Why should we ever give Republicans power? (Representatives, Congress, middle east)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The CBO showed a surplus between 1998-2000. Though I suspect for some it is easier to believe in conspiracy theories then credit a Democrat.
no, the CBO showed a surplus of only the public debt, not the total debt. The TOTAL debt went up, see the link below for verification.
Or do you think the US Treasury office is in on that conspiracy theory just to make you look wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead
You are Exhibit A. You spew half truths, contempt, and insults every day on this forum, yet you would love to have power. Why would we give it to you? We're not idiots.
Haha, so if the US Treasury Department says I'm correct, and you're wrong,
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,298 posts, read 14,134,421 times
Reputation: 8104
It's important to have at least two parties sharing power, but it seems like instead of the rather evil rightwing Republicans who want more and more for the wealthy in addition to more and more for war toys, we could have a liberal party like Greens to balance off the slightly conservative (by European standards) Democrats.
I'm actually in favor of a reasonable amount of fiscal conservativism, but we need to better choose what we eliminate from the budget. There's no need for the govt to be involved deeply in marriages or other moral issues. And we could easily have a decent universal healthcare system if we decide to stop policing the world beyond what's actually necessary, the money saved from the one thing could pay for the expense of the other.
It's important to have at least two parties sharing power, but it seems like instead of the rather evil rightwing Republicans who want more and more for the wealthy in addition to more and more for war toys, we could have a liberal party like Greens to balance off the slightly conservative (by European standards) Democrats.
I'm actually in favor of a reasonable amount of fiscal conservativism, but we need to better choose what we eliminate from the budget. There's no need for the govt to be involved deeply in marriages or other moral issues. And we could easily have a decent universal healthcare system if we decide to stop policing the world beyond what's actually necessary, the money saved from the one thing could pay for the expense of the other.
First, before anything is implemented, the nation should look at aggressively reducing the debt and start paying back other nations. Then bring production and innovation back, which will create jobs here and kill the trade agreements eg. NAFTA (a job killing legislation which was supported by both parties). Finally, bring most, if not all of the troops home..
Realistically, I don't see any if this happening from either party.
In regards to the Clinton surplus, he did create a budget surplus that reduced the deficit and debt, I don't see how one can deny that. I've heard many things about that short-term surplus ranging from the debt was supposed to go away by last year if we stayed on the Clinton budget plan but then I've also heard that surplus is what probably has killed our economy. Nonetheless, debt is needed therefore Bush gets a semi-free pass in that respect plus Bush did have a lot of unaccounted/forgotten revenues that were just announced sometime last year.
In regards to the Clinton surplus, he did create a budget surplus that reduced the deficit and debt, I don't see how one can deny that. I've heard many things about that short-term surplus ranging from the debt was supposed to go away by last year if we stayed on the Clinton budget plan but then I've also heard that surplus is what probably has killed our economy. Nonetheless, debt is needed therefore Bush gets a semi-free pass in that respect plus Bush did have a lot of unaccounted/forgotten revenues that were just announced sometime last year.
I understand that Clinton did a good job in relative terms when it comes to the economy, but my question is, Why is debt necessary, especially since it skyrocketed under both Bush and Obama?
It's important to have at least two parties sharing power, but it seems like instead of the rather evil rightwing Republicans who want more and more for the wealthy in addition to more and more for war toys, we could have a liberal party like Greens to balance off the slightly conservative (by European standards) Democrats.
I'm actually in favor of a reasonable amount of fiscal conservativism, but we need to better choose what we eliminate from the budget. There's no need for the govt to be involved deeply in marriages or other moral issues. And we could easily have a decent universal healthcare system if we decide to stop policing the world beyond what's actually necessary, the money saved from the one thing could pay for the expense of the other.
Sure, I am all for a sensible, fiscall conservative party. The current GOP has demonstrated that they don't give two shake for governing, because government is evil, by definition. That is why I don't trust them. Would you hire an employee who vowed repeatedly to burn down your business?
Would you hire an employee who vowed repeatedly to burn down your business?
No, I wouldn't!
Stop the partisan rhetoric and own your party lies!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.