RE: GOP to the rescue.

RE: GOP to the rescue. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Archer -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/10/2010 10:49:13 AM)
Musicmystery, I never said republicans always did it. But Democrat controled Congresses have NEVER done it in the past 40 years. That's Republicans 1 vs Democrats 0 on the congresses passing balanced budgets. But thanks for playin

Musicmystery -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/10/2010 10:52:44 AM)
quote: I never said republicans always did it. Try never did it. Without an anchor, it's off to fund their agenda, and with tax dollars. The point is you presented an arbitrary instance as a causal relationship. It isn't. Nor does that support other alternatives, true.

DomYngBlk -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/10/2010 10:56:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Sorry DomYngBlk not going to continue the game. Your so far off base that you can't even agree that rating a president is a matter of opinion. You're too far out of reason to debate this with. I rate Clinton at a solid C nothing more because he got delt a hand full of aces and did nothing much with them. What's even better is that you don't even know WTF you;re talking about when it comes to me being a republican. I'm a fuckin Libertarian, I didn;t vote for Either Bush either time, nor have I voted for an Republican since Regan. Regan, Perot, Browne (x2) , Badnarick, Barr Have been my presidential votes for the past 6 presidential elections. I'll take that as admitting defeat......Thanks for playing

Sanity -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/10/2010 11:07:50 AM)
Private businesses create jobs, not Democrats and not Republicans, so that questions a moot point. In other words government doesnt create jobs, government taxes jobs. Government doesnt create wealth, government taxes wealth. So it follows that if you want to stimulate the economy you have to get the government beast on a chain. Thats right, government must be our servant, not our master. As far as a beginning towards getting government out of the private sectors way, Byron York has an interesting idea or two: quote: Cut deficit without cutting services? Start here Whenever a conservative suggests reducing the federal deficit by cutting spending rather than raising taxes, there's always someone to ask: Well, what would you cut? Americans may say they want less government spending, the argument goes, but they don't want anyone to touch their services and subsidies and monthly checks. Fair enough. But there's a persuasive counter-argument going around in conservative circles these days: You can start cutting government spending without cutting anyone's services or subsidies or monthly checks. Just bring the pay of federal workers into line with pay in the private sector. A recent Heritage Foundation study found the average federal worker (excluding... Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bios/byron-york.html#ixzz0wE9PJDPE

Archer -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/10/2010 11:17:10 AM)
Arbitrary?????? the promise of a balanced budget as part of the platform for the congressional mid term election was arbitrary? Did they lose their way Oh Hell fuckin yes the Republicans lost their way on spending. The Congress under Bush Jr set records for spending and some of them have suffered defeat at the polls because of it incluing more than a few primary losses. But once again they are the opposition party and facing a tax and spend party in power. Do I believe they will always stick to the platform they talk about, Hell no I trust Republicans about 0.5 ft farther than I trust Democrats when it comes to budgets and deficits. But until we get a half dozen Libertarians into Congress I'm stuck with the Republicans as the Physcal conservatives by comparison, winning by 6 inches.

Archer -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/10/2010 11:20:37 AM)
I'm sure you do take that way. But wearing someone down with the ignorance of youth doesn't count as a win when they dismiss you as unworthy of continued consideration. But if it makes you feel good take it as a win. LOL

Moonhead -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/10/2010 12:10:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Private businesses create jobs, not Democrats and not Republicans, so that questions a moot point. And for the past twenty or thirty years, it's been creating jobs in countries other than America. India, Mexico and China are benefitting a lot more from trickle down theory than anybody who's still manufacturing in your own country. quote: In other words government doesnt create jobs, government taxes jobs. Government doesnt create wealth, government taxes wealth. So it follows that if you want to stimulate the economy you have to get the government beast on a chain. Just out of interest, how many people are currently employed by the government, rather than free enterprise? Not just the beauracrats and the paper shufflers in Washington, of course, but the emergency services (you know, police, fire brigade, stuff that libertarians like yourself don't feel is worth funding), the military, whatever maintenance programmes haven't been cut to ribbons to pay for the adventure in Iraq, bin men, EH Officers, traffic wardens, all sorts of stuff like that. You'll find the government is quite a big employer. Since Reagan started outsourcing all of the manufacturing industry in the '80s, it's probably the single biggest employer your country has left. (limey for "garbage collectors")

Moonhead -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/10/2010 12:14:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Arbitrary?????? the promise of a balanced budget as part of the platform for the congressional mid term election was arbitrary? Did they lose their way Oh Hell fuckin yes the Republicans lost their way on spending. The Congress under Bush Jr set records for spending and some of them have suffered defeat at the polls because of it incluing more than a few primary losses. But once again they are the opposition party and facing a tax and spend party in power. Do I believe they will always stick to the platform they talk about, Hell no I trust Republicans about 0.5 ft farther than I trust Democrats when it comes to budgets and deficits. But until we get a half dozen Libertarians into Congress I'm stuck with the Republicans as the Physcal conservatives by comparison, winning by 6 inches. Can I ask a couple of questions about this post? For one thing, I'm always baffled by the support libertarians show for the Republicans. Pretty much everything libertarians are supposed to be in favour of (apart from less taxation) the republicans are rabidly opposed to. Bush II has done more to increase the scale and influence of the government than any President since Kennedy, and certainly did nothing to reduce government spending. How on earth can you, as a libertarian, make excuses for that? Another is the old "tax and spend" line about the Democrats: how is that worse than the "don't tax and spend more, then try to hide the deficit with creative book keeping" approach the Republicans have adopted since your boy Reagan was elected?

Archer -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/10/2010 12:47:38 PM)
Support Bush II, Where did I do that???????? I took Bush to task as setting records. I said that some of the republicans supporting that level of spending have been rightfully replaced in primaries due to their support of the spending Bush Signed off on. Those republicans that are now speaking as fiscal conservatives including alot of new blood candidates for this fall I have to decide how much I believe them. being new I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Those with a record of spending like college students with a credit card, they get no slack from me regardless of party. I'll believe them when I see the change in their voting habits on spending bills. I give Bush II a C- at best maybe a D+ as a president, and most of that is because I am generally Hawkish (kinda against the Libertarian grain I know) all said a grade lower than Clinton. Dont tax and spend is only a slight improvement (0.5 ft) over tax and spend. I stated clearly that I trust the Republicans about 6 inches farther than the Democrats that's a hell of a level of support in your eyes I guess. When Republicans talked about fiscal conservatism and acted on it (Newt and the Contract with America) they had my support on the economic issues. I said openly multiple times here on the boards that Bush never met a spending bill he didn't like and that my biggest thing I disliked about Bush jr was the expansion of government under his watch. He never vetoed a spending bill until after Pelosi took over and even then he let many deficit things go unchallenged. Bush might have met a couple fiscal conservatives but he sure as hell can't be counted in their number.

Musicmystery -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/10/2010 12:50:11 PM)
quote: Dont tax and spend is only a slight improvement (0.5 ft) over tax and spend. Actually, it's a worsening. Tax and spend at least funds its mandates. That's how the states got in so much trouble. But either way it's backwards thinking. What are the services we need, what do they cost, how do we fund them--those are the questions. Blindly cutting/spending is irresponsible, whoever is doing it. Or voting for it.

Moonhead -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/10/2010 12:54:38 PM)
Thanks for replying. Fair enough about the chimp. I think you've missed my point about "tax and spend": for all of the talk about fiscal responsibility (which is mostly, as you state, complete and utter drivel), Republicans haven't had any problem for the last thirty years in instigating spending they can't afford, without any attempt at raising the revenue to cover it. The Democrats are hardly fiscally conservative either, but at least they're willing to admit that people are going to have to pay for the crap they're doing, instead of trying to hide the deficit. If it's either "tax and spend" or "don't tax and bankrupt", I much prefer the former option.

Archer -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/10/2010 1:00:12 PM)
Only if you operate from your faulty assumption that providing those things is the purpose of government instead of the private sector. We're coming at this from very opposite sides of basic beliefs common ground is going to be tough to find here. Dont tax and spend at least leaves the PEOPLE with the money they earned. A lessening of services is a perfectly acceptable solution for me. Lessen the services down to the expressly enumerated purposes of government. I don't buy the idea that General Welfare and Individual Welfare are the same thing at all. I'm sure that doesn't square with your beliefs though. Every dollar the government spends it has to take 1.5 dollars from someone. ($0.50 lost to administrative government waste) The difference between letting the market decide where the money from stimulus is going to be spent and letting government do it is that the government doesn't get to decide the winners and losers. The people get to vote with their dollars as they want to vote.

Archer -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/10/2010 1:13:49 PM)
Moonhead The whole Chimp thing makes me ill. If anyone stooped that low with the current President they would be crucified by you. My one thing of praise for the republicans was actually about the 1994 mid term election Congress and the subsequent balanced budget they fought for and eventually got under Clinton's watch. Lots of crap about Newt that I find repugnant, but the fiscal conservative aspects of the Contract with America had my support. But even then I voted Libertarian for president and for as many other offices as they ran someone. Prior to that it had been 40 years of Democrat controlled Congresses with no balanced budget since 1969. Bush Jr shot the fiscal conservative idea in the head multiple times and the congressional republicans didn't call him on it once. They went along and lost their own claim to fiscal conservative status. But Pellosi et al tried to pick up that fiscal conservative mantle with Pay Go and they never even came close with the Porkulous Bill they lost all hope of Pay Go being taken as anything but a joke. Which is what gave rise to the Tea Party fiscal conservative voters lost faith with the incumbent republicans and felt they had no representation. it may have been hijacked and gone all sorts of other places after that but the Tea Party started as a movement angry about a lack of fiscal conservatives in government.

jlf1961 -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/10/2010 1:20:47 PM)
In 1998, Bill Clinton presented the first balanced federal budget (with no annual deficit) since 1969 ... So the democrats HAVE balanced the federal budget.

Musicmystery -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/10/2010 1:23:40 PM)
quote: with no balanced budget since 1969. When, again, Republicans took the White House. If you're going to look for patterns, look at the patterns.

Archer -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/10/2010 1:39:58 PM)
LOL weak and late attempt at spin We talked about this earlier jlf giving Clinton credit for the balanced budget is dumb since it was is and always remains the CONGRESS that actually sets the budget, the president proposes a budget the Congress actually sets it. Clinton sent the congress 5 budget proposals in 1995 when the budget fights got going in earnest after the 1994 mid term elections. The first was a deficit spending budget, each of the subsequent ones was closer to balanced until his budget basicly met the republican demands. Presidents propose a budget, Congress sets the budget when it votes on the budget bill, it is NEVER an exact match on the proposed presidential budget. Clintons forst proposed budget for 1995 was called Dead on Arrival at Congress.

mnottertail -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/10/2010 1:43:55 PM)
So, Obama is not a socialist, and is not ever increasing the deficits. There are many (the usual suspects) that are quite wrong out here then, those who rant emotionally, and call it reason, teabaggers, neo-cons and other conservative principled folk. Damn, I wish they could get ONE thing right.

Archer -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/10/2010 2:03:48 PM)
Well when you propose a budget and sign off on deficit spending at the level President Obama has done you can't claim innocence when they blame you for deficits. You can share the blame with Congress, but you can't avoid blame entirely.

Musicmystery -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/10/2010 2:19:09 PM)
I don't think anyone is claiming anything other than inheriting a recession and, with using monetary policy already exhausted previously, turning to fiscal policy to ease credit and promote growth and hiring. Yes, that comes with a price tag, and whether it's worth it is debatable. Simply dismissing it is simplistic, though, as doing nothing also comes at a cost--no growth, no jobs, no credit, just letting the train wreck happen and for everyone to fend for themselves through foreclosure and economic ruin until bit by bit the economy recovers. I can see the philosophical argument, but it's not an attractive plan as policy. We have good economic growth, and have for over a year. Credit is still tight, but at least flowing. Consumer confidence is weak, but slowly improving, and under those conditions, hiring has to happen sooner or later. Obviously sooner would be better. You could fairly make a case that we paid too high a price for this, but hardly just to spend money. Now, if that spending continued, that's a problem. But the second budget already showed cuts, headed in the proper direction. A bigger problem is the structural drain left by Afghanistan and Iraq. To pretend that these past two years would have had anything but deficit spending, no matter who controlled the White House or Congress, is just blind or flatly dishonest.

mnottertail -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/10/2010 2:30:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Well when you propose a budget and sign off on deficit spending at the level President Obama has done you can't claim innocence when they blame you for deficits. You can share the blame with Congress, but you can't avoid blame entirely. And so for Reagan Bush Bush and so on. That don't answer what the gop is gonna do to get us out of it, different from getting us into it along with anyone and everyone else including you and me.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875