You've been had. You have been taught to fear an imaginary boogie man. Long before Fox News and the present anti-government crazies-- you know in the 1970's before you were probably born--, the US government had mainstream liberals and mainsteam conservatives in government. These were conservatives whose whole little meme was not to trash government and defund it. From the date of the Republic until then they did not vote for unlimited government spending which you have been taught to fear just so taxes can be less on folks way above your level. Except for WW II, deficits were less than they have become since you were sold the magic free lunch of reducing taxes (supply side economics) and giving it to the "job creators" as the 1% was called for a few years. As an aside there were more jobs and unemployment was generally lower too. It just didn't happen. You've been had and there is no need to be afraid of unlimited government spending.
FYI, as I've already stated, I'm not opposed to taxing the rich. I'm opposed to taxing only the rich. That would depend on what kind of role I want the government to play in my life. If I want a big government, then I have no problem with unlimited government spending. If I want a small government, then unlimited spending becomes a problem.
Alright, whatever. I surrender. You win. There's no sense in arguing with someone who won't even take the time to read what he's responding to....
The GOP's doing a fine job of annihilating itself.... its worst enemy for the past 10 years has been itself. If it was worth anything we wouldn't all be forced to pretend Obama is so amazing and effectual.
You wrote "only", how is he or anybody else misreading your posts? Lets be honest, you're leaving the discussion because you have yet to defend a single one of your points. Not one. Don't try to act like your being dismissed and leave in a big huff (leave that to Boehner). You've been asked legitimate questions and all you have to do is answer, but I don't believe you reasonably can do so.
This. Isn't what EVERY Party should be trying to do? Gain power and drive out their opposition so that they can institute their political agenda? Feels really off to complain that the Democrats want to win...
Occasionally, I ask myself why I'm so dead-set on not living in the US. Then I remember when I see **** like this.
the democrat has got more votes in 5 out of the last 6 elections. it may only be 52%, but the other stat helps create a mandate.
In 2004, George W. Bush won the narrowest re-election of a president since 1916, earning just barely half the popular vote and only 286 electoral votes, with many people questioning Ohio, which would have swung the presidency to Kerry. After the election, here's what Bush said: <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/y1wppZUClpE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> I'm shocked no Republicans called for him to be conciliatory and pointed out to W that half the country did not like him or his policies. The difference here is the losers are saying Obama has the power and Obama's policies are actually supported by a majority of Americans.
http://robertreich.org/post/41456134467 The GOP Crackup: How Obama is Unraveling Reagan Republicanism Friday, January 25, 2013 ... Actually, the GOP is doing a pretty good job annihilating itself. As Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal put it, Republicans need to “stop being the stupid party.” The GOP crackup was probably inevitable. Inconsistencies and tensions within the GOP have been growing for years – ever since Ronald Reagan put together the coalition that became the modern Republican Party. All President Obama has done is finally find ways to exploit these inconsistencies. Republican libertarians have never got along with social conservatives, who want to impose their own morality on everyone else. Shrink-the-government fanatics in the GOP have never seen eye-to-eye with deficit hawks, who don’t mind raising taxes as long as the extra revenues help reduce the size of the deficit. The GOP’s big business and Wall Street wing has never been comfortable with the nativists and racists in the Party who want to exclude immigrants and prevent minorities from getting ahead. And right-wing populists have never got along with big business and Wall Street, which love government as long as it gives them subsidies, tax benefits, and bailouts. Ronald Reagan papered over these differences with a happy anti-big-government nationalism. His patriotic imagery inspired the nativists and social conservatives. He gave big business and Wall Street massive military spending. And his anti-government rhetoric delighted the Party’s libertarians and right-wing populists. But Reagan’s coalition remained fragile. It depended fundamentally on creating a common enemy: communists and terrorists abroad, liberals and people of color at home. On the surface Reagan’s GOP celebrated Norman Rockwell’s traditional, white middle-class, small-town America. Below the surface it stoked fires of fear and hate of “others” who threatened this idealized portrait. In his first term Barack Obama seemed the perfect foil: A black man, a big- spending liberal, perhaps (they hissed) not even an American. Republicans accused him of being insufficiently patriotic. Right-wing TV and radio snarled he secretly wanted to take over America, suspend our rights. Mitch McConnell declared that unseating him was his party’s first priority. But it didn’t work. The 2012 Republican primaries exposed all the cracks and fissures in the GOP coalition. The Party offered up a Star Wars barroom of oddball characters, each representing a different faction — Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, Cain, Santorum. Each rose on the strength of supporters and then promptly fell when the rest of the Party got a good look. Finally, desperately, the GOP turned to a chameleon — Mitt Romney — who appeared acceptable to every faction because he had no convictions of his own. But Romney couldn’t survive the general election because the public saw him for what he was: synthetic and inauthentic. The 2012 election exposed something else about the GOP: it’s utter lack of touch with reality, its bizarre incapacity to see and understand what was happening in the country. Think of Karl Rove’s delirium on Fox election night. All of which has given Obama the perfect opening — perhaps the opening he’d been waiting for all along. Obama’s focus in his second inaugural — and, by inference, in his second term — on equal opportunity is hardly a radical agenda. But it aggravates all the tensions inside the GOP. And it leaves the GOP without an overriding target to maintain its fragile coalition. In hammering home the need for the rich to contribute a fair share in order to ensure equal opportunity, and for anyone in America — be they poor, black, gay, immigrant, women, or average working person — to be able to make the most of themselves, Obama advances the founding ideals of America in such way that the Republican Party is incapable of opposing yet also incapable of uniting behind. History and demographics are on the side of the Democrats, but history and demography have been on the Democrats’ side for decades. What’s new is the Republican crackup — opening the way for a new Democratic coalition of socially-liberal young people, women, minorities, middle-class professionals, and what’s left of the anti-corporate working class. If Obama remains as clear and combative as he has been since Election Day, his second term may be noted not only for its accomplishment but also for finally unraveling what Reagan put together. In other words, John Boehner’s fear may be well-founded.
