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.
All we ask is for a little 10% reduction in the federal government taking it back to 2005 levels.
Isn't that a fair price to save your country?
I agree that the government drastically needs to be reduce it's massive spending, but I don't agree with your partisan politics. Where were you and your ilk during the Bush years, when it was ballooning out of control? That's very partisan, not to be able to have seen that.
I also think it's a bit of a misservice to say Clinton was 'lucky' to reduce the deficit. As your political knowledge seems to be post-FOX News....I'm assuming you weren't around when Clinton was running for Presidency.
I was definitely around, and he actually did run on a large campaign to reduce the deficit. All kinds of people were 'mailing in money' to do their parts. It was a 'bonding American' time. That campaign probably was the #1 reason he got elected - his promise to reduce the deficit and bring us back to normal levels of spending again.
The great economy was just a bonus was just a bonus of Clinton's administration. Reagan also was lucky to have a great economy, but he was one of the great massive spenders of our time.
I agree that the government drastically needs to be reduce it's massive spending, but I don't agree with your partisan politics. Where were you and your ilk during the Bush years, when it was ballooning out of control? That's very partisan, not to be able to have seen that.
I also think it's a bit of a misservice to say Clinton was 'lucky' to reduce the deficit. As your political knowledge seems to be post-FOX News....I'm assuming you weren't around when Clinton was running for Presidency.
I was definitely around, and he actually did run on a large campaign to reduce the deficit. All kinds of people were 'mailing in money' to do their parts. It was a 'bonding American' time. That campaign probably was the #1 reason he got elected - his promise to reduce the deficit and bring us back to normal levels of spending again.
The great economy was just a bonus was just a bonus of Clinton's administration. Reagan also was lucky to have a great economy, but he was one of the great massive spenders of our time.
True conservatives hated Bush's MASSIVE expansion of the federal bureaucracy but were drowned out by the neocon war cry for revenge after 19 guys with Home Depot boxcutters brought America to its knees.
Clinton was not a fiscal conservative, despite revisionist history. Remember "HillaryCare"?
Clinton was a big government democrat in the mold of Carter until he was whooped in the '94 Newt Gingrich mid-term.
Unlike the empty suit in the White House today Clinton had the brains to listen to that message and went farther to the right than many of us could have hoped, to his credit.
Then his horniness got the best of him and that was the end of that.
True conservatives hated Bush's MASSIVE expansion of the federal bureaucracy but were drowned out by the neocon war cry for revenge after 19 guys with Home Depot boxcutters brought America to its knees.
'True' Conservatives loved Bush though. It wasn't until McCain started running, that they suddenly decided to distance themselves from the guy. But the core of the Republican Party, from McCain to Guiliani to everyone else was tripping over themselves telling us how much more money they wanted to spend to expand war efforts to new countries. Ron Paul was the only one against the idea, and he seemed to get more support from Democrat-leaning voters than Republican ones. He was basically laughed off the Republican stage.
Fiscal Conservatives, and I'd use 'The Economist' as a very strong indicator of what a 'fiscal conservative' would want as President. They endorsed Kerry over Bush, and Obama over McCain.
I'd tend to agree with the Economist. McCain's '100 years in Iraq' and 'invade Iran next' campaign agendas, would have been absolutely horrible for us domestically and economically, not to mention socially and morally.
LOL. This is the only thread that the resident "Communist", the resident "Communist", and two random "Tea Partiers" would actually agree with something for entirely different reasons. Misguided and ill informed reasons.
'True' Conservatives loved Bush though. It wasn't until McCain started running, that they suddenly decided to distance themselves from the guy. But the core of the Republican Party, from McCain to Guiliani to everyone else was tripping over themselves telling us how much more money they wanted to spend to expand war efforts to new countries. Ron Paul was the only one against the idea, and he seemed to get more support from Democrat-leaning voters than Republican ones. He was basically laughed off the Republican stage.
Fiscal Conservatives, and I'd use 'The Economist' as a very strong indicator of what a 'fiscal conservative' would want as President. They endorsed Kerry over Bush, and Obama over McCain.
I'd tend to agree with the Economist. McCain's '100 years in Iraq' and 'invade Iran next' campaign agendas, would have been absolutely horrible for us domestically and economically, not to mention socially and morally.
True conservatives did NOT love Bush. Turn MSNBC off for a second and use your brain.
Conservatives spent 8 YEARS complaining about Bush and his destructive policies (wars of choice, Medicare Part D, No Child Left Out of Central Planning, etc.)
NEOCONS loved Bush because he was like Putty in Dick Cheney's hands.
If you think Giuliani (a mayor of ultra-liberal New York) and McCain (Mr. Keating 5) are the "core" of conservatism in the U.S. then MSNBC has infected your brain beyond all repair.
True conservatives did NOT love Bush. Turn MSNBC off for a second and use your brain.
Conservatives spent 8 YEARS complaining about Bush and his destructive policies (wars of choice, Medicare Part D, No Child Left Out of Central Planning, etc.)
NEOCONS loved Bush because he was like Putty in Dick Cheney's hands.
If you think Giuliani (a mayor of ultra-liberal New York) and McCain (Mr. Keating 5) are the "core" of conservatism in the U.S. then MSNBC has infected your brain beyond all repair.
I don't watch TV. I've never seen MSNBC.
I'm getting my facts from what is now 'history'.
If the Republicans chose Bush, Bush, and McCain to run for Presidency, I can only assume that conservatives supported those decisions.
In this thread I've been accused of getting all of my information from Fox news.
So if you don't like getting stereotyped don't go and stereotype someone else.
You and other liberals support all of Obama's decisions because you elected him president, right?
Well, 'liberals' probably did vote for Obama. 'Conservatives' probably did vote for McCain or Bush.
I don't personally support all of Obama's decisions. I'm not liberal either, I'm in the middle. But as a 'middle' and 'somewhat moderate' person, I think we're better off fiscally and morally than '100 years in Iraq' McCain.
Wow, a whole weekend of this. I don't think there are many people here who are saying we don't need to reduce federal spending, fraud, waste and abuse. I think the objections (mine anyway) are mainly coming due to the way in which some of the posters here are calling for it and the questionable information they are using to justify their calls; blindly lashing out with exaggerations and loosely related anecdotes that don't provide an honest representation of the federal workforce or their relation to challenges that face the country generally.
Some posters here are calling on federal civilian employees in DC to shoulder the weight of deficit reduction, when over 85% of them are outside of the DC metro area, have a payscale set below local comparable salaries, and consume less than 10% of federal expenditures. You can certainly argue to reduce benefits and reduce duplicative programs in a rational way, but DC federal employees absolutely make zero sense to single out either as a cause, or solution, to our deficit problems.
Requests to provide primary source information to quantify some of the fiery claims on here are simply met by dodging to another loosely related anecdote, as if it were the same thing. There is an absolute aversion to looking at the documents before they are dumbed down and filtered. Someone posted an article about a relevant GAO report, but read the reader comments instead of the report. Someone will post a Conservative thinktank's article about a CBO report, but not read the CBO report. People are ranking about 80k secretaries in the federal government, and producing a private sector ad as some sort of proof to that. I personally have never seen a Secretary position over GS-10, which falls well short of 80k, even with the highest locality pay adjustment. There may be Secretaries making over 80k in the federal government, but they are few and far between, so using that as a bellwether for government largess is flimsy.
I think the bar has been lowered so far in public discourse, that people actually think that type of conversation IS thoughtful and media sources with a mission-based bias are responsible primary sources of information. It's crazy.
Last edited by KStreetQB; 10-24-2011 at 10:54 AM..
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.
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.
