Maybe I'll Get A Job In 2017

I posted this meme... Simply for your reply... "psychology 101"... Thank you

National economic growth is usually a factor of Federal spending. If you look at Federal spending over the last 100 years, it has grown exponentially. Spending was halted under Obama (due in part to the obstructionism of the GOP). So while growth was difficult to spark, the "silver lining" being that the Federal Deficit has fallen from $1.4 trillion (under Bush) to just $492 billion (under Obama). NOW... that's none of my business, but whoever posted this meme needs to go back to highschool and retake "Econ 101".

BS the Budget Control Act passed by the House has forced spending cuts. Big O has rejected anything to do with spending decreases. He has increased entitlements which will show its effect much later. He will leave the Debt at 19trillion. It was 8 when he took office.
Bush's highest deficiet year was 25 billion less than Obama's lowest deficet year, according to Office of Management and Budget.

You reactionary righties ought to take a lesson from sheasie here, who actually responds intelligently with more than one snarky sentence. At least Mr. Jingles does, despite his argument having the veneer of crud. It's amazing how Republican presidents drive up the deficits and then Democratic ones improve the economy which drives down deficits. Bill Clinton inherited Reagan's deficits and decreased them by improving the economy thus increasing tax intake. Under Obama's watch unemployment rates have fallen to their lowest levels in over three decades - despite the GOP's congressional obstruction - thus increasing revenue. Fortunately there won't be a Republican president for the next couple terms to take credit for it.

And yet you lefties miss which make up of Congress actually controlled the purse at those times. Clinton was reigned in as well. Despite what the right had to say, he was able work and actually adopt programs that Congress would allow I.e pay for.
Much like Reagan and O'Neil. Again, a statement more on the purse strings than the president.

Yes, Clinton worked with Congress to get what he could, just like Reagan did with O'Neill. That's crossing party lines to be effective, the very antithesis of the extreme partisanship on display in today's GOP-led Congress. Nowadays it's not the issue of purse strings - which is not solely a Republican issue; look at the huge deficits that came out of the Reagan presidency - but the antagonism from a minority who fear the shift from a white, male, Anglo-Saxon ascendency to a mixed-demographic population which no longer adhere to the conservative values of the past. For this you should thank gerrymandering for allowing a Republican minority to maintain legislative power. But it's all for naught; eventually the free movement of people coupled with a growing racial and gender diversity will make cut-and-paste districting moot.

If you don't take the v/u, think that public sector growth and low income jobs is a great indicator for growth, and fail to look at the U6...just for starters... Ya what a winner.

Turgid writing and esoteric references do not a coherent argument make. Read deeper friend. Learn from various sources, not just the troll-media so prevalent on the internet. After all you mistake the autonomous individuality and free association of reform-minded liberalism with the distributive tendencies of the activist left. Bernie Sanders' socialism is just a transfer of power from one interest group to another, which is an ineffective program birthed from the old control-and-conform style of authoritarian conservatism.

I tend to be a centrist. Sorry. Caught me at wierd time my point below was clumsily to highlight the polarity of politics today. Long winded intellectual wasn't wholly fair. At least you can argue a point. I may not agree, but you don't just blowing platitudes.

Ah, yes. The long winded intellectual who makes base assumptions when underlying fact isn't explained...excuse me if I choose not to work here. This is my play time. You can cloak your rhetoric all you like...call is social democracy, democratic socialism, hell. Call it reformed communism. What you fail to see is that in order to maintain the utopia, you'll have to squash liberties. Have fun. But with all the dachas and Politburo set up to fske the people's work...your just spouting Stalinist propaganda... Authoritarian leftism.

Wow. I was about to respect you for your first comment but you went bipolar on me. This is my play also. And believe it or not I'm a centrist too. I prefer the European term of center-left (I rarely mention that in sites like this since I tend to be mindlessly excoriated for it). I am against socialism. I have no desire for a utopia. I agree, in form, with your assessment that leftists can only achieve their ultimate aims by taking away liberties. To me a full belly for survival is pointless if you lose what you desire to live for - i.e., freedom, unlimited expression, un-tethered creativity. One of the few statements from the political right that I agree with is that the political left is prone to seeking a nanny state. I think people should for the most part be left alone to do what they want as long as it doesn't DIRECTLY PHYSICALLY harm another person. I am a true liberal in that I support open markets, free trade, and globalization. I am an extreme social liberal. People should smoke dope or even sell their bodies at a profit if they so wish (as long as it's un-coerced). I don't want a perfect world, I just want one that is interesting to live in. Where I split with most right-wingers is that I believe conservatism is a greater threat to my liberties. Conservatives spout off about freedom but when they obtain power we tend to lose it, as well as many rights. Conservatives don't really want freedom for everyone as that would take power away from the small grouping which has had it all these years with few if any constraints. Watch a conservative go on about 'freedom' until something makes them uncomfortable, then it becomes a moral issue. Gay marriage suddenly becomes the country going to hell in a handbasket because God is forgotten. 'Religious liberty' movements are an excuse to retain ultimate power for upper-middle class whitebreads. But there is no less-oppressed sub-set of people in the world than middle-class white American Christians. It is a tool to empowerment for those already at its peak. Conservatives are about control, conformity, and order, the better to maintain power for the few.

I'll take your word on your centrism and respect you for that.

Hmmm. Got ya. I tend towards center right. Your assessment about conservatives and religion is accurate. Drives me nuts. The only problem I have with gay marriage is the effing side show about cakes. This may bug some, but I'm a for the marriage right ad we as, the shop owner having the right to tell you yo piss off. Let the market decide if thats wise or not.
Theocracies are not liberal nor is a nanny state. Neither group is maintaining an ethic for productivity. Rather conservatives (mainstream) search for status quo in business as long as it produces, the left (youth of today campus rat) seems entitlement. That's why I called you a blow hard. St this point assuming anyone arguing here is just seeking the path of feeling the Bern or Trump

Good. Let's have conversations from here on out. Much more productive. I am in full agreement on your assessment of college entitlement. I went to college but am firmly in the working class. When I hear the BS about 'safe places' I have to say get a droog job and then wonder whether you're worried about a safe place when staying in school is likely to get you a better, higher-paying job. That matches up with what I said about leftists being a bit conservative in their outlook. They seek empowerment by taking power from one interest group and placing it with another, with the result of the newly empowered group acting as the old one did by defending their empowerment at the cost of the greater mass of citizenry. Power should be devolved out to individuals, that is the surest guaranty of our liberties.

I'm also conflicted about the marriage cake issue. I believe individuals have the right to serve who they want. However I live in Portland, Oregon, where the cake issue first came to the forefront. What is not mentioned in most news reports is that the man in the married couple who ran the bakery didn't just tell them that they wouldn't serve them because they are gay, but then proceeded to lecture them on the perversion of their lifestyle. The obvious solution would have been to say "I'm sorry, we're all filled up on orders". This simplicity would also apply to gender identity and bathrooms: build single-seater rest rooms. But that's not the point for both sides of the issue; like the entitled campus rats the point is to make an issue of it for all to see. leftists want to empower themselves by making a point (all part of the 'revolution') and rightists see an election issue to rally their troops to maintain the power they already have. But in the end the reason I have to side with the gay couple in the cake issue is that if the bakery owners had denied an African-American couple a cake based on their race then even many thoughtful conservatives would see the wrong in that. One's freedom extends only to the point where it doesn't infringe on the freedom of others. Prime example: the Kentucky county clerk who tried to deny marriage licenses despite their legality based upon her own religious beliefs could have stood back and let the clerks below her who were willing to issue the licenses, but she tried to block that on grounds of 'religious liberty'. But her own beliefs do not supercede the law. Do your job or get out of the way.

I have to stand on the side of gay rights - and the law, AND the Constitution (as interpreted by the Supremes in this case) - and work on the assumption that gay men and women have the same civil rights as African-American men and women. My concern for the rights of certain individuals to decide who to serve ends when the law says they can't interpret the law for their own needs. Apologize for being 'too busy' or, as in the case of the county clerk, resign your position. (And when did people stop making sacrifices for their beliefs? Did not the Kentucky clerk seek entitlement?)

Another windy missive - two text boxes. :P

Whoops, not done. In the Hot Cakes by Melissa case (the one here locally), the market IS deciding: they've lost more customers than they've gained those who buy to support their position.

I need to quit now. Go make a snarky meme about Cruz dropping out...

Lol, neighbor. Ya,she was a tool. Like judges passing law from the bench, we have processed for a reason

And yes, I DO tend to be long-winded. Guilty as charged.