Schwarzenegger Lesson: Proving Republicans aren't any better at Liberalism than Dems

[TheDanold]

It's funny how I get slammed as being a partisan Repub, when all I do is show how bad Liberalism makes people's lives. And here I'll prove that I don't really care whether it is a Liberal Democrat or a Liberal Republican.

Arnold has spent like a drunken idiot, he is Liberal on guns and the environment, giant new social welfare initiative with his after school program, giant increases in environmental taxes and regulations, trying now to put in forced universal healthcare, minimum wage increase and on and on. The guy hasn't passes one single thing that is Conservative.
He has now lead Cali into another fiscal emergency after Liberal Democrat Gray Davis.
He belongs in the Green party.
When are Californians going to realize that they are going to go bankrupt unless they can get a non-Liberal in power who will actually cut spending?


"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Friday he will declare a "fiscal emergency" in January to give him and the Legislature more power to deal with the state's growing deficit.

Schwarzenegger made the announcement Friday after meeting with lawmakers and interest groups this week to tell them California's budget deficit is worse -- far worse -- than economists predicted just a few weeks ago.

The shortfall is not $10 billion, but more than $14 billion -- a 40 percent jump that would put it in orbit with some of the state's worst fiscal crisis, those who have met with him said.

State spending also has increased by more than 40 percent since Schwarzenegger took office after the 2003 recall of then-Gov. Gray Davis."
http://www.nbc11.com/news/14858065/detail.html

He talks about cuts but he will just give in to the Liberal Democrats in power in the rest of government there, who will never approve any real cuts as that is not something they ever do. Funny how this guy who covers this story tries to blame the shortfall on sub-prime housing market and the credit crunch, because you know no other state has the exact same problem.

 

[Beefy]

Dano, you've ditched your "libertarian" efforts and have squandered principles as well.

I campaigned for Arnold in the summer of '03 shortly before I joined politics.com, and I remember having a true optimism for what he could do. He was elected and he pulled a couple of boners, but one thing he did right was the 4 ballot initiatives in '05 (I think, I was living there at the time). I agreed with all four of them, and the public roundly rejected them, and since then, he became a typical politician.

His governership is really a stepping stone for him to get into the senate, so he plays politics. Give the idiots what they want he says. If he must align himself with the power structure, fuck principles.

Sorry to say my friend, I've seen you do the same. You constantly use the "Democrats "would be worse" argument to excuse the inexcusable fiscally reckless, internationaly disastrous foreign policy of the Republicans.

 

[TheDanold]

Dano, you've ditched your "libertarian" efforts and have squandered principles as well.

I campaigned for Arnold in the summer of '03 shortly before I joined politics.com, and I remember having a true optimism for what he could do. He was elected and he pulled a couple of boners, but one thing he did right was the 4 ballot initiatives in '05 (I think, I was living there at the time). I agreed with all four of them, and the public roundly rejected them, and since then, he became a typical politician.

His governership is really a stepping stone for him to get into the senate, so he plays politics. Give the idiots what they want he says. If he must align himself with the power structure, fuck principles.

Sorry to say my friend, I've seen you do the same. You constantly use the "Democrats "would be worse" argument to excuse the inexcusable fiscally reckless, internationaly disastrous foreign policy of the Republicans.

I thought you might say this. There are differences though.
Before I get to them, I should also thank Arnold for at least trying those 4 ballot initiatives, I also agreed with all of them, nevertheless they are peanuts compared to his draconian environmental regulations he added, to starting that social welfare after school program and now for forcing universal healthcare.

So yes Bush has spent bad, I don't excuse that and I don't back down from saying the Dems are or would have been worse, they already are worse.
Further Bush has not pushed universal healthcare, he did try a meek attempt at starting debate on medical savings account and ownership society talk, things Arnold hasn't done.
Bush and Repubs have avoided harsh enviro-regulations like Arnold has.
They also are solid on gun rights, which again Arnold is not.
Ditto for minimum wage (which should be abolished).

And bad as Bush is, even he has not overseen a 40% spending increase in just 3 years.

I don't say fuck principles, I am supporting Ron Paul as you are, if he fails to win, I could support Fred Thompson, McCain or possibly Rudy. Romney and Huckabee are too far left on wanting government social welfare.
I'm the same guy I've always been, I'll do what I think is best for less government, I do see one major difference between the parties. Too many Repubs in power are gutless when it comes to spending cuts, but given the choice (that is coming someday) between having to cut spending or increase taxes to fight that ballooning debt, they being unable to increase taxes will have to cut spending, while the Dems (which is pretty much a Liberals only party now as Richardson's support shows) will do the opposite.

 

[Beefy]

I thought you might say this. There are differences though.
Before I get to them, I should also thank Arnold for at least trying those 4 ballot initiatives, I also agreed with all of them, nevertheless they are peanuts compared to his draconian environmental regulations he added, to starting that social welfare after school program and now for forcing universal healthcare.

So yes Bush has spent bad, I don't excuse that and I don't back down from saying the Dems are or would have been worse, they already are worse.
Further Bush has not pushed universal healthcare, he did try a meek attempt at starting debate on medical savings account and ownership society talk, things Arnold hasn't done.
Bush and Repubs have avoided harsh enviro-regulations like Arnold has.
They also are solid on gun rights, which again Arnold is not.
Ditto for minimum wage (which should be abolished).

And bad as Bush is, even he has not overseen a 40% spending increase in just 3 years.

I don't say fuck principles, I am supporting Ron Paul as you are, if he fails to win, I could support Fred Thompson, McCain or possibly Rudy. Romney and Huckabee are too far left on wanting government social welfare.
I'm the same guy I've always been, I'll do what I think is best for less government, I do see one major difference between the parties. Too many Repubs in power are gutless when it comes to spending cuts, but given the choice (that is coming someday) between having to cut spending or increase taxes to fight that ballooning debt, they being unable to increase taxes will have to cut spending, while the Dems (which is pretty much a Liberals only party now as Richardson's support shows) will do the opposite.

Dan, there will be a point at which this country goes bankrupt. There will be a point where there is no more meaningful money, no matter how much the Federal reserve decides to print. The first meaningful point has already happened, with the euro becoming the monetary unit preferred by many nations over the dollar. This is the first time this has ever happened since the early part of the last century.

So, in reference to that, I suggest that it is not honest, nor good enough, to endorse anyone, or any party whether through actions, or by proxy (the other party would be worse) that will continue this path. We are on a serious crash course with the world.

No Republican has cut spending since 1960. No Democrat has cut spending. The debt goes up year after year, there was nor will there ever be a surplus given the current fiscal situation, the dems and reps have been selling the same bill of goods for 50 years.

There is NO reason that you should soft peddle the republicans. They've proven to be WORSE than the Democrats at this point. Speculations that the Dems would be worse may be right, but its not reason to give creedence to this disaster that the Republicans have engineered.

Since 2001, until last year, the Republicans have had power over the spending arm of government, and look what happened. How on Earth can you possible not be lambasting them? They're a total, utter, fiscal nightmare! How can you even compare them with anything? They're the worst there ever was.

 

[TheDanold]

Dan, there will be a point at which this country goes bankrupt. There will be a point where there is no more meaningful money, no matter how much the Federal reserve decides to print. The first meaningful point has already happened, with the euro becoming the monetary unit preferred by many nations over the dollar. This is the first time this has ever happened since the early part of the last century.

So, in reference to that, I suggest that it is not honest, nor good enough, to endorse anyone, or any party whether through actions, or by proxy (the other party would be worse) that will continue this path. We are on a serious crash course with the world.

No Republican has cut spending since 1960. No Democrat has cut spending. The debt goes up year after year, there was nor will there ever be a surplus given the current fiscal situation, the dems and reps have been selling the same bill of goods for 50 years.

There is NO reason that you should soft peddle the republicans. They've proven to be WORSE than the Democrats at this point. Speculations that the Dems would be worse may be right, but its not reason to give creedence to this disaster that the Republicans have engineered.

Since 2001, until last year, the Republicans have had power over the spending arm of government, and look what happened. How on Earth can you possible not be lambasting them? They're a total, utter, fiscal nightmare! How can you even compare them with anything? They're the worst there ever was.

I wouldn't place it as bad as LBJ with Dem congress passing Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamp Act, etc... Or SS with FDR and Dems.
But yes it is bad.
Repubs did cut government in the 90's and they were better than the Dems OF THE 90's.
Repubs in the last 7 years are also better than the Dems of the last 7 years.

I hope, not sure of this, but I hope, Sep 11 triggered a temporary period of non-willingness to reduce government and that when the national sentiment moves back to wanting smaller government that it will once again continue. So is it really the wrong thing to do to try and get those that will go about this course with less zest?

I've noticed you've been a lot more hostile lately, a la blackflag and I seem to be your target. I'll say to you what I said to him.
What exactly do you want me to do? I'm just one man, fighting everyday not just on this site but other sites, even sports sites, regular conversations often uncomfortably forced, letters, emails, surveys, whatever they fuck I can do to try and win over as many as I can to endorsing and wanting less government in their lives.
Which is more than I think most do regardless of party, I'm not even a registered Repub, nor have I ever been one.

Probably you are just frustrated, so am I, so is any honest Conservative or Libertarian and I think it will get worse before it gets better. If you have a better idea than patience, let me know, I suppose there is the Gentoo option , but that's not a reality for most.

 

[Beefy]

I wouldn't place it as bad as LBJ with Dem congress passing Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamp Act, etc... Or SS with FDR and Dems.
But yes it is bad.
Repubs did cut government in the 90's and they were better than the Dems OF THE 90's.
Repubs in the last 7 years are also better than the Dems of the last 7 years.

A lot of that had to do with the fact that there was split government. Rubber stamps get put in the trash when there's a different party in the congress than in the White House. But let's not get carried away here, nobody cut the federal government in the 1990's. Spending grew every single year, unequivocally. It would have been worse with a Democrat Congress as is pretty obvious, but would it have been as bad as the last 7 years? Maybe, but that's really, really hard to top. Since W got in there, it has been a fiscal conservative's worst possible nightmare, and I've learned to absolutely write off the Republican party as a "fiscally conservative" one.

I hope, not sure of this, but I hope, Sep 11 triggered a temporary period of non-willingness to reduce government and that when the national sentiment moves back to wanting smaller government that it will once again continue. So is it really the wrong thing to do to try and get those that will go about this course with less zest?

There is never a moving back point Dano. Every Congress and President in your and my lifetime has merely expounded on the previous president's precedent. Reagan included. Its like Pandora's box has more and more doors underneath its lid, and each administration finds that door.

I've noticed you've been a lot more hostile lately, a la blackflag and I seem to be your target. I'll say to you what I said to him.
What exactly do you want me to do? I'm just one man, fighting everyday not just on this site but other sites, even sports sites, regular conversations often uncomfortably forced, letters, emails, surveys, whatever they fuck I can do to try and win over as many as I can to endorsing and wanting less government in their lives.
Which is more than I think most do regardless of party, I'm not even a registered Repub, nor have I ever been one.

Dano, you were the first guy I ever really engaged with on these forums 4 years ago. I think you're a good person, and I think your intentions are pure. But at the same time, it seems to me that you've been more and more content to become reactive against this "left" that you always rail against, instead of proactive for the right way of doing things. You've become an attack dog rather than a Saint Bernard. At least that what I'm seeing. And in my experience, reaction is futile, where proaction is fruitful.

That and you've pulled a couple of boners here yourself.

Probably you are just frustrated, so am I, so is any honest Conservative or Libertarian and I think it will get worse before it gets better. If you have a better idea than patience, let me know, I suppose there is the Gentoo option , but that's not a reality for most.

I certainly am frustrated. I wish you were frustrated to the point where you would call out bad policy regardless of party as well. This thread is an anomaly. Where's the last thread that you bashed Bush and his spending? Or the Republican Congress' spending, or the cost of the war, or the human cost of the war?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Yeah, liberalism has made peoples lives terrible, what with the introduction of free markets and free speech. Terrible reforms. We should go back to mercantilism and heresy death trials.

 

[Blackflag]

The way to change your party isn't to spend all your day complaining about the Democrats....that is why your party has failed and is on lifesupport. You ignored their problems and now they are actually worse than the Dems.

 

[uscitizen]

The way to change your party isn't to spend all your day complaining about the Democrats....that is why your party has failed and is on lifesupport. You ignored their problems and now they are actually worse than the Dems.

A big Amen.

Republicans, the party of whiners not doers.