! ) -Paul

If we didn't have a slave we wouldn't get any afternoon training rides.

Those aren't slaves, they're domestiques. Well, except for SLAVE OF
THE STATE, who is by definition, a -er- slave.

It's simple, really. Evil people are liberals. Good people are
conservatives.

Don't you mean evil people are gay, liberal, impotent nazis.

Impotent gays? I believe it's Bob Dole and NASCAR that advertise
Viagra. No, it's conservatives who are impotent. Think about it-
"conservative sex". That concept is enough to make anyone go limp. No
wonder they can't get it up. Personally, I became a liberal primarily
for the great sex.

Interestingly, surveys of sex workers in cities where the major political parties
have their conventions say that business goes way up when the Republicans are in town
compared to when the Dems are there. It sort of flies in the face of their moralising
a wee bit.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?