I Apologize

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by saden1

If pointing out the obvious is typical i will gladly be typical. You know what else is typical? The National Review sucking the life out my brain with gems like this:



I have no problem with spending...especially in a depressed economy. There are things I would like to cut but I don't think you'd like what I would cut.

Try me.

See, thing is, in case you haven't noticed, in general I really don't care for a lot of Democratic policy. But I'm not a party-lines guy. I have no deep seeded loyalty to the GOP. I tend to agree with them more than the left, but truth be told, I'm a fiscal conservative and more liberal socially (I'm probably more Libertarian than anything else). Really I just want what's good for this country. And the good I speak of is not relative.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Try me.

See, thing is, in case you haven't noticed, in general I really don't care for a lot of Democratic policy. But I'm not a party-lines guy. I have no deep seeded loyalty to the GOP. I tend to agree with them more than the left, but truth be told, I'm a fiscal conservative and more liberal socially (I'm probably more Libertarian than anything else). Really I just want what's good for this country. And the good I speak of is not relative.

Sorry, couldn't resist

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Sorry, couldn't resist

Sorry but the president does not control spending so you have to look at who had control of congress. Who ever made that chart does not understand government and the function of each house and the president. Also those numbers seem very low compared to the first year of Obama and a democrate controled congress.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Sorry but the president does not control spending so you have to look at who had control of congress. Who ever made that chart does not understand government and the function of each house and the president. Also those numbers seem very low compared to the first year of Obama and a democrate controled congress.

I know what you're saying -- it's just a dumb cartoon. I will say that the President always has the chance to veto any spending bill, although it's usually not so black and white.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

I know what you're saying -- it's just a dumb cartoon. I will say that the President always has the chance to veto any spending bill, although it's usually not so black and white.

Yes the president does but the problem is that they always stick spending in other bills so to get it passed. That was never more true then with RR as the Dem's. loaded every bill with more spending. I think that every bill should stand on its own and everything gets voted on separately.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Sorry but the president does not control spending so you have to look at who had control of congress. Who ever made that chart does not understand government and the function of each house and the president. Also those numbers seem very low compared to the first year of Obama and a democrate controled congress.

Wow. That's just unbelievable. The notion the President doesn't drive spending and the overall budget via his 1) agenda 2) ties on Capital Hill 3) party politics and 4) oh yeah he's the President.

C'mon man. Any President who wants to balance the budget can veto any bill, spending or otherwise, in a heartbeat. Then Congress must pass said bill by 2/3 to override veto. The pt is any President who really wants to put the hammer down can do so.

The notion Reagan and the retarded Bush were fiscal conservatives is just asinine nonsense.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by The Goat

The notion Reagan and the retarded Bush were fiscal conservatives is just asinine nonsense.

The notion that Reagan WASN'T a fiscal conservative is asinine nonsense.

Bush agree with you on that one, but most conservatives understand Bush 2 wasn't a fiscal conservative.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

The notion that Reagan WASN'T a fiscal conservative is asinine nonsense.

Bush agree with you on that one, but most conservatives understand Bush 2 wasn't a fiscal conservative.

This is exactly the kind of thing that makes me lose faith in our citizenry and the collective future. We had a President who oversaw roughly $3 TRILLION IN NEW NATIONAL DEBT BECAUSE HE SLASHED TAXES AND DRASTICALLY INCREASED SPENDING (NOT ON THE PUBLIC BUT SOLELY ON THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX) AND YET PEOPLE SOMEHOW WANT TO HOLD ONTO A FANTASY OF FISCAL CONSERVATISM.

I mean that's just nonsense. Why waste time w/ insipid, stupid fantasies that contradict the historical record? I'm not even creative but I can think of more exciting fairytales on a whim!

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by The Goat

This is exactly the kind of thing that makes me lose faith in our citizenry and the collective future. We had a President who oversaw roughly $3 TRILLION IN NEW NATIONAL DEBT BECAUSE HE SLASHED TAXES AND DRASTICALLY INCREASED SPENDING (NOT ON THE PUBLIC BUT SOLELY ON THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX) AND YET PEOPLE SOMEHOW WANT TO HOLD ONTO A FANTASY OF FISCAL CONSERVATISM.

I mean that's just nonsense. Why waste time w/ insipid, stupid fantasies that contradict the historical record? I'm not even creative but I can think of more exciting fairytales on a whim!

It's easy to read charts and graphs without putting things into historical context. It's also easy to type in all caps, SEE I CAN DO IT TOO. Not putting things into context is what is "nonsense", and an "insipid, stupid" idea.

You should read this:
Ronald Reagan: The Heritage Foundation Remembers

"Though Reagan promised deep cuts in domestic spending, that did not turn out to be the case. Indeed, overall welfare spending increased during the Reagan presidency -- primarily because Reagan could not overcome, even with vetoes and the bully pulpit of the White House, the spending impulses of Congress, which, after all, signed the checks. Throughout his two terms, he was confronted by Democrats still enthralled by the New Deal as well as Republicans (particularly in the Senate) still mesmerized by its political appeal."

"But it is a little-remembered fact, as Cato Institute economist Stephen Moore has emphasized, that by the end of the Reagan era, the federal deficit as a share of gross domestic product was falling, and rapidly -- from 6 percent in 1985 to 3 percent in 1989. As Reagan left office, the Democrat-controlled Congressional Budget Office projected that "deficits were on a path to fall to about one percent of GDP by 1993," without any action by future presidents.[xxiii]"

And he was working with a Dem controlled congress for his first 4 years and a Dem controlled House in his last four. A majority of his increase in the debt was due to defense spending and the USSR at the time was a lot more than a "fairy tale" threat.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by The Goat

This is exactly the kind of thing that makes me lose faith in our citizenry and the collective future. We had a President who oversaw roughly $3 TRILLION IN NEW NATIONAL DEBT BECAUSE HE SLASHED TAXES AND DRASTICALLY INCREASED SPENDING (NOT ON THE PUBLIC BUT SOLELY ON THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX) AND YET PEOPLE SOMEHOW WANT TO HOLD ONTO A FANTASY OF FISCAL CONSERVATISM.

I mean that's just nonsense. Why waste time w/ insipid, stupid fantasies that contradict the historical record? I'm not even creative but I can think of more exciting fairytales on a whim!

Yes, and down came that wall and now we don't live in fear of an all out WWIII. If anything that was money well spent and probably has save us billions over the years.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Sorry, couldn't resist

word

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Sorry, couldn't resist

LOL. What moron drew this cartoon? Like Firstdown said, the spending approvals come from Congress, plus whoever conveniently drew this put McCain on there after W instead of the current President, who's out of control spending has us facing a deficit larger than Reagen, H.W., and W. combined. Our deficit is currently about 10% of the GDP. That's scary as hell.

I know, I know, it's all W's fault.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GMScud

LOL. What moron drew this cartoon? Like Firstdown said, the spending approvals come from Congress, plus whoever conveniently drew this put McCain on there after W instead of the current President, who's out of control spending has us facing a deficit larger than Reagen, H.W., and W. combined. Our deficit is currently about 10% of the GDP. That's scary as hell.

I know, I know, it's all W's fault.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

I suppose we can give Bush credit for all the spending that went on when the GOP had control of both chambers for 6 years. I know you lot like to wiggle and weasel but a face isn't going to cut it. Also, I forgot the Democratic congress were the ones that spend all that money fighting the cold war and won it, and invaded Iraq in the early 90's. Thanks for reminding me.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by saden1

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

I suppose we can give Bush credit for all the spending that went on when the GOP had control of both chambers for 6 years. I know you lot like to wiggle and weasel but a face isn't going to cut it. Also, I forgot the Democratic congress were the ones that spend all that money fighting the cold war and won it, and invaded Iraq in the early 90's. Thanks for reminding me.

Anything to deflect from how much these current idiots are spending I suppose.

You're an abrasive know it all. Like most progressives. But you already know that. No need to get vulgar with me.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Anything to deflect from how much these current idiots are spending I suppose.

You're an abrasive know it all. Like most progressives. But you already know that. No need to get vulgar with me.

Nah, I just don't care for stupid posts with no basis in reality and those who post them.