And traditionally, the Democrat/Liberal agenda has always been BIG GOVERNMENT. The conservative/Republican agenda has typically been smaller government.
I have to take issue with this. The con/Rep has claimed to be for "small government," but if you look at your history books, aside from Reagan, centralized federal power grew more under the Republican presidents of the last half-century than under the democratic ones.
The difference is, the Democrats ADMIT that they want use the power of the federal government to take economic control and turn the recession around. The Republicans CLAIM they are against "big government" and "big spending," but once they get into office they use just as much federal power or more, only they use it to help out their friends instead of helping the economy.
So, you want to support the wolf who says he's a wolf, or the wolf in sheep's clothing? Sure, maybe a sheep would be better, but since we don't have one of those....
Of course, both sides are equally guilty of messing up. Big time.
I agree with you there, brother!
I respect your liberal ideals, even though I obviously disagree with them.
But there is no way anyone can justify Obama's sub-par economic performance.
Except for the fact that the economic situation in this country actually HAS improved under Obama, despite the mess that Bush left, and despite the fact that he only had 2 years to run his economic plan before congress started vetoing everything he tried to do. When W took over, Clinton handed him a SURPLUS. He flushed that surplus and put us into trillions of dollars of debt. When Obama took over, he couldn't just stop paying the bills. That's like if your credit card company tells you you're over the limit, you respond by not sending them any more money and thinking that somehow that's going to end your credit card debt. How stupid is that? You have to keep paying the bills.
What a responsible person does, when their credit card goes over the limit, is they look for ways to save money. Instead of going out to dinner every night, maybe we should buy groceries, and eat at home. Buying groceries is an initial investment, but it will save money in the long-term, because it's cheaper to make your own meal than to pay for food at a restaurant. This is the principal behind Keynesian economics. Instead of putting a band-aid on the various problems, and then having to go out and buy more band-aids, you look for ways actually to prevent the injury in the first place, so that you won't need band-aids at all. It may require a little bit of investment at the beginning, but it ALWAYS ends up saving money in the long run. ALWAYS.