Originally Posted By Dabob2 <If you measure them in terms of percentage of GDP, the deficits in the 10 years since the Republicans gained control of Congress are less than the deficits were the previous 10 years, when the Congress was controlled by Democrats.> How weak is that?! That includes most of the Clinton years, when we went from deficit to surplus. When we got a GOP congress AND a GOP president, the deficits began to rise again. There's no spinning out of that one. As for the Cato numbers, I notice even the raw numbers don't match those from the link I provided. I also notice that they don't give nearly as much detail, or even claim to be constant dollar numbers. I find my link more credible. It's not a conclusion based on what they hoped to find, probably cherry-picking the years and measurements that best fit their conclusion; it's laying out the actual numbers year by year by year.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>When we got a GOP congress AND a GOP president, the deficits began to rise again. There's no spinning out of that one.<< That's what I don't get. Why aren't more Republicans getting angry over the red ink? Why would so many rather explain it away than hold their representatives feet to the fire on this? It doesn't mean that you'd have to elect a Democrat instead if you dared say that the current GOP White House, Senate and Congress have thrown the idea of controlling spending out the window. You could vote for a different set of GOPers, ones more dedicated to the principle of fiscal responsibility. Why spin what can't be spun? It's embarassing to watch.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer That's what bugs me the most, 2oony. The party that used to stand for fiscal responsibility is running around like a college freshman with his first credit card.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << That's what I don't get. Why aren't more Republicans getting angry over the red ink? >> They are. No matter how bad the spending is with Republicans, it would be WORSE with democrats. This is why the Dems can never win. The Republican base is ticked off about spending, the border, and the latest Supreme court nomination. Bush is still great on the war on terror and we are winning in Iraq going into a huge weekend where those people are going to vote. Bush still has his supporters, but the next person to run for the GOP is going to have to run on securing the border, less spending, and a continued vow to not be weak on terror like the libs are.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <No matter how bad the spending is with Republicans, it would be WORSE with democrats. This is why the Dems can never win.> You keep saying that, but the record shows otherwise.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Yep, but Bush lost his way on some of those things. He will always be a great president because he never waivered on the war on terror. But his spending and refusal to get tough with the border will always haunt him. You would think the libs would love him because he dumps so much money on social programs, but they don't because Bush has the " nerve " to kill terrorists and not support gay marriage. Look for the next GOP president to be everything Bush is plus a lot more conservative on spending and the border. France still sucks and so soes that loser from Germany Schroeder who just got the boot.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<You keep saying that, but the record shows otherwise.>> No it doesn't. Fact is, the dems have zero solutions for anything and deep down even you libs know it. The dems will tax the hell out of the achievers and producers, they will let up on the war on terror, they will push socialist social programs, they will destroy the economy and they will do more of nothing with the border. Nice party. You hope that maybe you can run some " moderate " who can fool some people to vote for the dems, then once elected that person can start the socialist programs the liberals love so much. You think this is really going to work? No chance.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>The dems will tax the hell out of the achievers and producers, they will let up on the war on terror, they will push socialist social programs, they will destroy the economy and they will do more of nothing with the border.<< That's the opposite of what Clinton did.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<You keep saying that, but the record shows otherwise.>> <No it doesn't.> Yes it does. I know you don't like that answer, but it's the truth. When we got a GOP president paired with a GOP congress, the deficits went through the roof. The last time we saw deficits decline was with a Democrat president. The last time we saw deficits rise so high in comparison to what came before was under Reagan. The GOP mantra (which you've obviously bought into) was that it was the fault of the democratic House (the senate was GOP controlled for most of Reagan's terms). Yet, if you look at the budgets Reagan proposed vs. the ones Congress finally accepted, there is very little difference. Some tinkering at the edges and a proposed cuts restored, but they represented a tiny fraction of the budget. Truth is, Reagan's tax cuts combined with the huge military budget were responsible for deficits like we hadn't seen before. Now Bush is even worse, not even cutting discretionary spending, and having a GOP-controlled congress to boot. <Fact is, the dems have zero solutions for anything and deep down even you libs know it.> Thanks for telling me what I believe. I don't believe that, of course. <The dems will tax the hell out of the achievers and producers,> All most people are asking for is a return to the tax policies of the 90's, which means most people's rates stay exactly where they are, and only the wealthiest see an appreciable rise. The wealthy did just fine in the 90's, thank you, as did the economy as a whole. <they will let up on the war on terror, > Nonsense. You base that on nothing but your bias. <they will push socialist social programs, they will destroy the economy > Oh yeah, that noted socialist Clinton destroyed the economy. Right. Do you even know what socialism actually IS? <and they will do more of nothing with the border.> The border policies have, if anything, gotten looser under Bush. This is because employers, who are part of the GOP base, LIKE all that cheap labor. Part of the Dem. base, labor unions, do not. This is a complex one, and there are people in both parties who favor changing policies (and those in both who favor the status quo), but once again, your projection is based on your bias rather than the actual facts. <You hope that maybe you can run some " moderate " who can fool some people to vote for the dems, > Gee, a moderate as president. Wouldn't that be just AWFUL?? <then once elected that person can start the socialist programs the liberals love so much.> There are no serious contenders for the Dem. nomination who are socialists. Unless you have a REALLY loose definition. Again, I'm not sure you know what socialism really is.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Hillary is a socialist and that is who the libs are going to run for president. Enough said.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Second that LOL. Beau, if you think Hilary Clinton is a socialist, then you've confirmed it: you don't know what socialism is.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer It wasn't socialist. The plan was built around the use of HMO programs run by insurance companies using guidelines set by the government. Employers would buy insurance coverage directly from HMOs, and would have a choice of what insurance company they would contract with. A socialist plan would be closer to Canada's single payer systen or Britain's national healthcare, where insurance is provided by the government and paid for entirely by taxpayers.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Hillary wanted a healthplan that was run in large part by the governemnt. That's socialism Tom. She also is a socialist with her attitude regading taxes. Remember this quote. "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." She is a socialist and she is dangerous. She is also like the rest of the libs who think the rich are evil and they need to be taxed more for achieving to much success. Throw in a pathetic and ignorant approah to Islamic terorrism and you have a deadly combination that will ruin the country if ever put into power. But the real kicker is ZERO ideas to really help the country. It's why I know the dems will never win the presidency in the next 20 years.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Hillary wanted a healthplan that was run in large part by the governemnt. That's socialism Tom.> Tom showed you why this wasn't so, but you keep the blinders on. <"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."> In other words, I favor restoring the tax rates to where they were in the 90's. Unless you think the U.S. was a socialist country in the 90's, you have no legs to stand on.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Tom showed you why this wasn't so, but you keep the blinders on.>> No Dabob, Tom tried to spin it so Hillaries health plan didn't seem to be run by the government, when in fact, government would have played a HUGE role in her healthplan. That is socialisism coming at ya... remember why it was trashed and failed??? <<In other words, I favor restoring the tax rates to where they were in the 90's.>> No Dabob, in other words, Hillary wants to take from the people who make money working hard and give it to those who don't have as much money. Socialism. Liberlism is another word for socialism.. don't think this is right? Well, the ACLU says this themselves and we know what they are all about.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Tom showed you why this wasn't so, but you keep the blinders on.>> <No Dabob, Tom tried to spin it so Hillaries health plan didn't seem to be run by the government, when in fact, government would have played a HUGE role in her healthplan.> The government would have had a role, but in fact the insurance companies/HMO's would have had the major role. <That is socialisism coming at ya... remember why it was trashed and failed???> Partly because of huge well-funded opposition from the health care "industry" and partly because it was neither fish nor fowl. She tried to give insurance companies too great a role, IMO, and ended up with something just as confusing as the current system, rather than something rational like single-payer. I opposed her plan on that basis, actually. <<In other words, I favor restoring the tax rates to where they were in the 90's.>> <No Dabob, in other words, Hillary wants to take from the people who make money working hard and give it to those who don't have as much money. Socialism.> The vast majority of people who work hard don't fit into the tippy-top tax bracket that Hillary was referring to there. And yes, she was talking about restoring the tax rates for them only to where they were in the 90's. When they did just fine, by the way. <Liberlism is another word for socialism.. don't think this is right?> In fact, I know it isn't. <Well, the ACLU says this themselves and we know what they are all about.> You have shown time and again that you don't. And please show me the quote where the ACLU says "liberalism is another word for socialism."
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Do you even know what socialism actually IS? << Few neocons who love to throw the word around do.
