You ever been surrounded by millions of liberals you were allowed to shoot at? :huh:
NYC is a pretty cool place to visit. To visit.
Printable View
*krssshht*
Tango Papa Zero Four, this is Wildcat One Niner in the field. Target LimpDick 3 still a middle-class nobody and zero threat to anyone. Repeat, zero threat. Wildcat One Niner out.
*krsssht*
Ha! Prove it! :p
So now you want to fuck Chacha and Cain?
Tear, I had no idea you were such a whore. I'm impressed. :)
Chacha is the only one defending his, err, manhood. There's no need for me to be present (in fact, a stunningly pressing imperative not to be). But this is why god created webcams.
Pertaining to the Tea Baggers' image problem that Dread failed to respond to, I wanted to point out that at least some Tea Party supporters are trying to fix the party's image. I approve :up:
Spoiler:
More of that image problem again. No claims of racism this time, just thieves who don't understand Norman Rockwell or Roosevelts' Four Freedoms speech, and are offended by the constitution. What kind of people steal from an 8th grade history classroom?
You forgot the tax cuts.
Uhuh. And who was it who posted the "starve the beast doesn't work" article, and from what ideological camp does the website/magazine which published that article hail? :rolleyes:
Seriously... even the conservatives aren't as bad about "us vs them [and that's all that exists]" as you fucking liberals are.
"Starve the beast" was coined by David Stockman, IIRC. While never an official policy, it was supposedly a sub rosa strategy of the Reagan administration. If not, Stockman should have stfu, eh?
Federal revenues increased 25% between 2000 and 2008 (they fell in 2009 due to the recession). :noob:
But they did not keep pace with government growth. "Starve the beast" FTW!
PS I see that you compound revenue growth but not spending increases. That's honest. :rolleyes:
You do realize that "starving the beast" means cutting taxes, not increasing spending, right? The whole point is that by cutting taxes, Republicans would be able to coerce Democrats into cutting spending. The reality is that tax cuts are strongly correlated with spending increases over the last several decades. :bored:
Yes, I know what starving the beast is. Do you? After all, you are the one who started tallying federal spending in response to a "starve the beast" discussion. Shouldn't you have been tallying tax cuts?
Considering that tax revenues increased, it wasn't a very successful strategy. :bored: And again, what kind of an individual who'd be pursuing this strategy would increase spending by record numbers? :bored: Are you next going to argue that the war in Iraq, the subscription drug bill, and No Child Left Behind were all elaborate attempts to starve the government of funds?
It didn't work, because the GOP increased spending. The temptation to appease voters is too great, for both parties. But there are still many conservatives that espouse "starve the beast." It is, after all, the policy of the God-idol Reagan.
Then what was W's rational?
Cain: Just cut it out, man. You're being an ass.
Being electable by appealing to fuck-ass liberal swing voters who won't vote for national candidates who don't throw vast amounts of tax dollars at every social ill. That's the whole rationale behind the "neo"/"compassionate" part of the post-Reagan American conservative movement.
Eat shit and die.
LIBRULZ!!!!
Tell me how you don't care. You're cool is wearing thin. :)
I said nothing of the sort. Why would you make crap up like that? David Stockman actually claimed it.