funjumper101 15 #276 September 13, 2009 These questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #277 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf you had been criticizing Bush's disastrous fiscal policies from 2001 to 2008 (which you never did) you could escape the criticism that you have a double standard. As it is, your double standard is apparent for all to see. If it was a problem for you then, why isn't it a problem now? Did I say it isn't? Did you sy it is?www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #278 September 13, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Doesn't it make sense that it's both collections and spending? What do you think creates the government's general fund? You have outlays on the spending end and tax revenues on the intake, i's both that matter. So if tax revenues fall to 10% of what they now are, as Libertarians would love, then you say that wouldn't affect the debt? The annual deficit is basicallly the number between revenue collections and outlays. Of course I'm talking Republican here, as much of Clinton's time we called that difference a suplus. ____________________________________________________ NO, it makes no sense at all. Spending is completely out of control and has been. Did you miss the auto bailouts, bank bailouts, stimulus waste, fraud and abuse in medicare, cash for clunkers, cash for appliances, etc? . Auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler- started by GWB. Bank bailouts - GWB again. AIG - the biggest single bailout - GWB again. Stimulus - remember GWB's checks for everyone? Republicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. And very few if anybody liked it then So much for change huh I think a lot of people agreed it had to be done, like it or not. We would revisit the GD on steroids if that wasn't done. Evidence of it's effectivness is found in the GDP: http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm look at the 2nd quarter of 09, a great improvement. This, 'tough it out' mentality doesn't work. Or as McCain was saying, "we're all whining" about the economic times. Congress and GWB / Obama did the right thing after this mess was started. Of course this mess was started in 01, but we're enjoying the fruits of its labor now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #279 September 13, 2009 Quote Sometimes it’s nice to be on the other side of the planet, if only temporarily. If Rep Wilson was in Thailand he may have gotten a jail term, which I think is a credit to the US system (& British as well). From Saturday’s Straits Times “Yellow shirt' chief gets jail for second straight day” (full text requires registration): “A Thai court yesterday sentenced a leader of a protest movement [Sondhi Limthongkul] … to six months in prison for defamation.” “It was the second defamation conviction in two days against the outspoken media tycoon ….” /Marg At the same time, the infamous shoe thrower was released after 9 months, that would be much higher in the same setting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #280 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Because the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions. You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives It's not about the past. It's about the present and how much of the taxpayers' money BHO is giving away. Seems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. When you can't think of anyone to blame but Bush, suck on your thumb and maybe he will go away. It's not about Bush for you, you are looking at this mess as a microcosm that just occurred. Remember, the quarter Obama took office was the 4th out of the last 5 quarters of neg GDP growth, the first full quarter Obama presided over, the 2nd quarter of 09, the growth was -1.0 from -6.4 the previous quarter. So that is a drastic improvement, but let's be fair and objective, without Obama's stimulus, much of what was started in the Bush era, was neccessary to beat this mess. QuoteSeems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. No, you must be thinking of Bush, he inherited a debt from 1776 to 2001 that totalled 5.5T, he tacked on another 5T, so you are thinking of GWB when you think of presidents that gave away as much as all of the presidents before him. And the crazy thing is that GWB inherited a pretty good economy versus Clinton and Obama inheriting a total mess. You forgot Reagan, who tacked onto the debt almost TWICE as much as all the presidents before him. True, and if you compare 1980's dollars to 2000's dollars they did equal damage. They were very much the same president in so many ways. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dsandreas 0 #281 September 13, 2009 Quote Pay attention - I was writing about about federal revenues, NOT spending. In real terms (constant $$) revenues decreased during GWB's presidency. They increased during Clinton's administration. __________________________________________ I understand what you wrote...doesn't make what I wrote to be incorrect. It appears you think its a revenue problem and I think its a spending problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dsandreas 0 #282 September 13, 2009 Quote Auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler- started by GWB. Bank bailouts - GWB again. AIG - the biggest single bailout - GWB again. Stimulus - remember GWB's checks for everyone? Republicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. __________________________________ I am not a Republican and I think Bush was a horrific President. Now that we have that established...what makes the continued wasteful spending something good for the country? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #283 September 13, 2009 Quote Quote Pay attention - I was writing about about federal revenues, NOT spending. In real terms (constant $$) revenues decreased during GWB's presidency. They increased during Clinton's administration. __________________________________________ I understand what you wrote...doesn't make what I wrote to be incorrect. It appears you think its a revenue problem and I think its a spending problem. Yea, quit putting words in his mouth or he will leave this thread for good again, and then come back. As I've illustrated, Reagan and GWB had spending increases of more than twice that of Clinton. As well, Reagan and GWB cut taxes at an insane level, so pick your poison, these were both presidents who did grave harm to the economy. I posted graph and data after another, please impeach them if wish, otherwise it's just more circular argument with you refusing to address the data, which would clear up the issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #284 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote Auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler- started by GWB. Bank bailouts - GWB again. AIG - the biggest single bailout - GWB again. Stimulus - remember GWB's checks for everyone? Republicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. __________________________________ I am not a Republican and I think Bush was a horrific President. Now that we have that established...what makes the continued wasteful spending something good for the country? First you have to establish which current spending is wasteful. Please do so and enumerate them, as in, don't group them together, talk about how each is wasteful and why. Also, at least I'm not attacking all Republican presidents of all times, and I don't think anyone else is either, just primarily Reagan and GWB for their horrid economic policies on both spending and taxation. Conversely, GHWB was great, he cut spending (42% on an 8-year standard) from 57% to 42% and he raised taxes in 1990, not to mention amazing handling of Desert Storm and the fact that he was and is the first president that was a real military hero since probably Eisenhower. Reagan was a coward, GWB was a coward, Clinton was a draft dodger and Obama never had an interest in the military either way. So this isn't a partisan attack and I don't think you need to be a military hero to be a good president, but you have to be intellectually competent. Just list the current spending flaws and explain why they are wasteful. Also, explain why they are unneccessary and the probable outcome if said spending isn't made, as in the detriment that could be and how it isn't relevant. At least with me, this isn't a partisan issue, this being spending and taxation, even tho each party has its contemporary norms, they can also depart from them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,032 #285 September 13, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote If you had been criticizing Bush's disastrous fiscal policies from 2001 to 2008 (which you never did) you could escape the criticism that you have a double standard. As it is, your double standard is apparent for all to see. If it was a problem for you then, why isn't it a problem now? Did I say it isn't? Did you sy it is? I've not sy'd anything, ever. I have said that debt is not a firm foundation on which to build an economy many times on this forum, most recently on Aug 3, 2009, at 6:02 PM So ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,032 #286 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote Auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler- started by GWB. Bank bailouts - GWB again. AIG - the biggest single bailout - GWB again. Stimulus - remember GWB's checks for everyone? Republicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. __________________________________ I am not a Republican and I think Bush was a horrific President. Now that we have that established...what makes the continued wasteful spending something good for the country? I don't consider repairing roads and bridges wasteful (unless the bridge goes to Nowhere, AK). I don't consider spending on education wasteful. I don't consider spending on scientific research wasteful. OTOH I do consider spending $TRILLION on a war to eliminate non-existent WMDs to be wasteful, and I do consider the so-called "war on drugs" to be wasteful.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,032 #287 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote Pay attention - I was writing about about federal revenues, NOT spending. In real terms (constant $$) revenues decreased during GWB's presidency. They increased during Clinton's administration. __________________________________________ I understand what you wrote...doesn't make what I wrote to be incorrect. It appears you think its a revenue problem and I think its a spending problem. Only a moron would think that fixing the wreckage caused by 20 years of Voodoo Economics (Copyright 1980, G.H.W. Bush) would be cheap.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GeorgiaDon 362 #288 September 13, 2009 Hey dsandreas, Are you going to answer the questions I asked of you earlier (post 194) in the thread? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dsandreas 0 #289 September 13, 2009 Quote These questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. _________________________________________ No and no. I do not believe raising taxes in a recession will create GDP growth nor reduce unemployment....both of which would lead to increased tax revenues. Do you recommend these actions? If so, do you recommend these actions to increase tax revenues, to punish achievement, or some other reason? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #290 September 13, 2009 QuoteRepublicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. I read this book about 15 years ago (when it was first published). It was written by a Republican (former cabinet secretary), who had, for several years prior to that, been sounding the alarm on the massive debt load and skyrocketing deficits. He actually started speaking out on this during the late years of the Reagan administration. The guy even started a Foundation dedicated to fiscal responsibility. Accusing "Republicans" of a failure in this regard is roughly akin to accusing "Democrats" of the same. It's a shamelessly partisan effort to point fingers for political gain. Members of both parties have been on both sides of the issue, and different members of both parties have both worked to reduce the deficit and to increase it (whether through increased spending or decreased revenue).-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #291 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote These questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. _________________________________________ No and no. I do not believe raising taxes in a recession will create GDP growth nor reduce unemployment....both of which would lead to increased tax revenues. Do you recommend these actions? If so, do you recommend these actions to increase tax revenues, to punish achievement, or some other reason? It worked for Hoover (too late), FDR, GHWB and altho we were out of a recession, Clinton's tax increases led to unep from 7% to 4% and the GDP soared. The problem is that your opinions are impeached by objective data. QuoteDo you recommend these actions? If so, do you recommend these actions to increase tax revenues, to punish achievement, or some other reason? I recommend them to "fix" the economic indicators, such as unemployment and the GDP for starters, but also to bring more people out of poverty. These people you speak of that are punished for success are doing great, even while 1/6th of the people have zero health coverage, most others have such flimsy coverage that it requires substantial contribution, and class disparity seems to be widening constantly. At the end, taxes aren't personal, they are systemic in order to create and maintain a system that allows all to at least moderately prosper. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #292 September 13, 2009 QuoteThese questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Ah, yes. The old "well, we're spending a ton of money, so we need more taxes" argument. No point addressing the actual spending, is there? Because that would only address the underlying issue, wouldn't it? No sense at all in doing that. There are two ways to reduce deficits. Increase revenue or decrease expenditures. Pushing for one of these does not make you a hypocrite. It means you have a preference about what direction you want things to move in the future.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #293 September 13, 2009 QuoteAccusing "Republicans" of a failure in this regard is roughly akin to accusing "Democrats" of the same. It's a shamelessly partisan effort to point fingers for political gain. Members of both parties have been on both sides of the issue, and different members of both parties have both worked to reduce the deficit and to increase it (whether through increased spending or decreased revenue). But as the data I posted establishes, since 1981 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have been the heroes. Reagan and GWB have cut taxes and increased spending, GHWB and Clinton have done the opposite. As well, most of congress can be dichotomized by their stance on taxes and spending and this dichotomy is generally the current Republicans sound like Reagan and GWB, the Dems sound like GHWB and CLinton. Again, not a strictly partisan issue, but the generalities are there. I think to water it down and say that it's all of them undermines the truth that it has largely been the Republicans creating this mess. They get a great president in GHWB, he raises taxes and cuts the military to try to control the debt and he is rewarded by being voted out. I guess we get the government we deserve; the voters need to understand history that everytime we increase taxes things get better, cut em they take a crap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #294 September 13, 2009 Quote...81 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have.... I'm very confused. I wasn't aware that the President actually exercised complete control over the budget. Can you point me at a reference I can read that explains the process? Thanks!-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #295 September 13, 2009 QuoteAh, yes. The old "well, we're spending a ton of money, so we need more taxes" argument. No point addressing the actual spending, is there? Because that would only address the underlying issue, wouldn't it? No sense at all in doing that. Or we can cut spending and raise taxes, it worked for GHWB and Clinton to bring us the best, healthiest economy of all times. QuoteThere are two ways to reduce deficits. Increase revenue or decrease expenditures. Or both QuotePushing for one of these does not make you a hypocrite. It means you have a preference about what direction you want things to move in the future. What I think the hypocrisy remark was about was the support or at least non-demonization of Republican spending, yet the all of the sudden hatred for Democrat's proposals. Again, I've asked this a bunch, show me a major tax increase in history and a negative effect, or, show me a tax cut and a brilliant recovery due to that cut. Let's not try the 12-year delayed action tactic either. I sincerely would like to see a major federal tax cut and learn of a subsequent recovery, I can list a few and they all end in disaster. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #296 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote...81 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have.... I'm very confused. I wasn't aware that the President actually exercised complete control over the budget. Can you point me at a reference I can read that explains the process? Thanks! As for complete control, I guess I don't work in absolutes and I didn't say that Reagan and GWB were completely and absolutley to blame, just mostly. As for the president and their general and major impact on the federal budget outlays: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget Each year, the President of the United States submits his budget request to Congress for the following fiscal year, as required by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. Current law (31 U.S.C. § 1105(a)) requires the president to submit a budget no earlier than the first Monday in January, and no later than the first Monday in February. Typically, presidents submit budgets on the first Monday in February. The budget submission has been delayed, however, in new president's first year when previous president belonged to a different party. So the president starts the bugetary process, telling congress what he will allow in the form of a comprehensive proposal so they don't waste time sending him budgets he will veto. From there the House writes the bill, they send it to the Senate and it goes to the president. If he vetoes it COngress, I believe both chambers, have to override his veto by a 2/3 vote in order to remove him from the process. So the president is the initial legislator and the final legislator with veto power, I can't think of a more influential person with controil over the annual budget. Taxation bills are different, but the president still has basically the same process, he urges his allies in congress to write these bills by way of phone calls or even open speeches. Aside from any given president, to make this less partisan, let's look at the act rather than the individual president. Show me where a major federal tax cut has saved us all, has made the economic indicators more pleasant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #297 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteThese questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Ah, yes. The old "well, we're spending a ton of money, so we need more taxes" argument. No point addressing the actual spending, is there? Because that would only address the underlying issue, wouldn't it? No sense at all in doing that. There are two ways to reduce deficits. Increase revenue or decrease expenditures. Pushing for one of these does not make you a hypocrite. It means you have a preference about what direction you want things to move in the future. Pushing for one method (reducing expenditures) when the situation we are in has been caused by excessive growth in government spending, and "temporary" tax cuts, both implemented by YOUR preferred party, (The Republicans) cannot be interpreted as anything but hypocritical. The biggest expansion of government in US history occurred under ShrubCo. The biggest expansion of the national debt occurred under ShrubCo. It is stunning that righty ideology blinds you to these simple facts. These aren't opinions. These are FACTS. Can you please tell me how a ending a temporary tax cut, as was promised to happen when it was implmented, becomes a tax increase? That is some seriously fucked up logic. It was sold as a TEMPORARY tax cut, to expire after a period of time. Look up the word "temporary" in a dictionary if the meaning is unclear to you. The tax rate was TEMPORARILY reduced, so as to "give us our own money back", remember? The Republican idea was that since Clinton left us with a huge budget surplus, the correct thing to do was GIVE THE MONEY BACK, not pay down the existing debt. It was terrible idea then, and it continues to be a terrible idea now. Now that we are in a situation where we desperately need the money, why aren't we getting it? Could it be that the Republicans are lying sacks of shit that can't be trusted? My answer to that question is YES. A thousand times YES. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #298 September 13, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Doesn't it make sense that it's both collections and spending? What do you think creates the government's general fund? You have outlays on the spending end and tax revenues on the intake, i's both that matter. So if tax revenues fall to 10% of what they now are, as Libertarians would love, then you say that wouldn't affect the debt? The annual deficit is basicallly the number between revenue collections and outlays. Of course I'm talking Republican here, as much of Clinton's time we called that difference a suplus. ____________________________________________________ NO, it makes no sense at all. Spending is completely out of control and has been. Did you miss the auto bailouts, bank bailouts, stimulus waste, fraud and abuse in medicare, cash for clunkers, cash for appliances, etc? . Auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler- started by GWB. Bank bailouts - GWB again. AIG - the biggest single bailout - GWB again. Stimulus - remember GWB's checks for everyone? Republicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. And very few if anybody liked it then So much for change huh If you had been criticizing Bush's disastrous fiscal policies from 2001 to 2008 (which you never did) you could escape the criticism that you have a double standard. As it is, your double standard is apparent for all to see. Oh my foolish looking online friend. I didNEVER did I support a spending policy or new program. Suck on that dudeAnd your comment spelling make ME look foolish."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dsandreas 0 #299 September 13, 2009 In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...81 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm very confused. I wasn't aware that the President actually exercised complete control over the budget. Can you point me at a reference I can read that explains the process? Thanks! _________________________________________ Tom....already been down that road with this kid. Ravings of a lunatic. Takes any two statistics and pieces them together to support his view of the world. I stopped reading his posts....complete waste of time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #300 September 13, 2009 Quote Pushing for one method (reducing expenditures) when the situation we are in has been caused by excessive growth in government spending It seems like if growth in spending is a cause, then reduction in spending is a logical solution. Quote ...YOUR preferred party, (The Republicans)... I have been a registered, dues paying member of the United States Libertarian Party since 1993. Quote The biggest expansion of government in US history occurred under ShrubCo. The biggest expansion of the national debt occurred under ShrubCo. Sure. That sucked. I was against it. I'm against breaking those records, which is happening even now. Quote It is stunning that righty ideology blinds you to these simple facts. ??? Not sure where you're getting the "fact" that I'm blind to anything. Can you elaborate, by pointing out something I've said along those lines? Quote Could it be that the Republicans are lying sacks of shit that can't be trusted? My answer to that question is YES. A thousand times YES. Personally, I think that's true of almost everyone in Washington DC. I think you've been fooled into thinking the present leadership in DC is any different than the past leadership. Personally, I'm hard pressed to find any real differences. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next Page 12 of 18 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing × Sign In Sign Up Forums Dropzones Classifieds Gear Indoor Articles Photos Videos Calendar Stolen Fatalities Subscriptions Leaderboard Activity Back Activity All Activity My Activity Streams Unread Content Content I Started
dsandreas 0 #282 September 13, 2009 Quote Auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler- started by GWB. Bank bailouts - GWB again. AIG - the biggest single bailout - GWB again. Stimulus - remember GWB's checks for everyone? Republicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. __________________________________ I am not a Republican and I think Bush was a horrific President. Now that we have that established...what makes the continued wasteful spending something good for the country? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #283 September 13, 2009 Quote Quote Pay attention - I was writing about about federal revenues, NOT spending. In real terms (constant $$) revenues decreased during GWB's presidency. They increased during Clinton's administration. __________________________________________ I understand what you wrote...doesn't make what I wrote to be incorrect. It appears you think its a revenue problem and I think its a spending problem. Yea, quit putting words in his mouth or he will leave this thread for good again, and then come back. As I've illustrated, Reagan and GWB had spending increases of more than twice that of Clinton. As well, Reagan and GWB cut taxes at an insane level, so pick your poison, these were both presidents who did grave harm to the economy. I posted graph and data after another, please impeach them if wish, otherwise it's just more circular argument with you refusing to address the data, which would clear up the issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #284 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote Auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler- started by GWB. Bank bailouts - GWB again. AIG - the biggest single bailout - GWB again. Stimulus - remember GWB's checks for everyone? Republicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. __________________________________ I am not a Republican and I think Bush was a horrific President. Now that we have that established...what makes the continued wasteful spending something good for the country? First you have to establish which current spending is wasteful. Please do so and enumerate them, as in, don't group them together, talk about how each is wasteful and why. Also, at least I'm not attacking all Republican presidents of all times, and I don't think anyone else is either, just primarily Reagan and GWB for their horrid economic policies on both spending and taxation. Conversely, GHWB was great, he cut spending (42% on an 8-year standard) from 57% to 42% and he raised taxes in 1990, not to mention amazing handling of Desert Storm and the fact that he was and is the first president that was a real military hero since probably Eisenhower. Reagan was a coward, GWB was a coward, Clinton was a draft dodger and Obama never had an interest in the military either way. So this isn't a partisan attack and I don't think you need to be a military hero to be a good president, but you have to be intellectually competent. Just list the current spending flaws and explain why they are wasteful. Also, explain why they are unneccessary and the probable outcome if said spending isn't made, as in the detriment that could be and how it isn't relevant. At least with me, this isn't a partisan issue, this being spending and taxation, even tho each party has its contemporary norms, they can also depart from them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,032 #285 September 13, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote If you had been criticizing Bush's disastrous fiscal policies from 2001 to 2008 (which you never did) you could escape the criticism that you have a double standard. As it is, your double standard is apparent for all to see. If it was a problem for you then, why isn't it a problem now? Did I say it isn't? Did you sy it is? I've not sy'd anything, ever. I have said that debt is not a firm foundation on which to build an economy many times on this forum, most recently on Aug 3, 2009, at 6:02 PM So ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,032 #286 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote Auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler- started by GWB. Bank bailouts - GWB again. AIG - the biggest single bailout - GWB again. Stimulus - remember GWB's checks for everyone? Republicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. __________________________________ I am not a Republican and I think Bush was a horrific President. Now that we have that established...what makes the continued wasteful spending something good for the country? I don't consider repairing roads and bridges wasteful (unless the bridge goes to Nowhere, AK). I don't consider spending on education wasteful. I don't consider spending on scientific research wasteful. OTOH I do consider spending $TRILLION on a war to eliminate non-existent WMDs to be wasteful, and I do consider the so-called "war on drugs" to be wasteful.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,032 #287 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote Pay attention - I was writing about about federal revenues, NOT spending. In real terms (constant $$) revenues decreased during GWB's presidency. They increased during Clinton's administration. __________________________________________ I understand what you wrote...doesn't make what I wrote to be incorrect. It appears you think its a revenue problem and I think its a spending problem. Only a moron would think that fixing the wreckage caused by 20 years of Voodoo Economics (Copyright 1980, G.H.W. Bush) would be cheap.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GeorgiaDon 362 #288 September 13, 2009 Hey dsandreas, Are you going to answer the questions I asked of you earlier (post 194) in the thread? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dsandreas 0 #289 September 13, 2009 Quote These questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. _________________________________________ No and no. I do not believe raising taxes in a recession will create GDP growth nor reduce unemployment....both of which would lead to increased tax revenues. Do you recommend these actions? If so, do you recommend these actions to increase tax revenues, to punish achievement, or some other reason? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #290 September 13, 2009 QuoteRepublicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. I read this book about 15 years ago (when it was first published). It was written by a Republican (former cabinet secretary), who had, for several years prior to that, been sounding the alarm on the massive debt load and skyrocketing deficits. He actually started speaking out on this during the late years of the Reagan administration. The guy even started a Foundation dedicated to fiscal responsibility. Accusing "Republicans" of a failure in this regard is roughly akin to accusing "Democrats" of the same. It's a shamelessly partisan effort to point fingers for political gain. Members of both parties have been on both sides of the issue, and different members of both parties have both worked to reduce the deficit and to increase it (whether through increased spending or decreased revenue).-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #291 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote These questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. _________________________________________ No and no. I do not believe raising taxes in a recession will create GDP growth nor reduce unemployment....both of which would lead to increased tax revenues. Do you recommend these actions? If so, do you recommend these actions to increase tax revenues, to punish achievement, or some other reason? It worked for Hoover (too late), FDR, GHWB and altho we were out of a recession, Clinton's tax increases led to unep from 7% to 4% and the GDP soared. The problem is that your opinions are impeached by objective data. QuoteDo you recommend these actions? If so, do you recommend these actions to increase tax revenues, to punish achievement, or some other reason? I recommend them to "fix" the economic indicators, such as unemployment and the GDP for starters, but also to bring more people out of poverty. These people you speak of that are punished for success are doing great, even while 1/6th of the people have zero health coverage, most others have such flimsy coverage that it requires substantial contribution, and class disparity seems to be widening constantly. At the end, taxes aren't personal, they are systemic in order to create and maintain a system that allows all to at least moderately prosper. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #292 September 13, 2009 QuoteThese questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Ah, yes. The old "well, we're spending a ton of money, so we need more taxes" argument. No point addressing the actual spending, is there? Because that would only address the underlying issue, wouldn't it? No sense at all in doing that. There are two ways to reduce deficits. Increase revenue or decrease expenditures. Pushing for one of these does not make you a hypocrite. It means you have a preference about what direction you want things to move in the future.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #293 September 13, 2009 QuoteAccusing "Republicans" of a failure in this regard is roughly akin to accusing "Democrats" of the same. It's a shamelessly partisan effort to point fingers for political gain. Members of both parties have been on both sides of the issue, and different members of both parties have both worked to reduce the deficit and to increase it (whether through increased spending or decreased revenue). But as the data I posted establishes, since 1981 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have been the heroes. Reagan and GWB have cut taxes and increased spending, GHWB and Clinton have done the opposite. As well, most of congress can be dichotomized by their stance on taxes and spending and this dichotomy is generally the current Republicans sound like Reagan and GWB, the Dems sound like GHWB and CLinton. Again, not a strictly partisan issue, but the generalities are there. I think to water it down and say that it's all of them undermines the truth that it has largely been the Republicans creating this mess. They get a great president in GHWB, he raises taxes and cuts the military to try to control the debt and he is rewarded by being voted out. I guess we get the government we deserve; the voters need to understand history that everytime we increase taxes things get better, cut em they take a crap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #294 September 13, 2009 Quote...81 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have.... I'm very confused. I wasn't aware that the President actually exercised complete control over the budget. Can you point me at a reference I can read that explains the process? Thanks!-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #295 September 13, 2009 QuoteAh, yes. The old "well, we're spending a ton of money, so we need more taxes" argument. No point addressing the actual spending, is there? Because that would only address the underlying issue, wouldn't it? No sense at all in doing that. Or we can cut spending and raise taxes, it worked for GHWB and Clinton to bring us the best, healthiest economy of all times. QuoteThere are two ways to reduce deficits. Increase revenue or decrease expenditures. Or both QuotePushing for one of these does not make you a hypocrite. It means you have a preference about what direction you want things to move in the future. What I think the hypocrisy remark was about was the support or at least non-demonization of Republican spending, yet the all of the sudden hatred for Democrat's proposals. Again, I've asked this a bunch, show me a major tax increase in history and a negative effect, or, show me a tax cut and a brilliant recovery due to that cut. Let's not try the 12-year delayed action tactic either. I sincerely would like to see a major federal tax cut and learn of a subsequent recovery, I can list a few and they all end in disaster. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #296 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote...81 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have.... I'm very confused. I wasn't aware that the President actually exercised complete control over the budget. Can you point me at a reference I can read that explains the process? Thanks! As for complete control, I guess I don't work in absolutes and I didn't say that Reagan and GWB were completely and absolutley to blame, just mostly. As for the president and their general and major impact on the federal budget outlays: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget Each year, the President of the United States submits his budget request to Congress for the following fiscal year, as required by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. Current law (31 U.S.C. § 1105(a)) requires the president to submit a budget no earlier than the first Monday in January, and no later than the first Monday in February. Typically, presidents submit budgets on the first Monday in February. The budget submission has been delayed, however, in new president's first year when previous president belonged to a different party. So the president starts the bugetary process, telling congress what he will allow in the form of a comprehensive proposal so they don't waste time sending him budgets he will veto. From there the House writes the bill, they send it to the Senate and it goes to the president. If he vetoes it COngress, I believe both chambers, have to override his veto by a 2/3 vote in order to remove him from the process. So the president is the initial legislator and the final legislator with veto power, I can't think of a more influential person with controil over the annual budget. Taxation bills are different, but the president still has basically the same process, he urges his allies in congress to write these bills by way of phone calls or even open speeches. Aside from any given president, to make this less partisan, let's look at the act rather than the individual president. Show me where a major federal tax cut has saved us all, has made the economic indicators more pleasant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #297 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteThese questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Ah, yes. The old "well, we're spending a ton of money, so we need more taxes" argument. No point addressing the actual spending, is there? Because that would only address the underlying issue, wouldn't it? No sense at all in doing that. There are two ways to reduce deficits. Increase revenue or decrease expenditures. Pushing for one of these does not make you a hypocrite. It means you have a preference about what direction you want things to move in the future. Pushing for one method (reducing expenditures) when the situation we are in has been caused by excessive growth in government spending, and "temporary" tax cuts, both implemented by YOUR preferred party, (The Republicans) cannot be interpreted as anything but hypocritical. The biggest expansion of government in US history occurred under ShrubCo. The biggest expansion of the national debt occurred under ShrubCo. It is stunning that righty ideology blinds you to these simple facts. These aren't opinions. These are FACTS. Can you please tell me how a ending a temporary tax cut, as was promised to happen when it was implmented, becomes a tax increase? That is some seriously fucked up logic. It was sold as a TEMPORARY tax cut, to expire after a period of time. Look up the word "temporary" in a dictionary if the meaning is unclear to you. The tax rate was TEMPORARILY reduced, so as to "give us our own money back", remember? The Republican idea was that since Clinton left us with a huge budget surplus, the correct thing to do was GIVE THE MONEY BACK, not pay down the existing debt. It was terrible idea then, and it continues to be a terrible idea now. Now that we are in a situation where we desperately need the money, why aren't we getting it? Could it be that the Republicans are lying sacks of shit that can't be trusted? My answer to that question is YES. A thousand times YES. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #298 September 13, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Doesn't it make sense that it's both collections and spending? What do you think creates the government's general fund? You have outlays on the spending end and tax revenues on the intake, i's both that matter. So if tax revenues fall to 10% of what they now are, as Libertarians would love, then you say that wouldn't affect the debt? The annual deficit is basicallly the number between revenue collections and outlays. Of course I'm talking Republican here, as much of Clinton's time we called that difference a suplus. ____________________________________________________ NO, it makes no sense at all. Spending is completely out of control and has been. Did you miss the auto bailouts, bank bailouts, stimulus waste, fraud and abuse in medicare, cash for clunkers, cash for appliances, etc? . Auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler- started by GWB. Bank bailouts - GWB again. AIG - the biggest single bailout - GWB again. Stimulus - remember GWB's checks for everyone? Republicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. And very few if anybody liked it then So much for change huh If you had been criticizing Bush's disastrous fiscal policies from 2001 to 2008 (which you never did) you could escape the criticism that you have a double standard. As it is, your double standard is apparent for all to see. Oh my foolish looking online friend. I didNEVER did I support a spending policy or new program. Suck on that dudeAnd your comment spelling make ME look foolish."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dsandreas 0 #299 September 13, 2009 In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...81 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm very confused. I wasn't aware that the President actually exercised complete control over the budget. Can you point me at a reference I can read that explains the process? Thanks! _________________________________________ Tom....already been down that road with this kid. Ravings of a lunatic. Takes any two statistics and pieces them together to support his view of the world. I stopped reading his posts....complete waste of time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #300 September 13, 2009 Quote Pushing for one method (reducing expenditures) when the situation we are in has been caused by excessive growth in government spending It seems like if growth in spending is a cause, then reduction in spending is a logical solution. Quote ...YOUR preferred party, (The Republicans)... I have been a registered, dues paying member of the United States Libertarian Party since 1993. Quote The biggest expansion of government in US history occurred under ShrubCo. The biggest expansion of the national debt occurred under ShrubCo. Sure. That sucked. I was against it. I'm against breaking those records, which is happening even now. Quote It is stunning that righty ideology blinds you to these simple facts. ??? Not sure where you're getting the "fact" that I'm blind to anything. Can you elaborate, by pointing out something I've said along those lines? Quote Could it be that the Republicans are lying sacks of shit that can't be trusted? My answer to that question is YES. A thousand times YES. Personally, I think that's true of almost everyone in Washington DC. I think you've been fooled into thinking the present leadership in DC is any different than the past leadership. Personally, I'm hard pressed to find any real differences. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next Page 12 of 18 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing × Sign In Sign Up Forums Dropzones Classifieds Gear Indoor Articles Photos Videos Calendar Stolen Fatalities Subscriptions Leaderboard Activity Back Activity All Activity My Activity Streams Unread Content Content I Started
Lucky... 0 #283 September 13, 2009 Quote Quote Pay attention - I was writing about about federal revenues, NOT spending. In real terms (constant $$) revenues decreased during GWB's presidency. They increased during Clinton's administration. __________________________________________ I understand what you wrote...doesn't make what I wrote to be incorrect. It appears you think its a revenue problem and I think its a spending problem. Yea, quit putting words in his mouth or he will leave this thread for good again, and then come back. As I've illustrated, Reagan and GWB had spending increases of more than twice that of Clinton. As well, Reagan and GWB cut taxes at an insane level, so pick your poison, these were both presidents who did grave harm to the economy. I posted graph and data after another, please impeach them if wish, otherwise it's just more circular argument with you refusing to address the data, which would clear up the issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #284 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote Auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler- started by GWB. Bank bailouts - GWB again. AIG - the biggest single bailout - GWB again. Stimulus - remember GWB's checks for everyone? Republicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. __________________________________ I am not a Republican and I think Bush was a horrific President. Now that we have that established...what makes the continued wasteful spending something good for the country? First you have to establish which current spending is wasteful. Please do so and enumerate them, as in, don't group them together, talk about how each is wasteful and why. Also, at least I'm not attacking all Republican presidents of all times, and I don't think anyone else is either, just primarily Reagan and GWB for their horrid economic policies on both spending and taxation. Conversely, GHWB was great, he cut spending (42% on an 8-year standard) from 57% to 42% and he raised taxes in 1990, not to mention amazing handling of Desert Storm and the fact that he was and is the first president that was a real military hero since probably Eisenhower. Reagan was a coward, GWB was a coward, Clinton was a draft dodger and Obama never had an interest in the military either way. So this isn't a partisan attack and I don't think you need to be a military hero to be a good president, but you have to be intellectually competent. Just list the current spending flaws and explain why they are wasteful. Also, explain why they are unneccessary and the probable outcome if said spending isn't made, as in the detriment that could be and how it isn't relevant. At least with me, this isn't a partisan issue, this being spending and taxation, even tho each party has its contemporary norms, they can also depart from them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,032 #285 September 13, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote If you had been criticizing Bush's disastrous fiscal policies from 2001 to 2008 (which you never did) you could escape the criticism that you have a double standard. As it is, your double standard is apparent for all to see. If it was a problem for you then, why isn't it a problem now? Did I say it isn't? Did you sy it is? I've not sy'd anything, ever. I have said that debt is not a firm foundation on which to build an economy many times on this forum, most recently on Aug 3, 2009, at 6:02 PM So ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,032 #286 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote Auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler- started by GWB. Bank bailouts - GWB again. AIG - the biggest single bailout - GWB again. Stimulus - remember GWB's checks for everyone? Republicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. __________________________________ I am not a Republican and I think Bush was a horrific President. Now that we have that established...what makes the continued wasteful spending something good for the country? I don't consider repairing roads and bridges wasteful (unless the bridge goes to Nowhere, AK). I don't consider spending on education wasteful. I don't consider spending on scientific research wasteful. OTOH I do consider spending $TRILLION on a war to eliminate non-existent WMDs to be wasteful, and I do consider the so-called "war on drugs" to be wasteful.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,032 #287 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote Pay attention - I was writing about about federal revenues, NOT spending. In real terms (constant $$) revenues decreased during GWB's presidency. They increased during Clinton's administration. __________________________________________ I understand what you wrote...doesn't make what I wrote to be incorrect. It appears you think its a revenue problem and I think its a spending problem. Only a moron would think that fixing the wreckage caused by 20 years of Voodoo Economics (Copyright 1980, G.H.W. Bush) would be cheap.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GeorgiaDon 362 #288 September 13, 2009 Hey dsandreas, Are you going to answer the questions I asked of you earlier (post 194) in the thread? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dsandreas 0 #289 September 13, 2009 Quote These questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. _________________________________________ No and no. I do not believe raising taxes in a recession will create GDP growth nor reduce unemployment....both of which would lead to increased tax revenues. Do you recommend these actions? If so, do you recommend these actions to increase tax revenues, to punish achievement, or some other reason? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #290 September 13, 2009 QuoteRepublicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. I read this book about 15 years ago (when it was first published). It was written by a Republican (former cabinet secretary), who had, for several years prior to that, been sounding the alarm on the massive debt load and skyrocketing deficits. He actually started speaking out on this during the late years of the Reagan administration. The guy even started a Foundation dedicated to fiscal responsibility. Accusing "Republicans" of a failure in this regard is roughly akin to accusing "Democrats" of the same. It's a shamelessly partisan effort to point fingers for political gain. Members of both parties have been on both sides of the issue, and different members of both parties have both worked to reduce the deficit and to increase it (whether through increased spending or decreased revenue).-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #291 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote These questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. _________________________________________ No and no. I do not believe raising taxes in a recession will create GDP growth nor reduce unemployment....both of which would lead to increased tax revenues. Do you recommend these actions? If so, do you recommend these actions to increase tax revenues, to punish achievement, or some other reason? It worked for Hoover (too late), FDR, GHWB and altho we were out of a recession, Clinton's tax increases led to unep from 7% to 4% and the GDP soared. The problem is that your opinions are impeached by objective data. QuoteDo you recommend these actions? If so, do you recommend these actions to increase tax revenues, to punish achievement, or some other reason? I recommend them to "fix" the economic indicators, such as unemployment and the GDP for starters, but also to bring more people out of poverty. These people you speak of that are punished for success are doing great, even while 1/6th of the people have zero health coverage, most others have such flimsy coverage that it requires substantial contribution, and class disparity seems to be widening constantly. At the end, taxes aren't personal, they are systemic in order to create and maintain a system that allows all to at least moderately prosper. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #292 September 13, 2009 QuoteThese questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Ah, yes. The old "well, we're spending a ton of money, so we need more taxes" argument. No point addressing the actual spending, is there? Because that would only address the underlying issue, wouldn't it? No sense at all in doing that. There are two ways to reduce deficits. Increase revenue or decrease expenditures. Pushing for one of these does not make you a hypocrite. It means you have a preference about what direction you want things to move in the future.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #293 September 13, 2009 QuoteAccusing "Republicans" of a failure in this regard is roughly akin to accusing "Democrats" of the same. It's a shamelessly partisan effort to point fingers for political gain. Members of both parties have been on both sides of the issue, and different members of both parties have both worked to reduce the deficit and to increase it (whether through increased spending or decreased revenue). But as the data I posted establishes, since 1981 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have been the heroes. Reagan and GWB have cut taxes and increased spending, GHWB and Clinton have done the opposite. As well, most of congress can be dichotomized by their stance on taxes and spending and this dichotomy is generally the current Republicans sound like Reagan and GWB, the Dems sound like GHWB and CLinton. Again, not a strictly partisan issue, but the generalities are there. I think to water it down and say that it's all of them undermines the truth that it has largely been the Republicans creating this mess. They get a great president in GHWB, he raises taxes and cuts the military to try to control the debt and he is rewarded by being voted out. I guess we get the government we deserve; the voters need to understand history that everytime we increase taxes things get better, cut em they take a crap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #294 September 13, 2009 Quote...81 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have.... I'm very confused. I wasn't aware that the President actually exercised complete control over the budget. Can you point me at a reference I can read that explains the process? Thanks!-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #295 September 13, 2009 QuoteAh, yes. The old "well, we're spending a ton of money, so we need more taxes" argument. No point addressing the actual spending, is there? Because that would only address the underlying issue, wouldn't it? No sense at all in doing that. Or we can cut spending and raise taxes, it worked for GHWB and Clinton to bring us the best, healthiest economy of all times. QuoteThere are two ways to reduce deficits. Increase revenue or decrease expenditures. Or both QuotePushing for one of these does not make you a hypocrite. It means you have a preference about what direction you want things to move in the future. What I think the hypocrisy remark was about was the support or at least non-demonization of Republican spending, yet the all of the sudden hatred for Democrat's proposals. Again, I've asked this a bunch, show me a major tax increase in history and a negative effect, or, show me a tax cut and a brilliant recovery due to that cut. Let's not try the 12-year delayed action tactic either. I sincerely would like to see a major federal tax cut and learn of a subsequent recovery, I can list a few and they all end in disaster. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #296 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote...81 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have.... I'm very confused. I wasn't aware that the President actually exercised complete control over the budget. Can you point me at a reference I can read that explains the process? Thanks! As for complete control, I guess I don't work in absolutes and I didn't say that Reagan and GWB were completely and absolutley to blame, just mostly. As for the president and their general and major impact on the federal budget outlays: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget Each year, the President of the United States submits his budget request to Congress for the following fiscal year, as required by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. Current law (31 U.S.C. § 1105(a)) requires the president to submit a budget no earlier than the first Monday in January, and no later than the first Monday in February. Typically, presidents submit budgets on the first Monday in February. The budget submission has been delayed, however, in new president's first year when previous president belonged to a different party. So the president starts the bugetary process, telling congress what he will allow in the form of a comprehensive proposal so they don't waste time sending him budgets he will veto. From there the House writes the bill, they send it to the Senate and it goes to the president. If he vetoes it COngress, I believe both chambers, have to override his veto by a 2/3 vote in order to remove him from the process. So the president is the initial legislator and the final legislator with veto power, I can't think of a more influential person with controil over the annual budget. Taxation bills are different, but the president still has basically the same process, he urges his allies in congress to write these bills by way of phone calls or even open speeches. Aside from any given president, to make this less partisan, let's look at the act rather than the individual president. Show me where a major federal tax cut has saved us all, has made the economic indicators more pleasant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #297 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteThese questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Ah, yes. The old "well, we're spending a ton of money, so we need more taxes" argument. No point addressing the actual spending, is there? Because that would only address the underlying issue, wouldn't it? No sense at all in doing that. There are two ways to reduce deficits. Increase revenue or decrease expenditures. Pushing for one of these does not make you a hypocrite. It means you have a preference about what direction you want things to move in the future. Pushing for one method (reducing expenditures) when the situation we are in has been caused by excessive growth in government spending, and "temporary" tax cuts, both implemented by YOUR preferred party, (The Republicans) cannot be interpreted as anything but hypocritical. The biggest expansion of government in US history occurred under ShrubCo. The biggest expansion of the national debt occurred under ShrubCo. It is stunning that righty ideology blinds you to these simple facts. These aren't opinions. These are FACTS. Can you please tell me how a ending a temporary tax cut, as was promised to happen when it was implmented, becomes a tax increase? That is some seriously fucked up logic. It was sold as a TEMPORARY tax cut, to expire after a period of time. Look up the word "temporary" in a dictionary if the meaning is unclear to you. The tax rate was TEMPORARILY reduced, so as to "give us our own money back", remember? The Republican idea was that since Clinton left us with a huge budget surplus, the correct thing to do was GIVE THE MONEY BACK, not pay down the existing debt. It was terrible idea then, and it continues to be a terrible idea now. Now that we are in a situation where we desperately need the money, why aren't we getting it? Could it be that the Republicans are lying sacks of shit that can't be trusted? My answer to that question is YES. A thousand times YES. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #298 September 13, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Doesn't it make sense that it's both collections and spending? What do you think creates the government's general fund? You have outlays on the spending end and tax revenues on the intake, i's both that matter. So if tax revenues fall to 10% of what they now are, as Libertarians would love, then you say that wouldn't affect the debt? The annual deficit is basicallly the number between revenue collections and outlays. Of course I'm talking Republican here, as much of Clinton's time we called that difference a suplus. ____________________________________________________ NO, it makes no sense at all. Spending is completely out of control and has been. Did you miss the auto bailouts, bank bailouts, stimulus waste, fraud and abuse in medicare, cash for clunkers, cash for appliances, etc? . Auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler- started by GWB. Bank bailouts - GWB again. AIG - the biggest single bailout - GWB again. Stimulus - remember GWB's checks for everyone? Republicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. And very few if anybody liked it then So much for change huh If you had been criticizing Bush's disastrous fiscal policies from 2001 to 2008 (which you never did) you could escape the criticism that you have a double standard. As it is, your double standard is apparent for all to see. Oh my foolish looking online friend. I didNEVER did I support a spending policy or new program. Suck on that dudeAnd your comment spelling make ME look foolish."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dsandreas 0 #299 September 13, 2009 In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...81 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm very confused. I wasn't aware that the President actually exercised complete control over the budget. Can you point me at a reference I can read that explains the process? Thanks! _________________________________________ Tom....already been down that road with this kid. Ravings of a lunatic. Takes any two statistics and pieces them together to support his view of the world. I stopped reading his posts....complete waste of time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #300 September 13, 2009 Quote Pushing for one method (reducing expenditures) when the situation we are in has been caused by excessive growth in government spending It seems like if growth in spending is a cause, then reduction in spending is a logical solution. Quote ...YOUR preferred party, (The Republicans)... I have been a registered, dues paying member of the United States Libertarian Party since 1993. Quote The biggest expansion of government in US history occurred under ShrubCo. The biggest expansion of the national debt occurred under ShrubCo. Sure. That sucked. I was against it. I'm against breaking those records, which is happening even now. Quote It is stunning that righty ideology blinds you to these simple facts. ??? Not sure where you're getting the "fact" that I'm blind to anything. Can you elaborate, by pointing out something I've said along those lines? Quote Could it be that the Republicans are lying sacks of shit that can't be trusted? My answer to that question is YES. A thousand times YES. Personally, I think that's true of almost everyone in Washington DC. I think you've been fooled into thinking the present leadership in DC is any different than the past leadership. Personally, I'm hard pressed to find any real differences. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next Page 12 of 18 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 2,032 #285 September 13, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote If you had been criticizing Bush's disastrous fiscal policies from 2001 to 2008 (which you never did) you could escape the criticism that you have a double standard. As it is, your double standard is apparent for all to see. If it was a problem for you then, why isn't it a problem now? Did I say it isn't? Did you sy it is? I've not sy'd anything, ever. I have said that debt is not a firm foundation on which to build an economy many times on this forum, most recently on Aug 3, 2009, at 6:02 PM So ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,032 #286 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote Auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler- started by GWB. Bank bailouts - GWB again. AIG - the biggest single bailout - GWB again. Stimulus - remember GWB's checks for everyone? Republicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. __________________________________ I am not a Republican and I think Bush was a horrific President. Now that we have that established...what makes the continued wasteful spending something good for the country? I don't consider repairing roads and bridges wasteful (unless the bridge goes to Nowhere, AK). I don't consider spending on education wasteful. I don't consider spending on scientific research wasteful. OTOH I do consider spending $TRILLION on a war to eliminate non-existent WMDs to be wasteful, and I do consider the so-called "war on drugs" to be wasteful.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,032 #287 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote Pay attention - I was writing about about federal revenues, NOT spending. In real terms (constant $$) revenues decreased during GWB's presidency. They increased during Clinton's administration. __________________________________________ I understand what you wrote...doesn't make what I wrote to be incorrect. It appears you think its a revenue problem and I think its a spending problem. Only a moron would think that fixing the wreckage caused by 20 years of Voodoo Economics (Copyright 1980, G.H.W. Bush) would be cheap.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GeorgiaDon 362 #288 September 13, 2009 Hey dsandreas, Are you going to answer the questions I asked of you earlier (post 194) in the thread? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dsandreas 0 #289 September 13, 2009 Quote These questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. _________________________________________ No and no. I do not believe raising taxes in a recession will create GDP growth nor reduce unemployment....both of which would lead to increased tax revenues. Do you recommend these actions? If so, do you recommend these actions to increase tax revenues, to punish achievement, or some other reason? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #290 September 13, 2009 QuoteRepublicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. I read this book about 15 years ago (when it was first published). It was written by a Republican (former cabinet secretary), who had, for several years prior to that, been sounding the alarm on the massive debt load and skyrocketing deficits. He actually started speaking out on this during the late years of the Reagan administration. The guy even started a Foundation dedicated to fiscal responsibility. Accusing "Republicans" of a failure in this regard is roughly akin to accusing "Democrats" of the same. It's a shamelessly partisan effort to point fingers for political gain. Members of both parties have been on both sides of the issue, and different members of both parties have both worked to reduce the deficit and to increase it (whether through increased spending or decreased revenue).-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #291 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote These questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. _________________________________________ No and no. I do not believe raising taxes in a recession will create GDP growth nor reduce unemployment....both of which would lead to increased tax revenues. Do you recommend these actions? If so, do you recommend these actions to increase tax revenues, to punish achievement, or some other reason? It worked for Hoover (too late), FDR, GHWB and altho we were out of a recession, Clinton's tax increases led to unep from 7% to 4% and the GDP soared. The problem is that your opinions are impeached by objective data. QuoteDo you recommend these actions? If so, do you recommend these actions to increase tax revenues, to punish achievement, or some other reason? I recommend them to "fix" the economic indicators, such as unemployment and the GDP for starters, but also to bring more people out of poverty. These people you speak of that are punished for success are doing great, even while 1/6th of the people have zero health coverage, most others have such flimsy coverage that it requires substantial contribution, and class disparity seems to be widening constantly. At the end, taxes aren't personal, they are systemic in order to create and maintain a system that allows all to at least moderately prosper. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #292 September 13, 2009 QuoteThese questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Ah, yes. The old "well, we're spending a ton of money, so we need more taxes" argument. No point addressing the actual spending, is there? Because that would only address the underlying issue, wouldn't it? No sense at all in doing that. There are two ways to reduce deficits. Increase revenue or decrease expenditures. Pushing for one of these does not make you a hypocrite. It means you have a preference about what direction you want things to move in the future.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #293 September 13, 2009 QuoteAccusing "Republicans" of a failure in this regard is roughly akin to accusing "Democrats" of the same. It's a shamelessly partisan effort to point fingers for political gain. Members of both parties have been on both sides of the issue, and different members of both parties have both worked to reduce the deficit and to increase it (whether through increased spending or decreased revenue). But as the data I posted establishes, since 1981 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have been the heroes. Reagan and GWB have cut taxes and increased spending, GHWB and Clinton have done the opposite. As well, most of congress can be dichotomized by their stance on taxes and spending and this dichotomy is generally the current Republicans sound like Reagan and GWB, the Dems sound like GHWB and CLinton. Again, not a strictly partisan issue, but the generalities are there. I think to water it down and say that it's all of them undermines the truth that it has largely been the Republicans creating this mess. They get a great president in GHWB, he raises taxes and cuts the military to try to control the debt and he is rewarded by being voted out. I guess we get the government we deserve; the voters need to understand history that everytime we increase taxes things get better, cut em they take a crap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #294 September 13, 2009 Quote...81 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have.... I'm very confused. I wasn't aware that the President actually exercised complete control over the budget. Can you point me at a reference I can read that explains the process? Thanks!-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #295 September 13, 2009 QuoteAh, yes. The old "well, we're spending a ton of money, so we need more taxes" argument. No point addressing the actual spending, is there? Because that would only address the underlying issue, wouldn't it? No sense at all in doing that. Or we can cut spending and raise taxes, it worked for GHWB and Clinton to bring us the best, healthiest economy of all times. QuoteThere are two ways to reduce deficits. Increase revenue or decrease expenditures. Or both QuotePushing for one of these does not make you a hypocrite. It means you have a preference about what direction you want things to move in the future. What I think the hypocrisy remark was about was the support or at least non-demonization of Republican spending, yet the all of the sudden hatred for Democrat's proposals. Again, I've asked this a bunch, show me a major tax increase in history and a negative effect, or, show me a tax cut and a brilliant recovery due to that cut. Let's not try the 12-year delayed action tactic either. I sincerely would like to see a major federal tax cut and learn of a subsequent recovery, I can list a few and they all end in disaster. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #296 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote...81 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have.... I'm very confused. I wasn't aware that the President actually exercised complete control over the budget. Can you point me at a reference I can read that explains the process? Thanks! As for complete control, I guess I don't work in absolutes and I didn't say that Reagan and GWB were completely and absolutley to blame, just mostly. As for the president and their general and major impact on the federal budget outlays: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget Each year, the President of the United States submits his budget request to Congress for the following fiscal year, as required by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. Current law (31 U.S.C. § 1105(a)) requires the president to submit a budget no earlier than the first Monday in January, and no later than the first Monday in February. Typically, presidents submit budgets on the first Monday in February. The budget submission has been delayed, however, in new president's first year when previous president belonged to a different party. So the president starts the bugetary process, telling congress what he will allow in the form of a comprehensive proposal so they don't waste time sending him budgets he will veto. From there the House writes the bill, they send it to the Senate and it goes to the president. If he vetoes it COngress, I believe both chambers, have to override his veto by a 2/3 vote in order to remove him from the process. So the president is the initial legislator and the final legislator with veto power, I can't think of a more influential person with controil over the annual budget. Taxation bills are different, but the president still has basically the same process, he urges his allies in congress to write these bills by way of phone calls or even open speeches. Aside from any given president, to make this less partisan, let's look at the act rather than the individual president. Show me where a major federal tax cut has saved us all, has made the economic indicators more pleasant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #297 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteThese questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Ah, yes. The old "well, we're spending a ton of money, so we need more taxes" argument. No point addressing the actual spending, is there? Because that would only address the underlying issue, wouldn't it? No sense at all in doing that. There are two ways to reduce deficits. Increase revenue or decrease expenditures. Pushing for one of these does not make you a hypocrite. It means you have a preference about what direction you want things to move in the future. Pushing for one method (reducing expenditures) when the situation we are in has been caused by excessive growth in government spending, and "temporary" tax cuts, both implemented by YOUR preferred party, (The Republicans) cannot be interpreted as anything but hypocritical. The biggest expansion of government in US history occurred under ShrubCo. The biggest expansion of the national debt occurred under ShrubCo. It is stunning that righty ideology blinds you to these simple facts. These aren't opinions. These are FACTS. Can you please tell me how a ending a temporary tax cut, as was promised to happen when it was implmented, becomes a tax increase? That is some seriously fucked up logic. It was sold as a TEMPORARY tax cut, to expire after a period of time. Look up the word "temporary" in a dictionary if the meaning is unclear to you. The tax rate was TEMPORARILY reduced, so as to "give us our own money back", remember? The Republican idea was that since Clinton left us with a huge budget surplus, the correct thing to do was GIVE THE MONEY BACK, not pay down the existing debt. It was terrible idea then, and it continues to be a terrible idea now. Now that we are in a situation where we desperately need the money, why aren't we getting it? Could it be that the Republicans are lying sacks of shit that can't be trusted? My answer to that question is YES. A thousand times YES. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #298 September 13, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Doesn't it make sense that it's both collections and spending? What do you think creates the government's general fund? You have outlays on the spending end and tax revenues on the intake, i's both that matter. So if tax revenues fall to 10% of what they now are, as Libertarians would love, then you say that wouldn't affect the debt? The annual deficit is basicallly the number between revenue collections and outlays. Of course I'm talking Republican here, as much of Clinton's time we called that difference a suplus. ____________________________________________________ NO, it makes no sense at all. Spending is completely out of control and has been. Did you miss the auto bailouts, bank bailouts, stimulus waste, fraud and abuse in medicare, cash for clunkers, cash for appliances, etc? . Auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler- started by GWB. Bank bailouts - GWB again. AIG - the biggest single bailout - GWB again. Stimulus - remember GWB's checks for everyone? Republicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. And very few if anybody liked it then So much for change huh If you had been criticizing Bush's disastrous fiscal policies from 2001 to 2008 (which you never did) you could escape the criticism that you have a double standard. As it is, your double standard is apparent for all to see. Oh my foolish looking online friend. I didNEVER did I support a spending policy or new program. Suck on that dudeAnd your comment spelling make ME look foolish."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dsandreas 0 #299 September 13, 2009 In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...81 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm very confused. I wasn't aware that the President actually exercised complete control over the budget. Can you point me at a reference I can read that explains the process? Thanks! _________________________________________ Tom....already been down that road with this kid. Ravings of a lunatic. Takes any two statistics and pieces them together to support his view of the world. I stopped reading his posts....complete waste of time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #300 September 13, 2009 Quote Pushing for one method (reducing expenditures) when the situation we are in has been caused by excessive growth in government spending It seems like if growth in spending is a cause, then reduction in spending is a logical solution. Quote ...YOUR preferred party, (The Republicans)... I have been a registered, dues paying member of the United States Libertarian Party since 1993. Quote The biggest expansion of government in US history occurred under ShrubCo. The biggest expansion of the national debt occurred under ShrubCo. Sure. That sucked. I was against it. I'm against breaking those records, which is happening even now. Quote It is stunning that righty ideology blinds you to these simple facts. ??? Not sure where you're getting the "fact" that I'm blind to anything. Can you elaborate, by pointing out something I've said along those lines? Quote Could it be that the Republicans are lying sacks of shit that can't be trusted? My answer to that question is YES. A thousand times YES. Personally, I think that's true of almost everyone in Washington DC. I think you've been fooled into thinking the present leadership in DC is any different than the past leadership. Personally, I'm hard pressed to find any real differences. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next Page 12 of 18 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 2,032 #287 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote Pay attention - I was writing about about federal revenues, NOT spending. In real terms (constant $$) revenues decreased during GWB's presidency. They increased during Clinton's administration. __________________________________________ I understand what you wrote...doesn't make what I wrote to be incorrect. It appears you think its a revenue problem and I think its a spending problem. Only a moron would think that fixing the wreckage caused by 20 years of Voodoo Economics (Copyright 1980, G.H.W. Bush) would be cheap.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GeorgiaDon 362 #288 September 13, 2009 Hey dsandreas, Are you going to answer the questions I asked of you earlier (post 194) in the thread? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dsandreas 0 #289 September 13, 2009 Quote These questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. _________________________________________ No and no. I do not believe raising taxes in a recession will create GDP growth nor reduce unemployment....both of which would lead to increased tax revenues. Do you recommend these actions? If so, do you recommend these actions to increase tax revenues, to punish achievement, or some other reason? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #290 September 13, 2009 QuoteRepublicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. I read this book about 15 years ago (when it was first published). It was written by a Republican (former cabinet secretary), who had, for several years prior to that, been sounding the alarm on the massive debt load and skyrocketing deficits. He actually started speaking out on this during the late years of the Reagan administration. The guy even started a Foundation dedicated to fiscal responsibility. Accusing "Republicans" of a failure in this regard is roughly akin to accusing "Democrats" of the same. It's a shamelessly partisan effort to point fingers for political gain. Members of both parties have been on both sides of the issue, and different members of both parties have both worked to reduce the deficit and to increase it (whether through increased spending or decreased revenue).-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #291 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote These questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. _________________________________________ No and no. I do not believe raising taxes in a recession will create GDP growth nor reduce unemployment....both of which would lead to increased tax revenues. Do you recommend these actions? If so, do you recommend these actions to increase tax revenues, to punish achievement, or some other reason? It worked for Hoover (too late), FDR, GHWB and altho we were out of a recession, Clinton's tax increases led to unep from 7% to 4% and the GDP soared. The problem is that your opinions are impeached by objective data. QuoteDo you recommend these actions? If so, do you recommend these actions to increase tax revenues, to punish achievement, or some other reason? I recommend them to "fix" the economic indicators, such as unemployment and the GDP for starters, but also to bring more people out of poverty. These people you speak of that are punished for success are doing great, even while 1/6th of the people have zero health coverage, most others have such flimsy coverage that it requires substantial contribution, and class disparity seems to be widening constantly. At the end, taxes aren't personal, they are systemic in order to create and maintain a system that allows all to at least moderately prosper. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #292 September 13, 2009 QuoteThese questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Ah, yes. The old "well, we're spending a ton of money, so we need more taxes" argument. No point addressing the actual spending, is there? Because that would only address the underlying issue, wouldn't it? No sense at all in doing that. There are two ways to reduce deficits. Increase revenue or decrease expenditures. Pushing for one of these does not make you a hypocrite. It means you have a preference about what direction you want things to move in the future.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #293 September 13, 2009 QuoteAccusing "Republicans" of a failure in this regard is roughly akin to accusing "Democrats" of the same. It's a shamelessly partisan effort to point fingers for political gain. Members of both parties have been on both sides of the issue, and different members of both parties have both worked to reduce the deficit and to increase it (whether through increased spending or decreased revenue). But as the data I posted establishes, since 1981 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have been the heroes. Reagan and GWB have cut taxes and increased spending, GHWB and Clinton have done the opposite. As well, most of congress can be dichotomized by their stance on taxes and spending and this dichotomy is generally the current Republicans sound like Reagan and GWB, the Dems sound like GHWB and CLinton. Again, not a strictly partisan issue, but the generalities are there. I think to water it down and say that it's all of them undermines the truth that it has largely been the Republicans creating this mess. They get a great president in GHWB, he raises taxes and cuts the military to try to control the debt and he is rewarded by being voted out. I guess we get the government we deserve; the voters need to understand history that everytime we increase taxes things get better, cut em they take a crap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #294 September 13, 2009 Quote...81 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have.... I'm very confused. I wasn't aware that the President actually exercised complete control over the budget. Can you point me at a reference I can read that explains the process? Thanks!-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #295 September 13, 2009 QuoteAh, yes. The old "well, we're spending a ton of money, so we need more taxes" argument. No point addressing the actual spending, is there? Because that would only address the underlying issue, wouldn't it? No sense at all in doing that. Or we can cut spending and raise taxes, it worked for GHWB and Clinton to bring us the best, healthiest economy of all times. QuoteThere are two ways to reduce deficits. Increase revenue or decrease expenditures. Or both QuotePushing for one of these does not make you a hypocrite. It means you have a preference about what direction you want things to move in the future. What I think the hypocrisy remark was about was the support or at least non-demonization of Republican spending, yet the all of the sudden hatred for Democrat's proposals. Again, I've asked this a bunch, show me a major tax increase in history and a negative effect, or, show me a tax cut and a brilliant recovery due to that cut. Let's not try the 12-year delayed action tactic either. I sincerely would like to see a major federal tax cut and learn of a subsequent recovery, I can list a few and they all end in disaster. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #296 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote...81 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have.... I'm very confused. I wasn't aware that the President actually exercised complete control over the budget. Can you point me at a reference I can read that explains the process? Thanks! As for complete control, I guess I don't work in absolutes and I didn't say that Reagan and GWB were completely and absolutley to blame, just mostly. As for the president and their general and major impact on the federal budget outlays: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget Each year, the President of the United States submits his budget request to Congress for the following fiscal year, as required by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. Current law (31 U.S.C. § 1105(a)) requires the president to submit a budget no earlier than the first Monday in January, and no later than the first Monday in February. Typically, presidents submit budgets on the first Monday in February. The budget submission has been delayed, however, in new president's first year when previous president belonged to a different party. So the president starts the bugetary process, telling congress what he will allow in the form of a comprehensive proposal so they don't waste time sending him budgets he will veto. From there the House writes the bill, they send it to the Senate and it goes to the president. If he vetoes it COngress, I believe both chambers, have to override his veto by a 2/3 vote in order to remove him from the process. So the president is the initial legislator and the final legislator with veto power, I can't think of a more influential person with controil over the annual budget. Taxation bills are different, but the president still has basically the same process, he urges his allies in congress to write these bills by way of phone calls or even open speeches. Aside from any given president, to make this less partisan, let's look at the act rather than the individual president. Show me where a major federal tax cut has saved us all, has made the economic indicators more pleasant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #297 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteThese questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Ah, yes. The old "well, we're spending a ton of money, so we need more taxes" argument. No point addressing the actual spending, is there? Because that would only address the underlying issue, wouldn't it? No sense at all in doing that. There are two ways to reduce deficits. Increase revenue or decrease expenditures. Pushing for one of these does not make you a hypocrite. It means you have a preference about what direction you want things to move in the future. Pushing for one method (reducing expenditures) when the situation we are in has been caused by excessive growth in government spending, and "temporary" tax cuts, both implemented by YOUR preferred party, (The Republicans) cannot be interpreted as anything but hypocritical. The biggest expansion of government in US history occurred under ShrubCo. The biggest expansion of the national debt occurred under ShrubCo. It is stunning that righty ideology blinds you to these simple facts. These aren't opinions. These are FACTS. Can you please tell me how a ending a temporary tax cut, as was promised to happen when it was implmented, becomes a tax increase? That is some seriously fucked up logic. It was sold as a TEMPORARY tax cut, to expire after a period of time. Look up the word "temporary" in a dictionary if the meaning is unclear to you. The tax rate was TEMPORARILY reduced, so as to "give us our own money back", remember? The Republican idea was that since Clinton left us with a huge budget surplus, the correct thing to do was GIVE THE MONEY BACK, not pay down the existing debt. It was terrible idea then, and it continues to be a terrible idea now. Now that we are in a situation where we desperately need the money, why aren't we getting it? Could it be that the Republicans are lying sacks of shit that can't be trusted? My answer to that question is YES. A thousand times YES. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #298 September 13, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Doesn't it make sense that it's both collections and spending? What do you think creates the government's general fund? You have outlays on the spending end and tax revenues on the intake, i's both that matter. So if tax revenues fall to 10% of what they now are, as Libertarians would love, then you say that wouldn't affect the debt? The annual deficit is basicallly the number between revenue collections and outlays. Of course I'm talking Republican here, as much of Clinton's time we called that difference a suplus. ____________________________________________________ NO, it makes no sense at all. Spending is completely out of control and has been. Did you miss the auto bailouts, bank bailouts, stimulus waste, fraud and abuse in medicare, cash for clunkers, cash for appliances, etc? . Auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler- started by GWB. Bank bailouts - GWB again. AIG - the biggest single bailout - GWB again. Stimulus - remember GWB's checks for everyone? Republicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. And very few if anybody liked it then So much for change huh If you had been criticizing Bush's disastrous fiscal policies from 2001 to 2008 (which you never did) you could escape the criticism that you have a double standard. As it is, your double standard is apparent for all to see. Oh my foolish looking online friend. I didNEVER did I support a spending policy or new program. Suck on that dudeAnd your comment spelling make ME look foolish."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dsandreas 0 #299 September 13, 2009 In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...81 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm very confused. I wasn't aware that the President actually exercised complete control over the budget. Can you point me at a reference I can read that explains the process? Thanks! _________________________________________ Tom....already been down that road with this kid. Ravings of a lunatic. Takes any two statistics and pieces them together to support his view of the world. I stopped reading his posts....complete waste of time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #300 September 13, 2009 Quote Pushing for one method (reducing expenditures) when the situation we are in has been caused by excessive growth in government spending It seems like if growth in spending is a cause, then reduction in spending is a logical solution. Quote ...YOUR preferred party, (The Republicans)... I have been a registered, dues paying member of the United States Libertarian Party since 1993. Quote The biggest expansion of government in US history occurred under ShrubCo. The biggest expansion of the national debt occurred under ShrubCo. Sure. That sucked. I was against it. I'm against breaking those records, which is happening even now. Quote It is stunning that righty ideology blinds you to these simple facts. ??? Not sure where you're getting the "fact" that I'm blind to anything. Can you elaborate, by pointing out something I've said along those lines? Quote Could it be that the Republicans are lying sacks of shit that can't be trusted? My answer to that question is YES. A thousand times YES. Personally, I think that's true of almost everyone in Washington DC. I think you've been fooled into thinking the present leadership in DC is any different than the past leadership. Personally, I'm hard pressed to find any real differences. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next Page 12 of 18 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
GeorgiaDon 362 #288 September 13, 2009 Hey dsandreas, Are you going to answer the questions I asked of you earlier (post 194) in the thread? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dsandreas 0 #289 September 13, 2009 Quote These questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. _________________________________________ No and no. I do not believe raising taxes in a recession will create GDP growth nor reduce unemployment....both of which would lead to increased tax revenues. Do you recommend these actions? If so, do you recommend these actions to increase tax revenues, to punish achievement, or some other reason? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #290 September 13, 2009 QuoteRepublicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. I read this book about 15 years ago (when it was first published). It was written by a Republican (former cabinet secretary), who had, for several years prior to that, been sounding the alarm on the massive debt load and skyrocketing deficits. He actually started speaking out on this during the late years of the Reagan administration. The guy even started a Foundation dedicated to fiscal responsibility. Accusing "Republicans" of a failure in this regard is roughly akin to accusing "Democrats" of the same. It's a shamelessly partisan effort to point fingers for political gain. Members of both parties have been on both sides of the issue, and different members of both parties have both worked to reduce the deficit and to increase it (whether through increased spending or decreased revenue).-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #291 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote These questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. _________________________________________ No and no. I do not believe raising taxes in a recession will create GDP growth nor reduce unemployment....both of which would lead to increased tax revenues. Do you recommend these actions? If so, do you recommend these actions to increase tax revenues, to punish achievement, or some other reason? It worked for Hoover (too late), FDR, GHWB and altho we were out of a recession, Clinton's tax increases led to unep from 7% to 4% and the GDP soared. The problem is that your opinions are impeached by objective data. QuoteDo you recommend these actions? If so, do you recommend these actions to increase tax revenues, to punish achievement, or some other reason? I recommend them to "fix" the economic indicators, such as unemployment and the GDP for starters, but also to bring more people out of poverty. These people you speak of that are punished for success are doing great, even while 1/6th of the people have zero health coverage, most others have such flimsy coverage that it requires substantial contribution, and class disparity seems to be widening constantly. At the end, taxes aren't personal, they are systemic in order to create and maintain a system that allows all to at least moderately prosper. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #292 September 13, 2009 QuoteThese questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Ah, yes. The old "well, we're spending a ton of money, so we need more taxes" argument. No point addressing the actual spending, is there? Because that would only address the underlying issue, wouldn't it? No sense at all in doing that. There are two ways to reduce deficits. Increase revenue or decrease expenditures. Pushing for one of these does not make you a hypocrite. It means you have a preference about what direction you want things to move in the future.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #293 September 13, 2009 QuoteAccusing "Republicans" of a failure in this regard is roughly akin to accusing "Democrats" of the same. It's a shamelessly partisan effort to point fingers for political gain. Members of both parties have been on both sides of the issue, and different members of both parties have both worked to reduce the deficit and to increase it (whether through increased spending or decreased revenue). But as the data I posted establishes, since 1981 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have been the heroes. Reagan and GWB have cut taxes and increased spending, GHWB and Clinton have done the opposite. As well, most of congress can be dichotomized by their stance on taxes and spending and this dichotomy is generally the current Republicans sound like Reagan and GWB, the Dems sound like GHWB and CLinton. Again, not a strictly partisan issue, but the generalities are there. I think to water it down and say that it's all of them undermines the truth that it has largely been the Republicans creating this mess. They get a great president in GHWB, he raises taxes and cuts the military to try to control the debt and he is rewarded by being voted out. I guess we get the government we deserve; the voters need to understand history that everytime we increase taxes things get better, cut em they take a crap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #294 September 13, 2009 Quote...81 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have.... I'm very confused. I wasn't aware that the President actually exercised complete control over the budget. Can you point me at a reference I can read that explains the process? Thanks!-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #295 September 13, 2009 QuoteAh, yes. The old "well, we're spending a ton of money, so we need more taxes" argument. No point addressing the actual spending, is there? Because that would only address the underlying issue, wouldn't it? No sense at all in doing that. Or we can cut spending and raise taxes, it worked for GHWB and Clinton to bring us the best, healthiest economy of all times. QuoteThere are two ways to reduce deficits. Increase revenue or decrease expenditures. Or both QuotePushing for one of these does not make you a hypocrite. It means you have a preference about what direction you want things to move in the future. What I think the hypocrisy remark was about was the support or at least non-demonization of Republican spending, yet the all of the sudden hatred for Democrat's proposals. Again, I've asked this a bunch, show me a major tax increase in history and a negative effect, or, show me a tax cut and a brilliant recovery due to that cut. Let's not try the 12-year delayed action tactic either. I sincerely would like to see a major federal tax cut and learn of a subsequent recovery, I can list a few and they all end in disaster. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #296 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote...81 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have.... I'm very confused. I wasn't aware that the President actually exercised complete control over the budget. Can you point me at a reference I can read that explains the process? Thanks! As for complete control, I guess I don't work in absolutes and I didn't say that Reagan and GWB were completely and absolutley to blame, just mostly. As for the president and their general and major impact on the federal budget outlays: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget Each year, the President of the United States submits his budget request to Congress for the following fiscal year, as required by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. Current law (31 U.S.C. § 1105(a)) requires the president to submit a budget no earlier than the first Monday in January, and no later than the first Monday in February. Typically, presidents submit budgets on the first Monday in February. The budget submission has been delayed, however, in new president's first year when previous president belonged to a different party. So the president starts the bugetary process, telling congress what he will allow in the form of a comprehensive proposal so they don't waste time sending him budgets he will veto. From there the House writes the bill, they send it to the Senate and it goes to the president. If he vetoes it COngress, I believe both chambers, have to override his veto by a 2/3 vote in order to remove him from the process. So the president is the initial legislator and the final legislator with veto power, I can't think of a more influential person with controil over the annual budget. Taxation bills are different, but the president still has basically the same process, he urges his allies in congress to write these bills by way of phone calls or even open speeches. Aside from any given president, to make this less partisan, let's look at the act rather than the individual president. Show me where a major federal tax cut has saved us all, has made the economic indicators more pleasant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #297 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteThese questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Ah, yes. The old "well, we're spending a ton of money, so we need more taxes" argument. No point addressing the actual spending, is there? Because that would only address the underlying issue, wouldn't it? No sense at all in doing that. There are two ways to reduce deficits. Increase revenue or decrease expenditures. Pushing for one of these does not make you a hypocrite. It means you have a preference about what direction you want things to move in the future. Pushing for one method (reducing expenditures) when the situation we are in has been caused by excessive growth in government spending, and "temporary" tax cuts, both implemented by YOUR preferred party, (The Republicans) cannot be interpreted as anything but hypocritical. The biggest expansion of government in US history occurred under ShrubCo. The biggest expansion of the national debt occurred under ShrubCo. It is stunning that righty ideology blinds you to these simple facts. These aren't opinions. These are FACTS. Can you please tell me how a ending a temporary tax cut, as was promised to happen when it was implmented, becomes a tax increase? That is some seriously fucked up logic. It was sold as a TEMPORARY tax cut, to expire after a period of time. Look up the word "temporary" in a dictionary if the meaning is unclear to you. The tax rate was TEMPORARILY reduced, so as to "give us our own money back", remember? The Republican idea was that since Clinton left us with a huge budget surplus, the correct thing to do was GIVE THE MONEY BACK, not pay down the existing debt. It was terrible idea then, and it continues to be a terrible idea now. Now that we are in a situation where we desperately need the money, why aren't we getting it? Could it be that the Republicans are lying sacks of shit that can't be trusted? My answer to that question is YES. A thousand times YES. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #298 September 13, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Doesn't it make sense that it's both collections and spending? What do you think creates the government's general fund? You have outlays on the spending end and tax revenues on the intake, i's both that matter. So if tax revenues fall to 10% of what they now are, as Libertarians would love, then you say that wouldn't affect the debt? The annual deficit is basicallly the number between revenue collections and outlays. Of course I'm talking Republican here, as much of Clinton's time we called that difference a suplus. ____________________________________________________ NO, it makes no sense at all. Spending is completely out of control and has been. Did you miss the auto bailouts, bank bailouts, stimulus waste, fraud and abuse in medicare, cash for clunkers, cash for appliances, etc? . Auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler- started by GWB. Bank bailouts - GWB again. AIG - the biggest single bailout - GWB again. Stimulus - remember GWB's checks for everyone? Republicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. And very few if anybody liked it then So much for change huh If you had been criticizing Bush's disastrous fiscal policies from 2001 to 2008 (which you never did) you could escape the criticism that you have a double standard. As it is, your double standard is apparent for all to see. Oh my foolish looking online friend. I didNEVER did I support a spending policy or new program. Suck on that dudeAnd your comment spelling make ME look foolish."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dsandreas 0 #299 September 13, 2009 In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...81 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm very confused. I wasn't aware that the President actually exercised complete control over the budget. Can you point me at a reference I can read that explains the process? Thanks! _________________________________________ Tom....already been down that road with this kid. Ravings of a lunatic. Takes any two statistics and pieces them together to support his view of the world. I stopped reading his posts....complete waste of time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #300 September 13, 2009 Quote Pushing for one method (reducing expenditures) when the situation we are in has been caused by excessive growth in government spending It seems like if growth in spending is a cause, then reduction in spending is a logical solution. Quote ...YOUR preferred party, (The Republicans)... I have been a registered, dues paying member of the United States Libertarian Party since 1993. Quote The biggest expansion of government in US history occurred under ShrubCo. The biggest expansion of the national debt occurred under ShrubCo. Sure. That sucked. I was against it. I'm against breaking those records, which is happening even now. Quote It is stunning that righty ideology blinds you to these simple facts. ??? Not sure where you're getting the "fact" that I'm blind to anything. Can you elaborate, by pointing out something I've said along those lines? Quote Could it be that the Republicans are lying sacks of shit that can't be trusted? My answer to that question is YES. A thousand times YES. Personally, I think that's true of almost everyone in Washington DC. I think you've been fooled into thinking the present leadership in DC is any different than the past leadership. Personally, I'm hard pressed to find any real differences. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next Page 12 of 18 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
TomAiello 26 #290 September 13, 2009 QuoteRepublicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. I read this book about 15 years ago (when it was first published). It was written by a Republican (former cabinet secretary), who had, for several years prior to that, been sounding the alarm on the massive debt load and skyrocketing deficits. He actually started speaking out on this during the late years of the Reagan administration. The guy even started a Foundation dedicated to fiscal responsibility. Accusing "Republicans" of a failure in this regard is roughly akin to accusing "Democrats" of the same. It's a shamelessly partisan effort to point fingers for political gain. Members of both parties have been on both sides of the issue, and different members of both parties have both worked to reduce the deficit and to increase it (whether through increased spending or decreased revenue).-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #291 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote These questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. _________________________________________ No and no. I do not believe raising taxes in a recession will create GDP growth nor reduce unemployment....both of which would lead to increased tax revenues. Do you recommend these actions? If so, do you recommend these actions to increase tax revenues, to punish achievement, or some other reason? It worked for Hoover (too late), FDR, GHWB and altho we were out of a recession, Clinton's tax increases led to unep from 7% to 4% and the GDP soared. The problem is that your opinions are impeached by objective data. QuoteDo you recommend these actions? If so, do you recommend these actions to increase tax revenues, to punish achievement, or some other reason? I recommend them to "fix" the economic indicators, such as unemployment and the GDP for starters, but also to bring more people out of poverty. These people you speak of that are punished for success are doing great, even while 1/6th of the people have zero health coverage, most others have such flimsy coverage that it requires substantial contribution, and class disparity seems to be widening constantly. At the end, taxes aren't personal, they are systemic in order to create and maintain a system that allows all to at least moderately prosper. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #292 September 13, 2009 QuoteThese questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Ah, yes. The old "well, we're spending a ton of money, so we need more taxes" argument. No point addressing the actual spending, is there? Because that would only address the underlying issue, wouldn't it? No sense at all in doing that. There are two ways to reduce deficits. Increase revenue or decrease expenditures. Pushing for one of these does not make you a hypocrite. It means you have a preference about what direction you want things to move in the future.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #293 September 13, 2009 QuoteAccusing "Republicans" of a failure in this regard is roughly akin to accusing "Democrats" of the same. It's a shamelessly partisan effort to point fingers for political gain. Members of both parties have been on both sides of the issue, and different members of both parties have both worked to reduce the deficit and to increase it (whether through increased spending or decreased revenue). But as the data I posted establishes, since 1981 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have been the heroes. Reagan and GWB have cut taxes and increased spending, GHWB and Clinton have done the opposite. As well, most of congress can be dichotomized by their stance on taxes and spending and this dichotomy is generally the current Republicans sound like Reagan and GWB, the Dems sound like GHWB and CLinton. Again, not a strictly partisan issue, but the generalities are there. I think to water it down and say that it's all of them undermines the truth that it has largely been the Republicans creating this mess. They get a great president in GHWB, he raises taxes and cuts the military to try to control the debt and he is rewarded by being voted out. I guess we get the government we deserve; the voters need to understand history that everytime we increase taxes things get better, cut em they take a crap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #294 September 13, 2009 Quote...81 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have.... I'm very confused. I wasn't aware that the President actually exercised complete control over the budget. Can you point me at a reference I can read that explains the process? Thanks!-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #295 September 13, 2009 QuoteAh, yes. The old "well, we're spending a ton of money, so we need more taxes" argument. No point addressing the actual spending, is there? Because that would only address the underlying issue, wouldn't it? No sense at all in doing that. Or we can cut spending and raise taxes, it worked for GHWB and Clinton to bring us the best, healthiest economy of all times. QuoteThere are two ways to reduce deficits. Increase revenue or decrease expenditures. Or both QuotePushing for one of these does not make you a hypocrite. It means you have a preference about what direction you want things to move in the future. What I think the hypocrisy remark was about was the support or at least non-demonization of Republican spending, yet the all of the sudden hatred for Democrat's proposals. Again, I've asked this a bunch, show me a major tax increase in history and a negative effect, or, show me a tax cut and a brilliant recovery due to that cut. Let's not try the 12-year delayed action tactic either. I sincerely would like to see a major federal tax cut and learn of a subsequent recovery, I can list a few and they all end in disaster. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #296 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote...81 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have.... I'm very confused. I wasn't aware that the President actually exercised complete control over the budget. Can you point me at a reference I can read that explains the process? Thanks! As for complete control, I guess I don't work in absolutes and I didn't say that Reagan and GWB were completely and absolutley to blame, just mostly. As for the president and their general and major impact on the federal budget outlays: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget Each year, the President of the United States submits his budget request to Congress for the following fiscal year, as required by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. Current law (31 U.S.C. § 1105(a)) requires the president to submit a budget no earlier than the first Monday in January, and no later than the first Monday in February. Typically, presidents submit budgets on the first Monday in February. The budget submission has been delayed, however, in new president's first year when previous president belonged to a different party. So the president starts the bugetary process, telling congress what he will allow in the form of a comprehensive proposal so they don't waste time sending him budgets he will veto. From there the House writes the bill, they send it to the Senate and it goes to the president. If he vetoes it COngress, I believe both chambers, have to override his veto by a 2/3 vote in order to remove him from the process. So the president is the initial legislator and the final legislator with veto power, I can't think of a more influential person with controil over the annual budget. Taxation bills are different, but the president still has basically the same process, he urges his allies in congress to write these bills by way of phone calls or even open speeches. Aside from any given president, to make this less partisan, let's look at the act rather than the individual president. Show me where a major federal tax cut has saved us all, has made the economic indicators more pleasant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #297 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteThese questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Ah, yes. The old "well, we're spending a ton of money, so we need more taxes" argument. No point addressing the actual spending, is there? Because that would only address the underlying issue, wouldn't it? No sense at all in doing that. There are two ways to reduce deficits. Increase revenue or decrease expenditures. Pushing for one of these does not make you a hypocrite. It means you have a preference about what direction you want things to move in the future. Pushing for one method (reducing expenditures) when the situation we are in has been caused by excessive growth in government spending, and "temporary" tax cuts, both implemented by YOUR preferred party, (The Republicans) cannot be interpreted as anything but hypocritical. The biggest expansion of government in US history occurred under ShrubCo. The biggest expansion of the national debt occurred under ShrubCo. It is stunning that righty ideology blinds you to these simple facts. These aren't opinions. These are FACTS. Can you please tell me how a ending a temporary tax cut, as was promised to happen when it was implmented, becomes a tax increase? That is some seriously fucked up logic. It was sold as a TEMPORARY tax cut, to expire after a period of time. Look up the word "temporary" in a dictionary if the meaning is unclear to you. The tax rate was TEMPORARILY reduced, so as to "give us our own money back", remember? The Republican idea was that since Clinton left us with a huge budget surplus, the correct thing to do was GIVE THE MONEY BACK, not pay down the existing debt. It was terrible idea then, and it continues to be a terrible idea now. Now that we are in a situation where we desperately need the money, why aren't we getting it? Could it be that the Republicans are lying sacks of shit that can't be trusted? My answer to that question is YES. A thousand times YES. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #298 September 13, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Doesn't it make sense that it's both collections and spending? What do you think creates the government's general fund? You have outlays on the spending end and tax revenues on the intake, i's both that matter. So if tax revenues fall to 10% of what they now are, as Libertarians would love, then you say that wouldn't affect the debt? The annual deficit is basicallly the number between revenue collections and outlays. Of course I'm talking Republican here, as much of Clinton's time we called that difference a suplus. ____________________________________________________ NO, it makes no sense at all. Spending is completely out of control and has been. Did you miss the auto bailouts, bank bailouts, stimulus waste, fraud and abuse in medicare, cash for clunkers, cash for appliances, etc? . Auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler- started by GWB. Bank bailouts - GWB again. AIG - the biggest single bailout - GWB again. Stimulus - remember GWB's checks for everyone? Republicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. And very few if anybody liked it then So much for change huh If you had been criticizing Bush's disastrous fiscal policies from 2001 to 2008 (which you never did) you could escape the criticism that you have a double standard. As it is, your double standard is apparent for all to see. Oh my foolish looking online friend. I didNEVER did I support a spending policy or new program. Suck on that dudeAnd your comment spelling make ME look foolish."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dsandreas 0 #299 September 13, 2009 In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...81 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm very confused. I wasn't aware that the President actually exercised complete control over the budget. Can you point me at a reference I can read that explains the process? Thanks! _________________________________________ Tom....already been down that road with this kid. Ravings of a lunatic. Takes any two statistics and pieces them together to support his view of the world. I stopped reading his posts....complete waste of time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #300 September 13, 2009 Quote Pushing for one method (reducing expenditures) when the situation we are in has been caused by excessive growth in government spending It seems like if growth in spending is a cause, then reduction in spending is a logical solution. Quote ...YOUR preferred party, (The Republicans)... I have been a registered, dues paying member of the United States Libertarian Party since 1993. Quote The biggest expansion of government in US history occurred under ShrubCo. The biggest expansion of the national debt occurred under ShrubCo. Sure. That sucked. I was against it. I'm against breaking those records, which is happening even now. Quote It is stunning that righty ideology blinds you to these simple facts. ??? Not sure where you're getting the "fact" that I'm blind to anything. Can you elaborate, by pointing out something I've said along those lines? Quote Could it be that the Republicans are lying sacks of shit that can't be trusted? My answer to that question is YES. A thousand times YES. Personally, I think that's true of almost everyone in Washington DC. I think you've been fooled into thinking the present leadership in DC is any different than the past leadership. Personally, I'm hard pressed to find any real differences. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next Page 12 of 18 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
TomAiello 26 #292 September 13, 2009 QuoteThese questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Ah, yes. The old "well, we're spending a ton of money, so we need more taxes" argument. No point addressing the actual spending, is there? Because that would only address the underlying issue, wouldn't it? No sense at all in doing that. There are two ways to reduce deficits. Increase revenue or decrease expenditures. Pushing for one of these does not make you a hypocrite. It means you have a preference about what direction you want things to move in the future.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #293 September 13, 2009 QuoteAccusing "Republicans" of a failure in this regard is roughly akin to accusing "Democrats" of the same. It's a shamelessly partisan effort to point fingers for political gain. Members of both parties have been on both sides of the issue, and different members of both parties have both worked to reduce the deficit and to increase it (whether through increased spending or decreased revenue). But as the data I posted establishes, since 1981 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have been the heroes. Reagan and GWB have cut taxes and increased spending, GHWB and Clinton have done the opposite. As well, most of congress can be dichotomized by their stance on taxes and spending and this dichotomy is generally the current Republicans sound like Reagan and GWB, the Dems sound like GHWB and CLinton. Again, not a strictly partisan issue, but the generalities are there. I think to water it down and say that it's all of them undermines the truth that it has largely been the Republicans creating this mess. They get a great president in GHWB, he raises taxes and cuts the military to try to control the debt and he is rewarded by being voted out. I guess we get the government we deserve; the voters need to understand history that everytime we increase taxes things get better, cut em they take a crap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #294 September 13, 2009 Quote...81 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have.... I'm very confused. I wasn't aware that the President actually exercised complete control over the budget. Can you point me at a reference I can read that explains the process? Thanks!-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #295 September 13, 2009 QuoteAh, yes. The old "well, we're spending a ton of money, so we need more taxes" argument. No point addressing the actual spending, is there? Because that would only address the underlying issue, wouldn't it? No sense at all in doing that. Or we can cut spending and raise taxes, it worked for GHWB and Clinton to bring us the best, healthiest economy of all times. QuoteThere are two ways to reduce deficits. Increase revenue or decrease expenditures. Or both QuotePushing for one of these does not make you a hypocrite. It means you have a preference about what direction you want things to move in the future. What I think the hypocrisy remark was about was the support or at least non-demonization of Republican spending, yet the all of the sudden hatred for Democrat's proposals. Again, I've asked this a bunch, show me a major tax increase in history and a negative effect, or, show me a tax cut and a brilliant recovery due to that cut. Let's not try the 12-year delayed action tactic either. I sincerely would like to see a major federal tax cut and learn of a subsequent recovery, I can list a few and they all end in disaster. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #296 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote...81 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have.... I'm very confused. I wasn't aware that the President actually exercised complete control over the budget. Can you point me at a reference I can read that explains the process? Thanks! As for complete control, I guess I don't work in absolutes and I didn't say that Reagan and GWB were completely and absolutley to blame, just mostly. As for the president and their general and major impact on the federal budget outlays: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget Each year, the President of the United States submits his budget request to Congress for the following fiscal year, as required by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. Current law (31 U.S.C. § 1105(a)) requires the president to submit a budget no earlier than the first Monday in January, and no later than the first Monday in February. Typically, presidents submit budgets on the first Monday in February. The budget submission has been delayed, however, in new president's first year when previous president belonged to a different party. So the president starts the bugetary process, telling congress what he will allow in the form of a comprehensive proposal so they don't waste time sending him budgets he will veto. From there the House writes the bill, they send it to the Senate and it goes to the president. If he vetoes it COngress, I believe both chambers, have to override his veto by a 2/3 vote in order to remove him from the process. So the president is the initial legislator and the final legislator with veto power, I can't think of a more influential person with controil over the annual budget. Taxation bills are different, but the president still has basically the same process, he urges his allies in congress to write these bills by way of phone calls or even open speeches. Aside from any given president, to make this less partisan, let's look at the act rather than the individual president. Show me where a major federal tax cut has saved us all, has made the economic indicators more pleasant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #297 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteThese questions are for ALL of the righties. They are very simple and straightforward. Do you support ending the "temporary" Bush Administration tax cuts? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Do you support the elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes? If the answer is No, please list your reasons why not. Ah, yes. The old "well, we're spending a ton of money, so we need more taxes" argument. No point addressing the actual spending, is there? Because that would only address the underlying issue, wouldn't it? No sense at all in doing that. There are two ways to reduce deficits. Increase revenue or decrease expenditures. Pushing for one of these does not make you a hypocrite. It means you have a preference about what direction you want things to move in the future. Pushing for one method (reducing expenditures) when the situation we are in has been caused by excessive growth in government spending, and "temporary" tax cuts, both implemented by YOUR preferred party, (The Republicans) cannot be interpreted as anything but hypocritical. The biggest expansion of government in US history occurred under ShrubCo. The biggest expansion of the national debt occurred under ShrubCo. It is stunning that righty ideology blinds you to these simple facts. These aren't opinions. These are FACTS. Can you please tell me how a ending a temporary tax cut, as was promised to happen when it was implmented, becomes a tax increase? That is some seriously fucked up logic. It was sold as a TEMPORARY tax cut, to expire after a period of time. Look up the word "temporary" in a dictionary if the meaning is unclear to you. The tax rate was TEMPORARILY reduced, so as to "give us our own money back", remember? The Republican idea was that since Clinton left us with a huge budget surplus, the correct thing to do was GIVE THE MONEY BACK, not pay down the existing debt. It was terrible idea then, and it continues to be a terrible idea now. Now that we are in a situation where we desperately need the money, why aren't we getting it? Could it be that the Republicans are lying sacks of shit that can't be trusted? My answer to that question is YES. A thousand times YES. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #298 September 13, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Doesn't it make sense that it's both collections and spending? What do you think creates the government's general fund? You have outlays on the spending end and tax revenues on the intake, i's both that matter. So if tax revenues fall to 10% of what they now are, as Libertarians would love, then you say that wouldn't affect the debt? The annual deficit is basicallly the number between revenue collections and outlays. Of course I'm talking Republican here, as much of Clinton's time we called that difference a suplus. ____________________________________________________ NO, it makes no sense at all. Spending is completely out of control and has been. Did you miss the auto bailouts, bank bailouts, stimulus waste, fraud and abuse in medicare, cash for clunkers, cash for appliances, etc? . Auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler- started by GWB. Bank bailouts - GWB again. AIG - the biggest single bailout - GWB again. Stimulus - remember GWB's checks for everyone? Republicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. And very few if anybody liked it then So much for change huh If you had been criticizing Bush's disastrous fiscal policies from 2001 to 2008 (which you never did) you could escape the criticism that you have a double standard. As it is, your double standard is apparent for all to see. Oh my foolish looking online friend. I didNEVER did I support a spending policy or new program. Suck on that dudeAnd your comment spelling make ME look foolish."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dsandreas 0 #299 September 13, 2009 In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...81 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm very confused. I wasn't aware that the President actually exercised complete control over the budget. Can you point me at a reference I can read that explains the process? Thanks! _________________________________________ Tom....already been down that road with this kid. Ravings of a lunatic. Takes any two statistics and pieces them together to support his view of the world. I stopped reading his posts....complete waste of time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #300 September 13, 2009 Quote Pushing for one method (reducing expenditures) when the situation we are in has been caused by excessive growth in government spending It seems like if growth in spending is a cause, then reduction in spending is a logical solution. Quote ...YOUR preferred party, (The Republicans)... I have been a registered, dues paying member of the United States Libertarian Party since 1993. Quote The biggest expansion of government in US history occurred under ShrubCo. The biggest expansion of the national debt occurred under ShrubCo. Sure. That sucked. I was against it. I'm against breaking those records, which is happening even now. Quote It is stunning that righty ideology blinds you to these simple facts. ??? Not sure where you're getting the "fact" that I'm blind to anything. Can you elaborate, by pointing out something I've said along those lines? Quote Could it be that the Republicans are lying sacks of shit that can't be trusted? My answer to that question is YES. A thousand times YES. Personally, I think that's true of almost everyone in Washington DC. I think you've been fooled into thinking the present leadership in DC is any different than the past leadership. Personally, I'm hard pressed to find any real differences. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
