OT: Talk me out of my anti-partisian views.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]

Well, since you brought up Clinton, let’s look at the facts.
[/quote]

BigGubment: Yeah, let’s look at the facts, shall we?

Bill Clinton gave us:
– First use of extraordinary rendition of suspected terrorists to black sites around the world, including peace-loving countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, where these “suspected” terrorists could be held without due cause, access to legal counsel or medical aid, and tortured for information,
– Vast expansion of the National Security State, including creation of the NSA’s “Echelon” and “Carnivore” eavesdropping programs (which were used on US citizens, as well as foreign nationals), as well as expansion of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) further eroding American civil liberties,
– The Iraq Liberation Act (ILA) of 1998, advocating the removal of Saddam Hussein, by force if necessary. The ILA was used to support Clinton’s massive multi-year bombing campaign against Iraq, causing tens of thousands of CIVILIAN casualties (as documented by the UN, World Health Organization and Amnesty Int’l),
– Operation Desert Fox (Iraq), largest sustained US bombing campaign since Operation Rolling Thunder in Vietnam,
– Economic sanctions programs against Iraq resulting in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS (figures are from Unicef and World Health Organization).

Yup, Clinton was a prince, wasn’t he?

[briansd1]

I’d say participate in the primaries and vote the issues, not the emotions.

If you’re poor and lack health care, you want to vote for health care.

If you’re rich and have good health care, you want to vote for health care, if you care about the poor and those without health care.

If you’re poor and don’t have health care and vote against health care, then you’re an idiot.

When I pick something to eat, I always choose the items that taste the best and are the least unhealthy. Most everything that we eat is unhealthy…. But we have to eat nevertheless.

[briansd1]

I’d say participate in the primaries and vote the issues, not the emotions.

If you’re poor and lack health care, you want to vote for health care.

If you’re rich and have good health care, you want to vote for health care, if you care about the poor and those without health care.

If you’re poor and don’t have health care and vote against health care, then you’re an idiot.

When I pick something to eat, I always choose the items that taste the best and are the least unhealthy. Most everything that we eat is unhealthy…. But we have to eat nevertheless.

[briansd1]

I’d say participate in the primaries and vote the issues, not the emotions.

If you’re poor and lack health care, you want to vote for health care.

If you’re rich and have good health care, you want to vote for health care, if you care about the poor and those without health care.

If you’re poor and don’t have health care and vote against health care, then you’re an idiot.

When I pick something to eat, I always choose the items that taste the best and are the least unhealthy. Most everything that we eat is unhealthy…. But we have to eat nevertheless.

[briansd1]

I’d say participate in the primaries and vote the issues, not the emotions.

If you’re poor and lack health care, you want to vote for health care.

If you’re rich and have good health care, you want to vote for health care, if you care about the poor and those without health care.

If you’re poor and don’t have health care and vote against health care, then you’re an idiot.

When I pick something to eat, I always choose the items that taste the best and are the least unhealthy. Most everything that we eat is unhealthy…. But we have to eat nevertheless.

[briansd1]

I’d say participate in the primaries and vote the issues, not the emotions.

If you’re poor and lack health care, you want to vote for health care.

If you’re rich and have good health care, you want to vote for health care, if you care about the poor and those without health care.

If you’re poor and don’t have health care and vote against health care, then you’re an idiot.

When I pick something to eat, I always choose the items that taste the best and are the least unhealthy. Most everything that we eat is unhealthy…. But we have to eat nevertheless.

[davelj]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood][quote=Hobie]i’ll bite….. yup smaller is good. but lets keep it on topic.[/quote]

Well, since you brought up Clinton, let’s look at the facts.

Since 2000, government spending has increased by more than 55 percent. Even when adjusted for inflation in constant (2000) dollars, federal expenditures have risen by just short of 29 percent. During this same period, real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has only increased by 17.3 percent. Thus, over the last eight years real government spending has gone up nearly twice as fast as the actual U.S. economy.

When the Clinton Administration left the White House, federal spending was 18.4 percent of GDP. In 2008, at the close of the Bush Administration, federal expenditure is 20.5 percent of GDP, for an 11.4 percent increase over the last eight years.

http://www.aier.org/research/briefs/750-big-government-under-the-bush-administration

So, as you can see the government was much smaller under the Democrat Bill Clinton than it was under the Republican George Bush. If you are in favor of smaller government, shouldn’t you be voting for Democrats?[/quote]

Your argument is invalid because you’re cherry picking your starting and ending points. As the graph below shows, government spending as a percentage of GDP has generally increased over time regardless of which party was in office. (That big spike is WWII.) This isn’t a partisan observation – it’s just a fact. As a supporter of Big Government, you should be thrilled. And very upset with Mr. Clinton that he was so stingy during his reign.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1903_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=F0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=US%20Government%20Spending%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s

[davelj]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood][quote=Hobie]i’ll bite….. yup smaller is good. but lets keep it on topic.[/quote]

Well, since you brought up Clinton, let’s look at the facts.

Since 2000, government spending has increased by more than 55 percent. Even when adjusted for inflation in constant (2000) dollars, federal expenditures have risen by just short of 29 percent. During this same period, real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has only increased by 17.3 percent. Thus, over the last eight years real government spending has gone up nearly twice as fast as the actual U.S. economy.

When the Clinton Administration left the White House, federal spending was 18.4 percent of GDP. In 2008, at the close of the Bush Administration, federal expenditure is 20.5 percent of GDP, for an 11.4 percent increase over the last eight years.

http://www.aier.org/research/briefs/750-big-government-under-the-bush-administration

So, as you can see the government was much smaller under the Democrat Bill Clinton than it was under the Republican George Bush. If you are in favor of smaller government, shouldn’t you be voting for Democrats?[/quote]

Your argument is invalid because you’re cherry picking your starting and ending points. As the graph below shows, government spending as a percentage of GDP has generally increased over time regardless of which party was in office. (That big spike is WWII.) This isn’t a partisan observation – it’s just a fact. As a supporter of Big Government, you should be thrilled. And very upset with Mr. Clinton that he was so stingy during his reign.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1903_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=F0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=US%20Government%20Spending%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s

[davelj]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood][quote=Hobie]i’ll bite….. yup smaller is good. but lets keep it on topic.[/quote]

Well, since you brought up Clinton, let’s look at the facts.

Since 2000, government spending has increased by more than 55 percent. Even when adjusted for inflation in constant (2000) dollars, federal expenditures have risen by just short of 29 percent. During this same period, real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has only increased by 17.3 percent. Thus, over the last eight years real government spending has gone up nearly twice as fast as the actual U.S. economy.

When the Clinton Administration left the White House, federal spending was 18.4 percent of GDP. In 2008, at the close of the Bush Administration, federal expenditure is 20.5 percent of GDP, for an 11.4 percent increase over the last eight years.

http://www.aier.org/research/briefs/750-big-government-under-the-bush-administration

So, as you can see the government was much smaller under the Democrat Bill Clinton than it was under the Republican George Bush. If you are in favor of smaller government, shouldn’t you be voting for Democrats?[/quote]

Your argument is invalid because you’re cherry picking your starting and ending points. As the graph below shows, government spending as a percentage of GDP has generally increased over time regardless of which party was in office. (That big spike is WWII.) This isn’t a partisan observation – it’s just a fact. As a supporter of Big Government, you should be thrilled. And very upset with Mr. Clinton that he was so stingy during his reign.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1903_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=F0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=US%20Government%20Spending%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s

[davelj]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood][quote=Hobie]i’ll bite….. yup smaller is good. but lets keep it on topic.[/quote]

Well, since you brought up Clinton, let’s look at the facts.

Since 2000, government spending has increased by more than 55 percent. Even when adjusted for inflation in constant (2000) dollars, federal expenditures have risen by just short of 29 percent. During this same period, real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has only increased by 17.3 percent. Thus, over the last eight years real government spending has gone up nearly twice as fast as the actual U.S. economy.

When the Clinton Administration left the White House, federal spending was 18.4 percent of GDP. In 2008, at the close of the Bush Administration, federal expenditure is 20.5 percent of GDP, for an 11.4 percent increase over the last eight years.

http://www.aier.org/research/briefs/750-big-government-under-the-bush-administration

So, as you can see the government was much smaller under the Democrat Bill Clinton than it was under the Republican George Bush. If you are in favor of smaller government, shouldn’t you be voting for Democrats?[/quote]

Your argument is invalid because you’re cherry picking your starting and ending points. As the graph below shows, government spending as a percentage of GDP has generally increased over time regardless of which party was in office. (That big spike is WWII.) This isn’t a partisan observation – it’s just a fact. As a supporter of Big Government, you should be thrilled. And very upset with Mr. Clinton that he was so stingy during his reign.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1903_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=F0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=US%20Government%20Spending%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s

[davelj]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood][quote=Hobie]i’ll bite….. yup smaller is good. but lets keep it on topic.[/quote]

Well, since you brought up Clinton, let’s look at the facts.

Since 2000, government spending has increased by more than 55 percent. Even when adjusted for inflation in constant (2000) dollars, federal expenditures have risen by just short of 29 percent. During this same period, real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has only increased by 17.3 percent. Thus, over the last eight years real government spending has gone up nearly twice as fast as the actual U.S. economy.

When the Clinton Administration left the White House, federal spending was 18.4 percent of GDP. In 2008, at the close of the Bush Administration, federal expenditure is 20.5 percent of GDP, for an 11.4 percent increase over the last eight years.

http://www.aier.org/research/briefs/750-big-government-under-the-bush-administration

So, as you can see the government was much smaller under the Democrat Bill Clinton than it was under the Republican George Bush. If you are in favor of smaller government, shouldn’t you be voting for Democrats?[/quote]

Your argument is invalid because you’re cherry picking your starting and ending points. As the graph below shows, government spending as a percentage of GDP has generally increased over time regardless of which party was in office. (That big spike is WWII.) This isn’t a partisan observation – it’s just a fact. As a supporter of Big Government, you should be thrilled. And very upset with Mr. Clinton that he was so stingy during his reign.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1903_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=F0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=US%20Government%20Spending%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dave: There you go again, using your intellect and those pesky facts.

I wouldn’t fret overly much about BigGubment responding to you. Like most of the Leftist trolls on this post, he has an aversion to facts.

Its also interesting to note he used Clinton, and not Obama, to make his point about “smaller” government. Wonder why…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dave: There you go again, using your intellect and those pesky facts.

I wouldn’t fret overly much about BigGubment responding to you. Like most of the Leftist trolls on this post, he has an aversion to facts.

Its also interesting to note he used Clinton, and not Obama, to make his point about “smaller” government. Wonder why…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dave: There you go again, using your intellect and those pesky facts.

I wouldn’t fret overly much about BigGubment responding to you. Like most of the Leftist trolls on this post, he has an aversion to facts.

Its also interesting to note he used Clinton, and not Obama, to make his point about “smaller” government. Wonder why…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dave: There you go again, using your intellect and those pesky facts.

I wouldn’t fret overly much about BigGubment responding to you. Like most of the Leftist trolls on this post, he has an aversion to facts.

Its also interesting to note he used Clinton, and not Obama, to make his point about “smaller” government. Wonder why…

[Author]

Posts