Romney Parks Millions in Cayman Islands

Dungheap said:
I'm not going to dig up Reagan's campaign materials from 1980. I know for a fact that he campaigned on dramatically increasing defense spending.
Click to expand...

Yes he did campaign that he would rebuild the military but you can't recall if Ronald ('the scariest thing you can hear is I'm with the government and I'm here to help') Reagan didn't campaign on reducing spending everywhere else in government?
 
Return of Dune said:
It has increased every year during Obama too. That does not disprove my statement.
Click to expand...

You stated:

Clinton couldn't do half of what he wanted to do because he had to pay down 12 years of GOP spending.
Obama is also complety restrained by Bush's 8 year spending spree.
Click to expand...

Both of those are 100% false.

Clinton didn't 'have to pay down' anything. Spending increased every year and he never paid down any of that 12 years of 'GOP' Spending. It is quite funny you stated it was GOP spending. During that 12 years (and the first two of Clintons) the House was controlled by the Democrats. Give us one example of a time when the budget didn't have to pass in the House to be approved?

So Obama is 'constrained' to the point that he has outspent revenue by over $4 Trillion? How is that 'constrained'? Especially given that the DEM led Senate hasn't passed a budget since Obama has been in office.
 
Dungheap said:
That's stupid.


Postscript: REAGAN is the ONE that SIGNED each OF THE budgets.
Click to expand...

Yes, he signed them. But again... WHO CONTROLS THE PURSE STRINGS? I know you are used to your master operating without a budget because he is above that. But normally the budget has to go through Congress. The President NORMALLY works WITH Congress to design the budget. But ultimately, it is Congress that controls the details. Yes, the President could potentially veto it. But realistically we know that isn't likely to happen unless there is a glaring weakness the President sees. Ultimately the President will go along with Congress.
 
Dungheap said:
Just compare Romney's tax plan to Bush's tax proposals for starters:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway...enefits-for-the-wealthy-and-a-bigger-deficit/

And Bush's tax proposals were to the right of both Reagan and Nixon.

Then add in the fact that Romney wants to dramatically slash spending (we all know Reagan and Bush increased spending substantially while in office) and you have the most right-wing candidate since Goldwater.
Click to expand...

we can hope......won't know until after he's elected though....
 
Superfreak said:
Tell us... what has spending declined on? OR is it that the pace of the increase in growth in particular areas is not fast enough?

As for conservative views... regardless what it is spent on... if you SPEND more than you MAKE on a year-in year-out basis... that is fiscally IRRESPONSIBLE. As Cawacko stated... Not since IKE was President have we seen the national debt paid down. Each year we increase the burden on future generations. Each year we ask them to pay for more of what we WANT today. That is not fiscally responsible. Which means it is most certainly not a fiscally conservative view.

To be clear, I don't think either party has been too particularly concerned with fiscal responsibility... especially looking at Bush and Obama.
Click to expand...

LIHEAP was just slashed by 25% for one example.

You can call it fiscally irresponsible, but what you cannot call it is liberal.
 
Superfreak said:
Yes, he signed them. But again... WHO CONTROLS THE PURSE STRINGS? I know you are used to your master operating without a budget because he is above that. But normally the budget has to go through Congress. The President NORMALLY works WITH Congress to design the budget. But ultimately, it is Congress that controls the details. Yes, the President could potentially veto it. But realistically we know that isn't likely to happen unless there is a glaring weakness the President sees. Ultimately the President will go along with Congress.
Click to expand...

I think you have it backwards. The president sends his budget to Congress for a vote. If you are being honest, you have to say the President sets the tone of the budget, though of course Congress makes changes.
 
cawacko said:
Yes he did campaign that he would rebuild the military but you can't recall if Ronald ('the scariest thing you can hear is I'm with the government and I'm here to help') Reagan didn't campaign on reducing spending everywhere else in government?
Click to expand...


If you look at Reagan's first budget proposal, he proposed spending $721 billion in 1982, an increase of $60 billion over 1981 and a projected deficit of $67 billion. In his next budget, he proposed spending $799 billion, an increase of $55 billion over 1982's actual spending and a projected deficit of $146 billion. In his next budget, Reagan proposed spending $840 billion, an increase of about $40 billion over 1983's actual spending, with a deficit of $189 billion.
 
Dungheap said:
If you look at Reagan's first budget proposal, he proposed spending $721 billion in 1982, an increase of $60 billion over 1981 and a projected deficit of $67 billion. In his next budget, he proposed spending $799 billion, an increase of $55 billion over 1982's actual spending and a projected deficit of $146 billion. In his next budget, Reagan proposed spending $840 billion, an increase of about $40 billion over 1983's actual spending, with a deficit of $189 billion.
Click to expand...

We are talking about the campaign trail. You are saying Romney is the most conservative since Goldwater based on what he's saying on the campaign trail not what he's actually done in office. So the only way to compare apples to apples is to look at what the others proposed while a candidate.
 
cawacko said:
We are talking about the campaign trail. You are saying Romney is the most conservative since Goldwater based on what he's saying on the campaign trail not what he's actually done in office. So the only way to compare apples to apples is to look at what the others proposed while a candidate.
Click to expand...

I said that if he is nominated, Romney will be the most conservative candidate since Goldwater. It isn't unique to Romney, though.

Let's clarify the scope of our disagreement. On tax policy, do you contend that Romney's proposal are not the most conservative since Goldwater?


Edit: Adding that much of the post you quote is for SF. Looking at the very first budget, though, Reagan proposed a spending increase and a $60+ billion deficit, which, as compared to later years is a drop in the ocean.
 
Dungheap said:
I said that if he is nominated, Romney will be the most conservative candidate since Goldwater. It isn't unique to Romney, though.

Let's clarify the scope of our disagreement. On tax policy, do you contend that Romney's proposal are not the most conservative since Goldwater?
Click to expand...

To me because he claims he will do something on the campaign trail doesn't mean he will do it while in office. So it is possible his campaign proposals are more right-wing than anyone since Goldwater but I have hard time believing he is proposing to reduce government more than Regan did (outside of Reagan's increased military spending) while Reagan was on the campaign trail. Bush gave the same government is too big lip service as a candidate as well.
 
cawacko said:
To me because he claims he will do something on the campaign trail doesn't mean he will do it while in office. So it is possible his campaign proposals are more right-wing than anyone since Goldwater but I have hard time believing he is proposing to reduce government more than Regan did (outside of Reagan's increased military spending) while Reagan was on the campaign trail. Bush gave the same government is too big lip service as a candidate as well.
Click to expand...


Why do you carve out Reagan's proposal to dramatically increase defense spending as though it is irrelevant? Of course Reagan proposed more spending cuts if you eliminate his major spending increases.
 
Dungheap said:
Why do you carve out Reagan's proposal to dramatically increase defense spending as though it is irrelevant? Of course Reagan proposed more spending cuts if you eliminate his major spending increases.
Click to expand...

Because to many people increasing military spending is a very right-wing thing.
 
Onceler said:
But this is what you said, Dix. You said it's important that a candidate is wealthy, so that they can tap into their own money when they need it.

Do you think most Presidential candidates spend significant amounts from their own fortune to finance a campaign?
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was important a candidate is wealthy. I said candidates tend to be wealthier than average because it costs a lot of money to run for president. Yes, I think most wealthy candidates who have run for president, or any other office, have spent substantial amounts of their own money to do so, do you want to suggest they haven't?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top