or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2008 - Page 2

post #41 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

And frankly Gore's statement is just a fact. Bush did betray our country by playing to our fears. Nothing to fear but fear itself was never even considered when the terrorists struck (and effectively won).

... you're right. His bad. He should have done nothing. Except move out of 1600 and let a donkey run things.

<troll>
Gore betrayed our country- he played like nothing was wrong for 8 years.
</troll>
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #42 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

... you're right. His bad. He should have done nothing. Except move out of 1600 and let a donkey run things.

<troll>
Gore betrayed our country- he played like nothing was wrong for 8 years.
</troll>

That's one of the shittiest strawmen I've seen here abouts, and lord knows we've seem some bad ones.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #43 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

That's one of the shittiest strawmen I've seen here abouts, and lord knows we've seem some bad ones.

All Hail the Return of the Mighty Strawman!
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #44 of 107
It suddenly occurs to me that someone should do a parody of the "Wicker Man" called the "Straw Man" about a spooky little town with secrets and where the locals only say things like "If guess if you want us to let strangers drink at our bar you might as well sleep with our wives" and "Oh, sure, you don't buy our pagan ritual that involves making you into a burnt offering, I guess nobody should ever believe in anything ever again."
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #45 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

It suddenly occurs to me that someone should do a parody of the "Wicker Man" called the "Straw Man" about a spooky little town with secrets and where the locals only say things like "If guess if you want us to let strangers drink at our bar you might as well sleep with our wives" and "Oh, sure, you don't buy our pagan ritual that involves making you into a burnt offering, I guess nobody should ever believe in anything ever again."

Wife swapping? Pagan Rituals? Where do us Libertarians sign up?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #46 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

And frankly Gore's statement is just a fact. Bush did betray our country by playing to our fears. Nothing to fear but fear itself was never even considered when the terrorists struck (and effectively won).

Oh stop. You should hear yourself.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #47 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Wife swapping? Pagan Rituals? Where do us Libertarians sign up?

Worship of the Straw Man is a dark and fearsome discipline. It's all fun and games until the burning starts.

But as it adherents like to say, "It's either that or wasting your life."
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #48 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Sorry...is Coulter running for something?


She doesn't have to.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #49 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You bring something new to the table?

All the time! I can't be responsible for a closed mind on the recieving end however.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #50 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

All the time! I can't be responsible for a closed mind on the recieving end however.

LOL!

jimmac is telling me about a "closed mind." Shit, the Dow could shoot up 800 points tomorrow and you'd say "the market is still not where it should be."
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #51 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

LOL!

jimmac is telling me about a "closed mind." Shit, the Dow could shoot up 800 points tomorrow and you'd say "the market is still not where it should be."

Oh come on, this economy is awful! Unemployment is way way down, home ownership is up, real wages have increased, inflation is low, the DOW is running, people are investing, and treasury receipts are up. Those damn tax cuts have screwed up the country! Nothing could be more awful for a liberal democrat- the numbers that prove TAX CUTS WORK.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #52 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Oh come on, this economy is awful! Unemployment is way way down, home ownership is up, real wages have increased, inflation is low, the DOW is running, people are investing, and treasury receipts are up. Those damn tax cuts have screwed up the country! Nothing could be more awful for a liberal democrat- the numbers that prove TAX CUTS WORK.

You'll have someone that tells you they don't though. It's the natural business cycle, silly! Oh, except for hte 90s...you know how like the whole decade was AWESOME!? All of that was due to Bill Clinton's economic policies, as if he took any action whatsoever to help the economy.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #53 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You'll have someone that tells you they don't though. It's the natural business cycle, silly! Oh, except for hte 90s...you know how like the whole decade was AWESOME!? All of that was due to Bill Clinton's economic policies, as if he took any action whatsoever to help the economy.

... you mean besides taxing people into oblivion with the largest tax increase in history? It did wonders for the economy and disposable income... people did not fuel the economy with spending- they sent it all to the gubbment.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #54 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

... you mean besides taxing people into oblivion with the largest tax increase in history? It did wonders for the economy and disposable income... people did not fuel the economy with spending- they sent it all to the gubbment.

But the economy was SO GOOD, Jub! See this proves it...Democrats are better at managing the economy!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #55 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You'll have someone that tells you they don't though. It's the natural business cycle, silly! Oh, except for hte 90s...you know how like the whole decade was AWESOME!? All of that was due to Bill Clinton's economic policies, as if he took any action whatsoever to help the economy.

If it's not the natural cycle, and instead it's tax cuts that create growth, then how did Clinton's tax increase lead to an even better economy than Bush's tax cuts have?

There's a very clear record, and the only thing tax cuts do is cause deficits. Oh, and gain votes.
post #56 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

If it's not the natural cycle, and instead it's tax cuts that create growth, then how did Clinton's tax increase lead to an even better economy than Bush's tax cuts have?

There's a very clear record, and the only thing tax cuts do is cause deficits. Oh, and gain votes.

You are incredibly, embarrassingly wrong.

TAX CUTS do not cause deficits, friend. SPENDING THE HELL OUT OF MONEY YOU DO NOT HAVE causes deficits. Jeeze Louise! It's as if the government will never get smaller or cheaper, so we have to keep taxing and spending because it is out of our control. Well, it is within our control, if someone on Capitol Hill had a spine and did not get lured by vote buying.

The answer is not to tax more. The answer is to stop spending like you and I (taxpayers) have a limitless supply of money. I don't spend money I do not have, and why should the damn government? To continue the nanny state?

"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #57 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

You are incredibly, embarrassingly wrong.

TAX CUTS do not cause deficits, friend. SPENDING THE HELL OUT OF MONEY YOU DO NOT HAVE causes deficits. Jeeze Louise! It's as if the government will never get smaller or cheaper, so we have to keep taxing and spending because it is out of our control. Well, it is within our control, if someone on Capitol Hill had a spine and did not get lured by vote buying.

The answer is not to tax more. The answer is to stop spending like you and I (taxpayers) have a limitless supply of money. I don't spend money I do not have, and why should the damn government? To continue the nanny state?


Well, most of the justification has been to continue the clusterfuck in Iraq...

But once again we agree: Bush's tax cuts were great. If only he didn't push for more spending than any other president in the history of the country.
post #58 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

Well, most of the justification has been to continue the clusterfuck in Iraq...

But once again we agree: Bush's tax cuts were great. If only he didn't push for more spending than any other president in the history of the country.

So an expensive clusterfuck by one party entitles the other party to go hog wild with pork to achieve an ideological end? WE need to stop looking at party orientation and start looking at the money that THEY are taking from US. Warm and fuzzy affection is not the medium of transfer- it's REAL MONEY!

It's not left versus right. It's the spenders versus the producers, and unless we do something, the spenders are about the hugely outpace the producers. Just look at the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security!

* and let me be clear: the money spent on Iraq would have been much better served as scholarships for deserving students here in the US, or even paying down the debt!
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #59 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

Well, most of the justification has been to continue the clusterfuck in Iraq...

But once again we agree: Bush's tax cuts were great. If only he didn't push for more spending than any other president in the history of the country.

I don't know that last part is true, but we don't disagree in principle.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #60 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

You are incredibly, embarrassingly wrong.

TAX CUTS do not cause deficits, friend. SPENDING THE HELL OUT OF MONEY YOU DO NOT HAVE causes deficits. Jeeze Louise! It's as if the government will never get smaller or cheaper, so we have to keep taxing and spending because it is out of our control. Well, it is within our control, if someone on Capitol Hill had a spine and did not get lured by vote buying.

The answer is not to tax more. The answer is to stop spending like you and I (taxpayers) have a limitless supply of money. I don't spend money I do not have, and why should the damn government? To continue the nanny state?


This is like looking at 2+3=5, and claiming that the 2 causes the 5 but not the 3. Tax cuts without corresponding spending decreases cause deficits. And, you know, that includes raising spending massively as the Republican congress and the Republican president have done.

Reagan: Tax cuts, then bigger deficits.
Clinton: Tax increases, smaller deficits.
Bush: Tax cuts, bigger deficits.

And the economy kept going through cycles the whole time, regardless of tax policy. It's about as clear as can possibly be. And it's not like we don't know why Republicans cut taxes and increase spending: It's appealing to dumb voters.
post #61 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

So an expensive clusterfuck by one party entitles the other party to go hog wild with pork to achieve an ideological end?

We'll see. The Democrats have promised to get back on a pay-as-you-go system, and to reform earmarks. If they don't, they'll pay a price (if people care enough). But to complain about it now, and then claim you're not being partisan, when Republicans massively increased it under a Republican president, is pretty damn shameless.
post #62 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

We'll see. The Democrats have promised to get back on a pay-as-you-go system, and to reform earmarks. If they don't, they'll pay a price (if people care enough). But to complain about it now, and then claim you're not being partisan, when Republicans massively increased it under a Republican president, is pretty damn shameless.

Reread my earlier post... I was not here for years. And I have personally berated Lamar Smith (R-TX) about his spending pen. You do not know what I have done, and who I have criticized and where. After Stevens threatened to quit, my email list generated over 400 emails to Congress saying "let him GO." There is nothing shameless about going after those who are misusing our tax dollars for political reasons.

My apologies for not fitting your mold. Don't make me throw the Strawman flag..
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #63 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Reread my earlier post... I was not here for years. And I have personally berated Lamar Smith (R-TX) about his spending pen. You do not know what I have done, and who I have criticized and where. After Stevens threatened to quit, my email list generated over 400 emails to Congress saying "let him GO." There is nothing shameless about going after those who are misusing our tax dollars for political reasons.

My apologies for not fitting your mold. Don't make me throw the Strawman flag..

I don't think it's unfair to ask for some evidence. You have over 1000 posts, you claim to be non-partisan on this, you claim this is a big issue to you, so you should be able to point to something here where you've criticized Republicans, given the massive amounts of pork-spending they've engaged in.
post #64 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

If it's not the natural cycle, and instead it's tax cuts that create growth, then how did Clinton's tax increase lead to an even better economy than Bush's tax cuts have?

There's a very clear record, and the only thing tax cuts do is cause deficits. Oh, and gain votes.

Whoah. Slow down, champ. How do you define and support the notion of "better?" If it was, it was marginally so.

But let's assume for a minute that it was better. How exactly did Clinton help it? You can perhaps argue that the economy was better in spite of those tax increases on the middle class and rich, but not because of. Really...is there anyone here who believes tax increases help the economy? They may bring more revenue in the short term, thereby (possibly) decreasing deficits.

Clinton took little to no policy action that caused the economic boom of the later 1990's. So what was ia result of? Part of it was the natural business cycle, but a good bit of it was the transition to a more service based economy and of course, the tech boom.

When the bubble burst and things finally slowed down, stimulus was needed. Tax and Fed. rate cuts pumped money into the system to be sure. Now, again I'm sure the natural business cycle was part of it. But this is one tangible thing that was done that had clear results.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #65 of 107
Quote:
Tax cuts without corresponding spending decreases cause deficits.

That's patently false and it's been proven so time and time again. There is not a finite amount of revenue. It is not a zero sum type equation. When tax cuts are executed, the tax base expands and revenue goes up. This has happened three times in history, once with Kennedy, once with Reagan and once with Bush 43. For proof in our current day, look at the budget. The deficit is going down even though spending is exploding. I'm all for spending cuts, believe me...but you're totally wrong on this issue and always have been.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #66 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I don't think it's unfair to ask for some evidence. You have over 1000 posts, you claim to be non-partisan on this, you claim this is a big issue to you, so you should be able to point to something here where you've criticized Republicans, given the massive amounts of pork-spending they've engaged in.

I don't need to provide you some "evidence" of anything. I'm not going to take hours to go back through posts from 4 years ago to appease you. It's not as if EVERYTHING that means something to me is posted on this rinky-dink little board that few read since the split anyway. Why air it out for your liberals to drool over when I can actually get something done (more probably) at the state platform convention?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #67 of 107
I have not claimed that Clinton made the economy great. What I have said is that the economy since Bush has not been better than Clinton's, even though according to you guys it should be better because of tax cuts.

I will say that I think that long-term, structural deficits are bad for the economy, and the fact that Clinton was fiscally responsible may have helped the economy. I also think that Clinton's strong support of free trade probably helped economic growth (although I'm not sure that it's been good for American labor).

When it comes to the economy, IMO the government has got to simply be a good steward and not fock things up. Increasing deficits is certainly not being a good steward.
post #68 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That's patently false and it's been proven so time and time again. There is not a finite amount of revenue. It is not a zero sum type equation. When tax cuts are executed, the tax base expands and revenue goes up. This has happened three times in history, once with Kennedy, once with Reagan and once with Bush 43. For proof in our current day, look at the budget. The deficit is going down even though spending is exploding. I'm all for spending cuts, believe me...but you're totally wrong on this issue and always have been.

In the past I've offered so much evidence that nobody believes this, not conservative economists, not Republican economists currently working for Bush, nobody. I've provided enough quotes and papers in the past that you've clearly made the choice to believe it against the evidence, so it's really not worth it to me to get into it yet again. I'll just repost:

Reagan: Tax cut, deficits.
Clinton: Tax increase, surpluses.
Bush: Tax cut, deficits.
post #69 of 107
Wow... "Clinton" and "fiscal responsibility" in the same sentence. Or maybe it was the first six years of conservative cuts in the growth of government, BEFORE they got drunk with money and spending bills that a drunk president would sign? Clinton signed what real conservatives sent to his desk in the mid to late 90s... it's the power of the purse. Too bad that those same people got corrupted like anyone in Washington and started spending like nobody's business.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #70 of 107
Quote:
Reagan: Tax cut, deficits.
Clinton: Tax increase, surpluses.
Bush: Tax cut, deficits.

Reagan: Tax cuts, Spendthrift Democrats in congress -> deficits
Clinton: Tax increase, Conservative Republicans in Congress -> surpluses
Bush: Tax Cut, Republicans spending like Democrats -> deficits

There, that's better. Congress does have something at least to do with this...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #71 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Wow... "Clinton" and "fiscal responsibility" in the same sentence. Or maybe it was the first six years of conservative cuts in the growth of government, BEFORE they got drunk with money and spending bills that a drunk president would sign? Clinton signed what real conservatives sent to his desk in the mid to late 90s... it's the power of the purse. Too bad that those same people got corrupted like anyone in Washington and started spending like nobody's business.

Haha. The fiscal responsibility occurred mostly before the Republicans took office. When Newt and Bill finally made an agreement, after all the shutdowns and such, it increased spending, it didn't decrease it.

According to the conservative CATO Institute,
Quote:
After all, in inflation-adjusted terms, Clinton had overseen a total spending increase of only 3.5 percent at the same point in his administration. More importantly, after his first three years in office, non-defense discretionary spending actually went down by 0.7 percent. This is contrasted by Bush's three-year total spending increase of 15.6 percent and a 20.8 percent explosion in non-defense discretionary spending.

This is why I can't believe that you guys are really so non-partisan about spending and taxes. If you were, you would see the truth about our two parties, and see that they're not the same. If you're just partisans or just hate liberals over something else like abortion, then fine. But to defend Republicans on this issue? It betrays you.

[edit] BTW, even after many more years, CATO still says Clinton was much better on economic/fiscal issues than Bush. Here's an editorial from this month, all but endorsing Hillary Clinton (!) with the hope that she will follow her husband's economic and fiscal policies, and assuming that any Republican will surely be worse.
post #72 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Reagan: Tax cuts, Spendthrift Democrats in congress -> deficits
Clinton: Tax increase, Conservative Republicans in Congress -> surpluses
Bush: Tax Cut, Republicans spending like Democrats -> deficits

There, that's better. Congress does have something at least to do with this...

Haha, I love it, especially how Republicans magically shift from "conservative" when they don't get anything done due to a Democratic president in the 1990s, to being "like Democrats" when they actually can do what they want in the 2000s with their own president.
post #73 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That's patently false and it's been proven so time and time again. There is not a finite amount of revenue. It is not a zero sum type equation. When tax cuts are executed, the tax base expands and revenue goes up. This has happened three times in history, once with Kennedy, once with Reagan and once with Bush 43. For proof in our current day, look at the budget. The deficit is going down even though spending is exploding. I'm all for spending cuts, believe me...but you're totally wrong on this issue and always have been.

The only place that it has been "proven so time and time again" is in the tortuous rationalizations of supply side apologists, which I suppose accounts for why you are asserting as true here.

You might take a moment to read this article.

I imagine you'll find the source to be some kind of ghastly liberal lie-machine, but please note that the figures and quotations cited have footnotes and links, so you can check up on their math at your leisure.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #74 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Haha. The fiscal responsibility occurred mostly before the Republicans took office. When Newt and Bill finally made an agreement, after all the shutdowns and such, it increased spending, it didn't decrease it.

According to the conservative CATO Institute,

This is why I can't believe that you guys are really so non-partisan about spending and taxes. If you were, you would see the truth about our two parties, and see that they're not the same. If you're just partisans or just hate liberals over something else like abortion, then fine. But to defend Republicans on this issue? It betrays you.

[edit] BTW, even after many more years, CATO still says Clinton was much better on economic/fiscal issues than Bush. Here's an editorial from this month, all but endorsing Hillary Clinton (!) with the hope that she will follow her husband's economic and fiscal policies, and assuming that any Republican will surely be worse.

Since when was Cato non-partisan? You are right, the parties are not the same. They do the same things, just that Democrats used to do it bigger and better, now the R's have joined in.

You keep saying that I'm defending Republicans. DID YOU READ my posts? Do you have anything besides "you Republican...." Pay attention!
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #75 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Haha, I love it, especially how Republicans magically shift from "conservative" when they don't get anything done due to a Democratic president in the 1990s, to being "like Democrats" when they actually can do what they want in the 2000s with their own president.

Stop. Take a deep breath. Think a minute. Republicans did nothing under Clinton in the 90s, absent the CONSERVATIVES. After 2000, they abandoned conservatism and started spending like those they used to abhor- the big government tax and spenders (I'm sorry, but they were Democrats).

Bueno?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #76 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Since when was Cato non-partisan? You are right, the parties are not the same. They do the same things, just that Democrats used to do it bigger and better, now the R's have joined in.

You keep saying that I'm defending Republicans. DID YOU READ my posts? Do you have anything besides "you Republican...." Pay attention!

Haha. No Cato, isn't non-partisan, and I never claimed it. They're conservative, and they just came up to the very edge of endorsing Hillary Clinton. And they've repeatedly shown evidence that Bill Clinton was worlds more fiscally responsible than Bush. The Democrats have never done it "bigger and better" than Republicans. Republicans took it to a whole new level above what Democrats ever did. And if you can't see that, I simply don't trust that you really care about the issue.
post #77 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Haha. No Cato, isn't non-partisan, and I never claimed it. They're conservative, and they just came up to the very edge of endorsing Hillary Clinton. And they've repeatedly shown evidence that Bill Clinton was worlds more fiscally responsible than Bush. The Democrats have never done it "bigger and better" than Republicans. Republicans took it to a whole new level above what Democrats ever did. And if you can't see that, I simply don't trust that you really care about the issue.

Clinton appeared more fiscally responsible because he was tied up by smaller-government Republicans. And yes, Republicans did take it to a whole new level, and their voters made them pay for it. I refused to vote for them between Iraq and insane spending, in addition to caving on the border issue. I'm voting for Ron Paul and other right-minded libertarians.

You've dragged it back to arguing partisan issues. This is not a partisan issue. If you can't see that, I simply don't trust that you really care about the issue.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #78 of 107
At the core, do you agree that this kind of spending is wrong, regardless of party? That is the fundamental question. If we disagree on that point, then we can stop arguing at that point.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #79 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Clinton appeared more fiscally responsible because he was tied up by smaller-government Republicans. And yes, Republicans did take it to a whole new level, and their voters made them pay for it. I refused to vote for them between Iraq and insane spending, in addition to caving on the border issue. I'm voting for Ron Paul and other right-minded libertarians.

You've dragged it back to arguing partisan issues. This is not a partisan issue. If you can't see that, I simply don't trust that you really care about the issue.

Clinton was most fiscally responsible when Democrats controlled congress. Whenever he made an agreement with Republicans, spending shot up.

And it absolutely is a partisan issue: Democrats are worlds better than Republicans on fiscal responsibility.
post #80 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Clinton was most fiscally responsible when Democrats controlled congress. Whenever he made an agreement with Republicans, spending shot up.

And it absolutely is a partisan issue: Democrats are worlds better than Republicans on fiscal responsibility.

That's how the debt got to where it is, mostly after 40+ years of previous Dem control. When the 1994 Congress took over, where was the debt? Trillions. (but that was Regan's fault, right?)

We do disagree fundamentally- you think we can tax and spend ourselves into wealth and stability. I don't. I believe that everyone does better when government is smaller and we are taxed less, regardless of what Republican war or Democrat social evil we are fighting. Smaller is better, that's where I stand.

Have a great weekend. I appreciate the mostly worthwhile debate.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider