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 GOP was given a SURPLUS in 2000. 8 years later, the country was in shambles and on a sure road to another Depression. Now, this clueless party is again trying to fool the electorate into believing that a 10-year plan that they devised would yield a different result? Absolutely ridiculous! It's pretty obvious that the GOP hasn't the slightest clue how to achieve prosperity for this country, only for the privileged few.
How incredibly absurd and ironic to suggest otherwise. You Pubs are desperate with this nonsense.
You are correct, my bad, I was very tired by the time I posted this... Obviously my references were toward the Clinton and Bush ADMINISTRATIONS... Further more the numbers were $18 BILLION (last yr) & $133 BILLION (first yr). (not trillion) My lack of proper protocall does NOT change the FACTS (follow the link provided in the post)
or a second link:
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org.2008/10/02/cheney-deficit-debt (broken link)
The bottom line... What Presidents' Reagan and both Bushes did to this country is unforgiveable and (in my opinion) looks an awful lot like criminal malfeasance...
People can paint the Democratic party any color they want they can't change the facts of the last 30 yrs.
Administrations do not spend either. PoliSci 101 - The President proposes, and Congress disposes. If you have an issue with regard to spending, the blame falls entirely on Congress, not the President or their administration.
Who controlled Congress while Reagan and Bush Sr. were President? Who controlled Congress while Clinton was President? Who controlled Congress while Bush Jr. was President? These are the questions you need to answer, because that is where the spending blame lies.
When people blame Presidents, or their administrations, for acts of Congress they appear civically illiterate. As if they have utterly no clue how their own government functions.
Quote:
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Source: Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the US Constitution
Administrations do not spend either. PoliSci 101 - The President proposes, and Congress disposes. If you have an issue with regard to spending, the blame falls entirely on Congress, not the President or their administration.
Who controlled Congress while Reagan and Bush Sr. were President? Who controlled Congress while Clinton was President? Who controlled Congress while Bush Jr. was President? These are the questions you need to answer, because that is where the spending blame lies.
When people blame Presidents, or their administrations, for acts of Congress they appear civically illiterate. As if they have utterly no clue how their own government functions.
You do know that a President can veto a budget right? I have a strange feeling that BushII and Reagan were pretty comfortable spending Uncle Sam's money so long as they got a slice of that their own personal projects.
You do know that a President can veto a budget right?
This assumes Congress passes a budget in the first place. That has not happened since Democrats took control in 2007.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthGAbound12
I have a strange feeling that BushII and Reagan were pretty comfortable spending Uncle Sam's money so long as they got a slice of that their own personal projects.
Once again, Presidents do not spend.
Reagan had to contend with a Democrat controlled House during his entire eight years as President, and a Democrat controlled Senate during four of those eight years as President. Bush Sr. had a Democrat controlled Congress during his entire term. Clinton had a Democrat controlled Congress for his first two years, and a Republican controlled Congress during his last six years. Bush Jr. had a Republican controlled House during his first six years, and a Democrat controlled House during his last two years, with a Democrat controlled Senate for four years and a Republican controlled Senate for four years. Obama had a Democrat controlled Congress his first two years in office, and now he has a Republican controlled House and a Democrat controlled Senate.
If Congress passes a budget (good or bad it makes no difference), then Congress did their job. If the President vetoes the budget and shuts down government, then the President is to blame. Just like Reagan did in 1985, and just like Clinton did in 1995.
If the House passes a budget, and the Senate fails to pass it, then the blame falls on the Senate. The House did their job.
If the House fails to pass a budget, then all the blame falls squarely on the House for failing to do their job.
For the last four years there has not been a budget passed by Congress. Only continuing resolutions, supplemental, and omnibus bills. The House failed to do its job for the last four years, and we all know who controlled the House during these last four years - Democrats.
The same is true today. If the Republican controlled House fails to pass the FY12 budget by the end of September, they will not have done their job and deserve to be blamed. If the House passes a budget, and the Democrat controlled Senate fails to pass the budget, then the blame falls on the Senate. If Congress does pass a budget by this September and Obama vetoes it shutting down government, then the blame falls on Obama for shutting down government, but he is not to blame for the contents of the budget.
Paul Ryan's path to prosperity is a path to prosperity for the elite. we've seen these conservative policies for the past 3 decades. They don't work unless you have a salary of 250K or more. We have plenty of evidence to skew that.
Cutting programs for the poor just makes them struggle more to survive. How long until they resort to more and more crime?
Cutting taxes does not create incentives for hiring. If there is no need for the workers, a company won't hire. So why are we cutting taxes? We're decreasing revenue. Close all the loopholes and then keep the rates the same (realistically they should be raised). Don't like it? Leave the country, take your business with you. You can be easily replaced by someone who is happy with 500K a year instead of 1 million.
Most of this debt that we now have is due to 2 things.
1. Unrealistic tax cuts for the rich. Started in the Reagan era.
2. Unsustainable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started by Bush.
Lets fix those problems.
I agree the troops should be brought home. However if you topple a government and its infrastructure, then leave, you're just creating a breeding ground for terrorists, lots of young recruits angry at the U.S. for killing family members, invading their country, disrupting their way of life.
With regards to Libya. Qadafi is killing his own people. We get lots of oil and Qadafi gets rich off of us. Don't think their will be some resentment there? How do you think those people will act if they get in power, or if one just decides he wants to be angry at the U.S.?
I don't like the U.S. having multiple wars, but Iraq and Afghanistan are messes we started, we need to stay until the job is done. Libya......well we've had years to get off foreign oil. Instead we get bigger cars that burn even more of it and commute longer distances than ever. We should have developed a culture of conservation.
However we can fix the unrealistic tax cuts for the rich.....
Cutting programs for the poor just makes them struggle more to survive. How long until they resort to more and more crime?
A desperate dependent makes for a good servant. This has been proven time and time again, around the globe in the past and in the present. Wages going down, benefits being cut, is the perfect way to push for a two-tiered society. And if the masses threaten, push the good old divide and rule button which can use any number of algorithms (religion has traditionally played a major role in most countries, along with race). But desperation can also lead to Shay's revolution. The only problem is that it takes a lot of suffering and years before the next cycle begins.
The GOP was given a SURPLUS in 2000. 8 years later, the country was in shambles and on a sure road to another Depression. Now, this clueless party is again trying to fool the electorate into believing that a 10-year plan that they devised would yield a different result? Absolutely ridiculous! It's pretty obvious that the GOP hasn't the slightest clue how to achieve prosperity for this country, only for the privileged few.
How incredibly absurd and ironic to suggest otherwise. You Pubs are desperate with this nonsense.
EXCELLENT post! Republicans don't have a clue how to balance a budget- they are just as big of spenders as Democrats- they just like to spend money in ways that don't benefit us here at home at all by throwing it all at military, the rich, and corporations.
Paul Ryan's path to prosperity is a path to prosperity for the elite. we've seen these conservative policies for the past 3 decades. They don't work unless you have a salary of 250K or more. We have plenty of evidence to skew that.
Cutting programs for the poor just makes them struggle more to survive. How long until they resort to more and more crime?
Cutting taxes does not create incentives for hiring. If there is no need for the workers, a company won't hire. So why are we cutting taxes? We're decreasing revenue. Close all the loopholes and then keep the rates the same (realistically they should be raised). Don't like it? Leave the country, take your business with you. You can be easily replaced by someone who is happy with 500K a year instead of 1 million.
Most of this debt that we now have is due to 2 things.
1. Unrealistic tax cuts for the rich. Started in the Reagan era.
2. Unsustainable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started by Bush.
Lets fix those problems.
I agree the troops should be brought home. However if you topple a government and its infrastructure, then leave, you're just creating a breeding ground for terrorists, lots of young recruits angry at the U.S. for killing family members, invading their country, disrupting their way of life.
With regards to Libya. Qadafi is killing his own people. We get lots of oil and Qadafi gets rich off of us. Don't think their will be some resentment there? How do you think those people will act if they get in power, or if one just decides he wants to be angry at the U.S.?
I don't like the U.S. having multiple wars, but Iraq and Afghanistan are messes we started, we need to stay until the job is done. Libya......well we've had years to get off foreign oil. Instead we get bigger cars that burn even more of it and commute longer distances than ever. We should have developed a culture of conservation.
However we can fix the unrealistic tax cuts for the rich.....
So you're saying that unless the poor get free money, they'll start stealing? Then they aren't the POOR, they're CRIMINALS. And all the more reason to stop giving them MY hard earned money. Wouldn't it be nice if cutting those programs led the poor to actually HELP THEMSELVES?
The rest of your post, quite frankly, is nothing more than koolaide hangover.
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.
You cannot pretend Bush did not happen
You Pubs are desperate with this nonsense.
