In fairness, the right has had this idea that we can just borrow money and still spend like mad. Maybe thats changing, and maybe the claims of change are just political rhetoric.


Though Sinij, Dems do like spending other peoples money.. very much so. You yourself hang out here and argue in favor of spending more of other peoples money on things that you personally think are rights/important, like health care and etc.

Not all Dems and situations are equal either. Clinton and Newt for example, were relatively responsible and taxes and revenues rose but some spending was cut and some things reformed. Ended up with a balanced budget and we didnt need to print so much money. Obama on the other hand was quite a bit less reasonable for the first 2 years of his term. The spending has reached insanity levels, though part of this was from idiotic ideas and programs that Bush initiated.

In most respects, Obama has actually been a continuation of Bush - except for being even worse for civil liberties, and implementing Obamacare. Same cronyism? Check. ( Check out all the Obama donors that got huge govt paydays after his term began, Solyndra is the most talked about but just the tip of the iceberg ) Same Authoritarian disregard for the Constitution? Check. ( In fact you could argue Obama is even worse, trying to make recess appointments when Congress isnt even in recess - Bush at least didnt do that despite the Dems blocking his appointments ) Same proclivity to throw hundreds of billions of dollars at problems in an ineffectual manner? Check.

He even continued the Bush wars. ( He didnt exit Iraq, the Iraqis effectively kicked us out. ) Heck, he has even started other interventions and foreign military expansion. Its frankly amazing that the neocons dont worship the guy.

I do think socialist is technically inaccurate to describe Obama. He is a Authoritarian secular Neocon. Honestly, outside of gays and abortion.. he fits the mold almost perfectly. And health mandates arent new to the GOP or Neocons either, Newt was for one until Obama implemented one.

Its just so hilarious that the media plays up different labels and people argue and bicker as if there is a real difference between most of the GOP and most of the Dems. Sure, the Dems are playing the populist "eat the rich" tune - for the cameras, and because they know it wont pass. Even if massive new taxes did pass, Pelosi would ensure that the Dem allies were protected and that there were plenty of loopholes that the truly wealthy could exploit. Its just the middle and upper-middle classes that get truly hammered.

Its all a crock on both sides of the isle, its all the same hypocrasy. sure there is a plurality on the left who truly believe in govt controls leading to prosperity, and a plurality on the right that genuinely wants to control wombs and bedroom behaviour - but the vast majority of the Establishment on both sides of the isle may as well be the same party, that plays to regional differences with their rhetoric.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)