Our debt isn't actually increasing at all that crazy a rate

[Cancel 2016.2]

Superfreak
The Almighty

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 5,539

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRL
Certainly not fiscally Conservative, or he would have headed McCain's opinion and cut spending with those tax cuts.
How do you reconcile the above with the below?

WRL
Well...the right is right Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 335

" Bush the 'lame duck' President has been the one of the most effective in 30 + years of controlling congressional Democrats spending spree's, like welfare to people making 80,000 a year, the recent S CHIP fight."

He was not effective at all. Even factoring in the $1 trillion spent on the wars and Katrina he and Congress still over spent by almost $3 trillion dollars.

Moderation


Just Plain Politics! > Politics > Current Events

« Previous Thread * Next Thread »

Quick Reply
Message:

















Options
Show your signatureQuote message in reply?



Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
U.S. teen birth rate rises for first time in 14 years uscitizen Current Events 0 12-06-2007 05:40 AM
U.S. Poverty Rate Declines Significantly uscitizen Whatever Goes 10 08-29-2007 02:16 AM
Increasing profit from the fear factor. uscitizen Whatever Goes 5 03-06-2007 06:05 PM
Fewer Jobs Added; Jobless Rate Climbs uscitizen Current Events 0 02-02-2007 05:38 AM
Go and rate the site! Rate us high... Damocles Whatever Goes 6 12-01-2006 03:50 AM

All times are GMT -10. The time now is 04:37 PM.[/QUOTE]


Um....what????

 

[Beefy]

Um....what????

Dangit. I don't know what happened here.

I was going to as Larry what he consider's W, not what he DOESN'T consider W, then all hell broke loose.

 

[WRL]

How do you reconcile the above with the below?

WRL
Well...the right is right Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 335

" Bush the 'lame duck' President has been the one of the most effective in 30 + years of controlling congressional Democrats spending spree's, like welfare to people making 80,000 a year, the recent S CHIP fight."

He was not effective at all. Even factoring in the $1 trillion spent on the wars and Katrina he and Congress still over spent by almost $3 trillion dollars.

I'm talking about two different things, being a fiscal conservative requires more than waiving your veto pen, as you point out, Washington culture aside, they did spend too much early on, and they paid the price at the polls with a demotivated base.

 

[Damocles]

I didn't know what H2O was a Keynsian...

 

[Beefy]

I didn't know what H2O was a Keynsian...

Did Topspin channel you or something? What??

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I didn't know what H2O was a Keynsian...

Why am I a Keynesian?

I still think the debt needs to be BALANCED. The key thing here is I think it's not going to be as hard as most people think it will be. We could easily balance the debt in 10 years if we'd just cut the budget.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I love that whenever anyone wants to indicate that someone makes no sense, we all immediately indicate Topspin.

 

[WRL]

Why am I a Keynesian?

I still think the debt needs to be BALANCED. The key thing here is I think it's not going to be as hard as most people think it will be. We could easily balance the debt in 10 years if we'd just cut the budget.

It's kind of hard to cut the budget when you have to face voters after your opponent's sink to the level of wheeling out sick children...

 

[Beefy]

It's kind of hard to cut the budget when you have to face voters after your opponent's sink to the level of wheeling out sick children...

And what excuse do you give them in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006....

Just curious as to what lengths you'll go to defend Bush's spending.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Why am I a Keynesian?

I still think the debt needs to be BALANCED. The key thing here is I think it's not going to be as hard as most people think it will be. We could easily balance the debt in 10 years if we'd just cut the budget.

Balance the debt or reduce it? If you mean reduce it, I agree with you.

Flat tax... 20% every dollar from $30k up to $1mm (per person...double for couples)

For ten years add a bracket.... 30% on every dollar over $1mm per person... every dollar of that goes to reduce the national debt.

Flat tax on ALL sources of income.

 

[Damocles]

It's kind of hard to cut the budget when you have to face voters after your opponent's sink to the level of wheeling out sick children...

WRL, did you not expect more fiscal responsibility when the Rs won both the legislative and executive branches of government? Are you not disappointed with the crappy results?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It's kind of hard to cut the budget when you have to face voters after your opponent's sink to the level of wheeling out sick children...

Bullshit. Its called character. Its doing what is in the best interest of this country vs. what is in the best interest of a party or an individual getting re-elected. It is having the character to not screw over future generations for the sake of winning votes. Unfortunately, people with character are rarely found in DC politics. (or at many state level positions for that matter)

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Balance the debt or reduce it? If you mean reduce it, I agree with you.

Flat tax... 20% every dollar from $30k up to $1mm (per person...double for couples)

For ten years add a bracket.... 30% on every dollar over $1mm per person... every dollar of that goes to reduce the national debt.

Flat tax on ALL sources of income.

A tax cut isn't going to do it. If we cut spending A LOT, like almost a trillion, we might be able to cut taxes A LITTLE.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

A tax cut isn't going to do it. If we cut spending A LOT, like almost a trillion, we might be able to cut taxes A LITTLE.

1) I totally agree with cutting spending. You will not cut it by a trillion.... that would be over half of the budget..... but try for a trillion and maybe we can cut it by a few hundred billion

2) I would be willing to bet, that my proposal above is NOT a tax cut. 20% is higher than long term cap gains. It is also higher than most peoples current effective tax rates. Especially the wealthy. Especially if you add in that extra bracket for debt reduction.

 

[WRL]

WRL, did you not expect more fiscal responsibility when the Rs won both the legislative and executive branches of government? Are you not disappointed with the crappy results?

Yes, and I believe it's why we lost in 06.

 

[Damocles]

Yes, and I believe it's why we lost in 06.

One of the reasons. It was that and the fact that the strategy in Iraq stank like the water in my wet/dry vac if I leave it there for a few months rather than emptying it.

 

[WRL]

Bullshit. Its called character. Its doing what is in the best interest of this country vs. what is in the best interest of a party or an individual getting re-elected. It is having the character to not screw over future generations for the sake of winning votes. Unfortunately, people with character are rarely found in DC politics. (or at many state level positions for that matter)

So you admit Bush had 'character' when he stood up to the Democrats even after they rolled out the sick children?

 

[WRL]

One of the reasons. It was that and the fact that the strategy in Iraq stank like the water in my wet/dry vac if I leave it there for a few months rather than emptying it.

A unmotivated base doesn't win elections, and we did need a change in strategy. That's another thing I don't like about Bush, he doesn't replace people when it's obvious he should, Gen. Casey shouldn't have served a full 3 years commanding operations in Iraq, look at the disaster his strategy caused. Gen Patreaus has turned things around in six months, with a sound strategy. Lincoln had to let go of commanders, Bush perhaps should have here.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So you admit Bush had 'character' when he stood up to the Democrats even after they rolled out the sick children?

No you partisan hack. If he had character he would have done something when the Reps controlled Congress and the WH. His vetoing Dem ideas is just partisanship. Had a Rep made the same proposal, he would have signed it.

Also, as I said (and you ignored) you forget that just because he vetoed some Dem proposals, spending is STILL soaring. He is still allowing the outspending of revenues. He is completely fiscally irresponsible.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

1) I totally agree with cutting spending. You will not cut it by a trillion.... that would be over half of the budget..... but try for a trillion and maybe we can cut it by a few hundred billion

2) I would be willing to bet, that my proposal above is NOT a tax cut. 20% is higher than long term cap gains. It is also higher than most peoples current effective tax rates. Especially the wealthy. Especially if you add in that extra bracket for debt reduction.

A trillion would be 1/3rd of the budget. Reagen was able to reduce the budget by a quarter!

The most important steps to balancing the budget would be to get out of Iraq, cut military spending by about 1/3rd (should be easy without having to pay the 100 billion procurement budget needed to fuel Iraq), then get rid of Medicare plan D, the department of education, and the department of agriculture. You could leave in a little 5 billion dollar a year program to help poor schools, but other than that, the federal government is best out of education. I think those steps would balance the budget. They're huge steps. But all anybody ever wants to do is take baby steps, and it's going to have to take some guts to balance the budget. On the Democrats side, a huge tax hike. On the Republicans side, actually cutting the budget and not whining about little insiginifgant obvious things.