Bitcoin Forum

To give it a little perspective:  http://www.wtfnoway.com/ (http://www.wtfnoway.com/)

Thanks

and let's visualize some of the spending that got us there

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/jamesfallows/assets_c/2011/07/24editorial_graph2-popup-thumb-560x622-58477.gif

A tax cut isn't spending.. Also some of Obama's additions to spending are recurring, like health reform spending and non-defense discretionary spending increases, so they will gradually accrue. Obama has also kept in place all of the additional spending programs that were created during the Bush years, so he can hardly be considered better than him.

Technically, no, but it has the same effect.  When you're spending more than you earn, and you decide to quit your job or cut back on your hours, it's the same result as if you spent more.


Can't disagree with you there.

The Obama side has no credibility, they are projections. Its based on some projections on what will do on the future, and they assume their stimulus plan works and the crisis is over so he will start reducing the size of government in the future. It wont happen. Obama is going to be as bad as Bush, if not worse.

I think instead of playing the "which is worse" game of republican versus democrat, how about we all agree that politicians are beholden to the lobbyists and not us their constituents, such that both sides tend to screw us and not care how much they put this country into debt?

Something like this? ;)

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/5245/marchoftyranny.jpg

You forgot to include the money printing program ie (QE 2) The expanded wars in Pakistan, Yemen, Libya and other secrets King Obama doesn't allow us to know about.

It has the same effect on the debt, but I think it's a lot worse to increase spending, because it leads to more of the economy being directed by the government.

Damn, we love that game in Europe too! Our teams are called "Left wing" and "Right wing" though.

Spending is also harder (politically) to get rid of.

That chart is such a lie it should have never been made.

The funny part about this picture is that in Europe both would be considered to be right. Liberalism, is considered to be a right wing ideology in Europe. The Republicans would be considered to be a populist, nationalistic, conservative, christian and far right party. If they would be part of the European Union the US would have sanctions because they don't care for certain liberties, human rights and because they always had huge problems with their budget and therefor endanger the Euro. Of course they wouldn't be part of the EU in first place. Because of the death penalty and how they treat human rights. That's why they just have an observer status Council of Europe (not directly related to the EU). Just get me wrong, this isn't meant to be critique. I am just curious about how an US citizen thinks about these things. Bitcoin appears to have a community that cares about and respects different ideologies and philosophies. Therefor I hope to receive a neutral answer to these questions. Do they consider Europe to be left and do they really think democrats are left? What do they think about stuff like human rights? Oh and what I never understood is whether they still consider Russia or China to be communist states.

No, this is incorrect. Im from Europe. The word "liberal" in the USA changed in meaning at the beginning of the XX century. From that moment the ideas represented by the word liberal until then, became classic liberalism, as opposed to the new meaning, progressive "liberalism". In Europe the word did not change.

So basically european liberalism is the original liberal ideas, and are completely different from progressive "liberalism", that is the default for liberal in the USA. European liberalism is the same as classic liberalism. Libertarianism is the USA evolution of classic liberal ideas. Rothbard used the word libertarianism, because the progressives had highjacked the word liberalism.

I dont think I made myself very clear so:

- USA liberals = progressive "liberals" = european socialdemocrats.
- USA libertarians ~ USA classic liberals = european liberals

USA liberalism is not real liberalism. The word got highjacked.

What it is (was?) true is that european conservatives tend to be more authoritarian than USA conservatives (although I believe this is changing and the USA conservaties have become more like their european counterparts during the last decades, neocons). But it is also true that european lefties are also more authoritarian than the USA lefties. The USA has the (real) liberal influence and so it is (was?) less authoritarian in general.

PS: The UE is a authoritarian monster and does not respect civil liberties. The EU tried to implement Internet survailance and only popular protest stopped it. They have forced the EU countries to implement draconian airport controls, etc...

+1. They're only "liberal" to the extent that they're willing to spend other peoples' money.

He is right, both parties would be considered 'right-wing', here in Britain anyway.

The part about "Liberalism, is considered to be a right wing ideology in Europe." is wrong but both parties are 'right-wing' whether they call themselves liberal or not. 

@hugolp: Thanks for your explanations! Has always been a source of confusion to me.

I never get why people are so pessimistic  ??? .

Lol...

@heptop
lol
love that pic!

Moronic right wing twaddle. It doesnt matter if it is spending or not, it adds to the debt, dont believe me, quit your job, suddenly all of your bills are unfunded liabilities. Plus since we already had 5,8 trillion in debt when bush gave us those tax cuts it IS SPENDING.. because when we dont pay off our debt or at the very very least, pay off the interest of our debt, like clinton did a year before.. WHAT HAPPENS? IT FUCKING GOES UP.. LEAVING US WITH A LARGER PAYMENT. Our interest payments were about 200billion in 2000, they are closer to 400 billion right now and our 3rd biggest payment in ten years they are due to be our biggest payment and we dont get shit for that.


NO.. more right wing twaddle.

See medicare plan D which is NOT means tested and which is extremely expensive due to the no negotiations clause.. WAS TOTALLY UNFUNDED. this is why it appears on the chart. IT adds 100% of it;s cost to our deficit and then to our debt.

HCR WAS FUNDED.. mainly by cutting the crazy 12% extra we give to private companies to make medicare advantage look better than medicare the government provides.. now they will have to play with the same funding as the gov, and we will find out soon that a profit based medicare DOES NOT beat the non profit based medicare that the gov provided. He also taxes the expensive insurance plans, and he reduced medicaid and medicare growth and instituted regional based medicare reimbursement to doctors. Reducing payments to those living in low cost of living areas.

It is going to add about 10 billion a year to our debt, compared to 100 billion for bush;s perscription drug program, but that is why the charts look the way they do.. ONE WAS FUCKING FUNDED and ONE WAS FUCKING NOT.