| # | Author | Message |
251
| dshyates
Wed 5/21/2008 6:44p | Didn't the very last Democratic president leave office with an actual surplus? After having paid off the monumental deficit left by the 2 previous Republican presidents? So mrkthompson I have to wonder what the hell your talking about. You trust the Repulicans budgetary skills more than the Democrats when the only fiscally responsible president in my adult lifetime was NOT a Republican. |
252
| DouglasDubh
Wed 5/21/2008 7:54p | <Thank you Einstein.>
If you wouldn't ignore the obvious, I wouldn't have to point it out.
<But the fact remains that they never altered things by more than a small percentage, and that Reagan presented budgets with large deficits built in.>
And if Reagan had presented budgets with smaller deficits, the Democrats would have made them larger by a another small percentage.
<Yes, they were.>
No, they weren't. |
253
| DouglasDubh
Wed 5/21/2008 7:57p | <Didn't the very last Democratic president leave office with an actual surplus?>
No. There was a projected surplus, but then the tech bubble burst, revenues fell, and expenditures continued to rise.
<You trust the Repulicans budgetary skills more than the Democrats when the only fiscally responsible president in my adult lifetime was NOT a Republican.>
While President Clinton deserves some credit for helping balance the federal budget, it came about mostly because of the Republican Congress. |
254
| DyGDisney
Wed 5/21/2008 8:43p | What's funny here is if the budget had had a huge deficit when Clinton was president, Democrats would blame the Republican congress, and Republicans would blame Clinton.
Just an observation. |
255
| DouglasDubh
Wed 5/21/2008 8:57p | What would be logical is blaming the people who consistently vote for greater spending. For example, who voted for the bloated farm bill in greater numbers - Democrats or Republicans? |
256
| Kar2oonMan
Wed 5/21/2008 10:53p | >>What would be logical is blaming the people who consistently vote for greater spending.<<
Yes. And since the GOP held all the reigns for the first 6 years of this administration, their pattern of spending was enormous, including the ongoing tab for the wars we're still fighting in two countries. George W. Bush "consistently" couldn't find his veto pen until the issue of stem cells came up. Prior to that, where was this great fiscal restraint the GOP was once proud of? |
257
| DouglasDubh
Thu 5/22/2008 5:59a | It's funny how people keep saying they want a politician to be a moderate, and cooperate with the other side. But when a Republican gives in to Democrat demands for more spending, he's soundly criticized. He ends up disliked by both parties. I wonder if the same thing will happen to Senator McCain. |
258
| Dabob2
Thu 5/22/2008 7:48a | <Thank you Einstein.>
<If you wouldn't ignore the obvious, I wouldn't have to point it out.>
The "obvious" in this case being your non-sequitur. Yes, a small percentage of a large number can be a large number, Einstein. But what mrkthompsn and I were talking about, which you interjected yourself into, was the process by which we got the largest deficits we'd ever seen before. The budgets Reagan submitted had those largest ever deficits built in, because he insisted on raising the military budget more than he cut discretionary spending. Congress restored a few cuts. Republicans then like to blame the whole deficits of that era on the Democratic congress. Obviously you're STILL trying to find a way to do that, the facts be damned.
<<But the fact remains that they never altered things by more than a small percentage, and that Reagan presented budgets with large deficits built in.>>
<And if Reagan had presented budgets with smaller deficits, the Democrats would have made them larger by a another small percentage.>
But he didn't. I'm not dealing in "ifs" here, I'm dealing in what actually happened.
<<Yes, they were.>>
<No, they weren't.>
Of course they were. |
259
| DouglasDubh
Fri 5/23/2008 5:20p | <The "obvious" in this case being your non-sequitur.>
No, the obvious is what you're trying to ignore in your attempt to blame the deficits on President Reagan. The fact is that Democrats have consistantly voted for greater government spending over the last 40 years. The only thing they ever offer to cut is military spending.
<Of course they were.>
Still wrong. |
260
| Dabob2
Sat 5/24/2008 2:37p | <<The "obvious" in this case being your non-sequitur.>>
<No, the obvious is what you're trying to ignore in your attempt to blame the deficits on President Reagan.>
I didn't ignore a thing. I laid out the facts. Reagan presented Congress with a budgets that included deficits larger than any seen under Carter or anyone before him. True or not? True. Congress restored some of the domestic cuts, but not all, and sent back a budget that spent no more than a few percentage points more than Reagan asked for. True or not? True. Reagan then signed those budgets rather than veto them. True or not? True.
<The fact is that Democrats have consistantly voted for greater government spending over the last 40 years. The only thing they ever offer to cut is military spending.>
When, as with Reagan, the raise in military spending is greater than the amount that you cut domestically, guess what? Government spending goes up. Too many Republicans like to pretend that military spending magically isn't government spending, or that taxpayers don't pay for it. But we do.
<<Of course they were.>>
<Still wrong.>
Nope, still right, and you can't show otherwise. |
