Originally Posted By jonvn "The thought among many Republicans at the time was that it was only a matter of time before Democrats squandered the fruits of the 90's and lead us as a nation to a precarious fiscal situation." Well, as you say, you've been quite disabused of that notion. With the dope we have now, combined with what Reagan did and how he also nearly spent us into bankruptcy, I think it's fairly clear who the more fiscally responsible people are right now.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<How do you think the last 4 years of complete GOP control measure up to this standard?>> <Probably better than complete Democrat control would have.> And there we have it folks - pure ideology at its "finest." The GOP congress spends like drunken sailors, discretionary spending goes up, the GOP president vetoes nothing, plus gets us into a war costing hundreds of billions that they're not even honest enough to count towards the deficit. Yet our friend, who can hardly defend that policy, falls back on "well, the Democrats would be worse." Right. <<And this doesn't even address unfunded future obligations such as prescription drug coverage.>> <And the chief Democrat complaint against it was that we weren't spending enough.> No, the chief Democrat complaint against it was that it was a giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies, resulting in a modest benefit with a huge price tag. The chief complaint was that Medicare couldn't even bargain for bulk prices with the pharmaceutical companies, as the VA already does. And, in fact, the new Democratic congress passed a bill to fix that, which would be a good thing. Except Bush has threatened to veto it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Yet our friend, who can hardly defend that policy, falls back on "well, the Democrats would be worse." Right.> Can you actually point to any examples of Democrats being more fiscally responsible than Republicans? When have they ever proposed cutting any spending except the military? <No, the chief Democrat complaint against it was that it was a giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies, resulting in a modest benefit with a huge price tag.> That's not the way I remember the issue being reported.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Can you actually point to any examples of Democrats being more fiscally responsible than Republicans? When have they ever proposed cutting any spending except the military? >>> As Dabob2 said, being fiscally responsible involves more than just cutting spending - it also involves not increasing spending like there's no tomorrow. As much as I hate to say it, I think that what happened toward the end of the Clinton administration is a perfect example - instead of just spending all of the extra money, spending was kept in check and they actually ended up with a surplus (of course, not a true surplus since the debt kept going up, just at a smaller pace). That a far cry from what's been happening since.
Originally Posted By Shooba >>Can you actually point to any examples of Democrats being more fiscally responsible than Republicans? When have they ever proposed cutting any spending except the military?<< <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/11/fourth-largest-deficit/" target="_blank">http://thinkprogress.org/2006/ 07/11/fourth-largest-deficit/</a> Today, the Office of Management Budget projected a $296 billion federal deficit for fiscal year 2006. Bush held a press conference arguing that this is a vindication of his economic policies. Actually, it would be the fourth largest deficit of all time. Here’s the top five: 1. 2004 (George W. Bush) $413 billion 2. 2003 (George W. Bush) $378 billion 3. 2005 (George W. Bush) $318 billion 4. 2006 (George W. Bush) $296 billion (projected) 5. 1992 (George H. W. Bush) $290 billion
Originally Posted By Shooba Hasn't pretty much *everyone* been more fiscally responsible than the current crop of Republicans?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Actually, it would be the fourth largest deficit of all time. Here’s the top five:> Why don't you show us what the top five deficits are if they are ranked in terms of percentage of the GDP? <Hasn't pretty much *everyone* been more fiscally responsible than the current crop of Republicans?> No.
Originally Posted By Shooba And of course, what is there to show for Bush's spending? An unnecescary war in Iraq. I'm not always a huge fan of tax and spend liberal governments, but at least there's something to show for it - money spend on social programs etc. Bush on the other hand, is borrowing money to spend on something of marginal value, imo.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And of course, what is there to show for Bush's spending?> How about 50 million people with the chance to live free and prosperous lives? And people here in the US aren't doing so bad either. Unemployment and inflation are low, wages and real income are rising, and our economic growth rate is good.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Mr X "free and prosperous" Would you say this, if you were standing in a room full of Iraqis? COULD YOU, with a straight face? Do you even READ what you write? Dude, I'm so sickened by this right now...how DARE you!!
Originally Posted By Mr X <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/" target="_blank">http://edition.cnn.com/</a> That headline sure doesn't scream "free and prosperous" to me! This side of the republicans is nothing but IGNORANT and UGLY!!
Originally Posted By Shooba >>How about 50 million people with the chance to live free and prosperous lives?<< It's too bad that taxpayers weren't able to decide whether to spend their money on this or not. Bush went to war due to Saddam being an "imminent threat". If given the choice, maybe people would have been willing to rack up debt for the good of the Iraqi people, but instead, the choice was made for them. >>And people here in the US aren't doing so bad either. Unemployment and inflation are low, wages and real income are rising, and our economic growth rate is good.<< Same thing here, due at least partially to our local conservative governments tax cuts. The difference? Legislation passed by that same government to not have a deficit. I don't agree with all of their tax & spending cuts, but at least I can say they are responsible government, unlike Bush and co.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Is that the Iraq population you're referring to?> Afghanistan and Iraq combined. <Where do you get off saying that lofty crap, anyway?> I'm sorry if the truth offends you. <Thanks to GEORGE BUSH, those "50 million" are free and prosperious?> Not exactly what I said, but there is an element of truth to it.
Originally Posted By Mr X Your "truth" is more offensive to the families of all those dead people. Those are the people you are "talking" to here. Saying awful things like "I'm sorry if the truth offends you", onl makes it worse.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Bush went to war due to Saddam being an "imminent threat".> There's nothing in the resolution authorizing force against Iraq that mentions "imminent threat".
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Read it and find out. <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html" target="_blank">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news /releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html</a>
Originally Posted By Mr X Wow. How many times was Sept. 11th mentioned in that? 4 or 5 times? Talk about subterfuge!!!! THANKS Doug, you've given me yet more reason to hate the liar Bush and his regime!
