Originally Posted By DouglasDubh It's funny how people keep saying they want a politician to be a moderate, and cooperate with the other side. But when a Republican gives in to Democrat demands for more spending, he's soundly criticized. He ends up disliked by both parties. I wonder if the same thing will happen to Senator McCain.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Thank you Einstein.> <If you wouldn't ignore the obvious, I wouldn't have to point it out.> The "obvious" in this case being your non-sequitur. Yes, a small percentage of a large number can be a large number, Einstein. But what mrkthompsn and I were talking about, which you interjected yourself into, was the process by which we got the largest deficits we'd ever seen before. The budgets Reagan submitted had those largest ever deficits built in, because he insisted on raising the military budget more than he cut discretionary spending. Congress restored a few cuts. Republicans then like to blame the whole deficits of that era on the Democratic congress. Obviously you're STILL trying to find a way to do that, the facts be damned. <<But the fact remains that they never altered things by more than a small percentage, and that Reagan presented budgets with large deficits built in.>> <And if Reagan had presented budgets with smaller deficits, the Democrats would have made them larger by a another small percentage.> But he didn't. I'm not dealing in "ifs" here, I'm dealing in what actually happened. <<Yes, they were.>> <No, they weren't.> Of course they were.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The "obvious" in this case being your non-sequitur.> No, the obvious is what you're trying to ignore in your attempt to blame the deficits on President Reagan. The fact is that Democrats have consistantly voted for greater government spending over the last 40 years. The only thing they ever offer to cut is military spending. <Of course they were.> Still wrong.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<The "obvious" in this case being your non-sequitur.>> <No, the obvious is what you're trying to ignore in your attempt to blame the deficits on President Reagan.> I didn't ignore a thing. I laid out the facts. Reagan presented Congress with a budgets that included deficits larger than any seen under Carter or anyone before him. True or not? True. Congress restored some of the domestic cuts, but not all, and sent back a budget that spent no more than a few percentage points more than Reagan asked for. True or not? True. Reagan then signed those budgets rather than veto them. True or not? True. <The fact is that Democrats have consistantly voted for greater government spending over the last 40 years. The only thing they ever offer to cut is military spending.> When, as with Reagan, the raise in military spending is greater than the amount that you cut domestically, guess what? Government spending goes up. Too many Republicans like to pretend that military spending magically isn't government spending, or that taxpayers don't pay for it. But we do. <<Of course they were.>> <Still wrong.> Nope, still right, and you can't show otherwise.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I laid out the facts.> You laid out some facts, and ignored others. Just as your last post did. <Nope, still right, and you can't show otherwise.> Nope, still wrong, and you can't show otherwise.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I laid out the facts.>> <You laid out some facts, and ignored others. Just as your last post did.> Wrong again. I ignored nothing. I addressed all your points, which is why I always copy your posts verbatim and in full. You often don't, and often do ignore points you can't answer, but that's your MO, not mine. <<Nope, still right, and you can't show otherwise.>> <Nope, still wrong, and you can't show otherwise.> How many times are you going to do this, Mr. Python? I've shown facts, you haven't. As usual. I know it's a hard thing for a true believer to hear, but Clinton did do a better job on the deficits that the Republicans who immediately preceded him or followed him. You'd like to chalk all that up to the GOP Congress of the 90's (which - shock! - had some of the same leadership in the 00's when the deficit went through the roof), while giving the Dem. Congress of the 80's all the blame for the then-record deficits and none to St. Reagan or Bush I. Whereas I say that both the presidents in question and the congresses in question should share the blame and/or credit for the fiscal situation they're both responsible for. Which do you think the average person would recognize as more plausible? Your black and white, all or nothing view, or mine?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Your black and white, all or nothing view, or mine?> I'd think they'd see you're distorting my position in order to make yours seem more reasonable. I never claimed that the Democrats were solely to blame for greater federal spending than Presidents Reagan or Bush, only that they were more responsible. I say it because it's true.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Well, no it's not, when the lion's share of the deficits were presented to those congresses and the most they did was tinker around the edges. You just can't get around that inconvenient little fact.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh It's you that can't get around a fact - that the Democrats raised federal spending.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 No, I've admitted that they raised it slightly above the whopping rate that Reagan raised it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Ignoring the fact that President Reagan raised it to meet their demands. How much is "slightly"? How much is "whopping"?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Ignoring the fact that President Reagan raised it to meet their demands.> I'm sure that's a comforting thought for you, but it bears no resemblance to reality. If it WERE true, that would make Reagan a pretty weak president. The Democrats didn't have nearly the majority to override a veto in the house, and didn't even regain the majority in the senate till 1987. Yet he still submitted budgets based on what those brutes in Congress wanted? Please. >How much is "whopping"?> Enough so that the budgets Reagan SUBMITTED to Congress had far larger deficits than those seen under Carter, Ford, or indeed anyone before him. <How much is "slightly"? > The couple of percentage points they altered the submitted budgets with the whopping deficits.
Originally Posted By X-san And for his next trick, ladies and gentlemen, Dabob will shoot fish in a barrel! *applause* Any takers on whether or not Douglas can even attempt to reply to "Yet he still submitted budgets based on what those brutes in Congress wanted?" in a meaningful way? I'll bet $50 he can't come up with anything better than "no, he didn't", or "that's not true", or "I won't reply to distortions" etc...
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Reagan aside, how does any of that explain how spending went crazy with THIS president, while the GOP controlled the house and senate? This nonsense that the GOP is in favor of "smaller" government is a lie. The truth is neither party is interested in smaller government, and they're not really all that concerned about deficit spending. Why should they be? We voters don't hold them accountable for anything, and supporters of this president will explain away anything and everything and dig back through the 80's looking for something to pin on the Democrats rather than face the disaster this president and the neocons have been.
Originally Posted By DAR <<This nonsense that the GOP is in favor of "smaller" government is a lie. The truth is neither party is interested in smaller government, and they're not really all that concerned about deficit spending.>> Thank you Toony.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The Democrats didn't have nearly the majority to override a veto in the house, and didn't even regain the majority in the senate till 1987. Yet he still submitted budgets based on what those brutes in Congress wanted?> Yes. What good would a veto do when Congress puts an omnibus spending bill on your desk after the deadline has passed? The truth is that even though President Reagan's budgets increased spending every year, it was never enough for the Democrats in Congress. And if you're going to claim that Reagan increased spending by a "whopping" amount, and that Democrats raised it "slightly", you out to "be prepared to show evidence; the budgets Reagan and Bush proposed vs. the budgets adopted. If you can't do that, don't expect to be taken seriously."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Reagan aside, how does any of that explain how spending went crazy with THIS president, while the GOP controlled the house and senate?> It doesn't. But please don't pretend that the Democrats have been pushing for lower spending. As I said before, the only cuts they are ever willing to make is to our military.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<The Democrats didn't have nearly the majority to override a veto in the house, and didn't even regain the majority in the senate till 1987. Yet he still submitted budgets based on what those brutes in Congress wanted?>> <Yes. What good would a veto do when Congress puts an omnibus spending bill on your desk after the deadline has passed?> It would force renegotiations, if he was really that intent on it. Of course, he never did. <The truth is that even though President Reagan's budgets increased spending every year, it was never enough for the Democrats in Congress.> The truth is that Reagan raised government spending by raising the military budget more than he cut domestic. They restored a few domestic cuts every year. But if you look at the amounts approved for the military pre-Reagan, they wanted to spend less overall than Regan, with his huge military budget did. You can't pretend military spending isn't government spending. <And if you're going to claim that Reagan increased spending by a "whopping" amount, and that Democrats raised it "slightly", you out to "be prepared to show evidence; the budgets Reagan and Bush proposed vs. the budgets adopted. If you can't do that, don't expect to be taken seriously."> I did that, x-number of years ago when we discussed this previously. You could never refute it because the numbers were irrefutable. You just tried to pretend the Democrats were still to blame for the 80's deficits, as you continue to do now.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It would force renegotiations, if he was really that intent on it.> If he thought that renegotiations would have helped, I'm sure he would have tried. Considering that the Democrats reneged on several negotiations, he probably figured that would be futile. <The truth is that Reagan raised government spending by raising the military budget more than he cut domestic.> No, the truth is that President Reagan raised both military spending and revenues, but not by as much as the Democrats raised domestic. <You can't pretend military spending isn't government spending.> Can't and won't. It's actually called out for in the Constitution. And President Reagan's military increases won the Cold War. <I did that, x-number of years ago when we discussed this previously.> I doubt that very much. <You just tried to pretend the Democrats were still to blame for the 80's deficits, as you continue to do now.> Now, as then, I recognize that both parties were to blame. Just that Democrats are more so.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But please don't pretend that the Democrats have been pushing for lower spending.<< I'm not "pretending" anything. I said both parties spend like drunken sailors. They just spend it on some different things. The problem is when the GOP, usually around election time, expects people to believe they care at all about runaway spending. They ran the show for a good long time, and spent and spent and spent. In regards to how this president's place in history, it says a lot that McCain attends a fundraiser last night with the president, but they bar the press. That's because images of McCain getting chummy with this president is ballot box poison, and he knows it. I don't know if such a thing is unprecedented, but it sure ain't business as usual.
