quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX
So... We can see why leftist trash want him to fail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Correct. We want someone who can actually do the great things Trump pretends he can.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
bounty, does the thought of cuts to pay for this ever enter the GOP/conservative/alt-right minds????
Because there's nothing but "I have faith the economy will magically grow to generate more than the foregone revenue."
A faith based on nothing but a belief in an already oft-discredited ideology.
It is NO different than the "comrades" wanting services with no idea how to fund them.
BOTH are mindless, simplistic, frankly child-like ideologies.
And this "plan" is a prime example.

The GOP always offers cuts to spending. It's cuts to spending growth (this is also how the Democrats do it, too).
Stated: "We're axing spending by $500B on XYZ!"
Reality: Spending was going to increased by $1T over 10 years, but now, it's "only" going to increase $500B!
Plus, they have all these "cuts" backloaded over 10 years, so most of them won't even be there when it comes time to cut. Plus, by that time, there will be a hue and cry to not cut "my" spending and the cuts-that-aren't-really-cuts end up not happening then, either.
Not cutting revenues (if you look at the revenues under Bush, his tax cuts didn't result in reduced revenues) is almost enabling Government to continue to waste money left and right (figurative figure of speech, and also indicative that both sides are guilty of it, btw).

quote:

Not cutting revenues (if you look at the revenues under Bush, his tax cuts didn't result in reduced revenues)

Not according to these people and others.
The surplus in the fiscal 2001 federal budget was $127 billion. The 2010 budget had a budget deficit of $1.3 trillion. The long-term national debt more than doubled from $5.6 trillion in 2000 to $13.6 trillion in 2010, mostly under Bush’s watch.
Federal tax receipts in 2010 were 14.9 percent of gross domestic product. In 2000 it was as high as 20 percent.
Department of the Treasury, usgovernmentrevenue.com

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX
So... We can see why leftist trash want him to fail

Actually, no: they want him out of office and somebody competent enough that they won't fail as catastrophically and embarrassingly running the country instead.
Not quite the same thing.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
In the meantime, how about we actually let Trump try things out his way?

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
In the meantime, how about we actually let Trump try things out his way?

You missed that the GOP spent eight years doing their best to prevent the last guy from trying out anything his way, up to and including shutting down the government as a last ditch attempt to block a piece of legislation they'd fail to prevent by any other means? As obstructionists, the democrats aren't causing the curry turd half as much aggravation as his own party at the moment, and its the republicans who have a real knack for blocking a president, which they're doing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
In the meantime, how about we actually let Trump try things out his way?

You missed that the GOP spent eight years doing their best to prevent the last guy from trying out anything his way, up to and including shutting down the government as a last ditch attempt to block a piece of legislation they'd fail to prevent by any other means? As obstructionists, the democrats aren't causing the curry turd half as much aggravation as his own party at the moment, and its the republicans who have a real knack for blocking a president, which they're doing.

Why not let him? Because it would be stupid and destructive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
In the meantime, how about we actually let Trump try things out his way?

You missed that the GOP spent eight years doing their best to prevent the last guy from trying out anything his way, up to and including shutting down the government as a last ditch attempt to block a piece of legislation they'd fail to prevent by any other means? As obstructionists, the democrats aren't causing the curry turd half as much aggravation as his own party at the moment, and its the republicans who have a real knack for blocking a president, which they're doing.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
In the meantime, how about we actually let Trump try things out his way?

You missed that the GOP spent eight years doing their best to prevent the last guy from trying out anything his way, up to and including shutting down the government as a last ditch attempt to block a piece of legislation they'd fail to prevent by any other means? As obstructionists, the democrats aren't causing the curry turd half as much aggravation as his own party at the moment, and its the republicans who have a real knack for blocking a president, which they're doing.

Not at all, WM. But, what the GOP did for 8 years doesn't mean the Democrats get to do it to Trump.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
In the meantime, how about we actually let Trump try things out his way?

You missed that the GOP spent eight years doing their best to prevent the last guy from trying out anything his way, up to and including shutting down the government as a last ditch attempt to block a piece of legislation they'd fail to prevent by any other means? As obstructionists, the democrats aren't causing the curry turd half as much aggravation as his own party at the moment, and its the republicans who have a real knack for blocking a president, which they're doing.

Why not let him? Because it would be stupid and destructive.

That as well.
I was just making the point that when a president has been stopped from trying things his way, he's generally not had an R after his name. Complaining about the democrats being obstructionists in the light of how the republicans treated the last three democrat presidents is a very strange argument indeed.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
They're not, his own party is at this point.
I'd be intrigued to hearing your working out on why the republicans dropping the bar doesn't mean the democrats can conduct themselves at a lower level themselves, though.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
They're not, his own party is at this point.
I'd be intrigued to hearing your working out on why the republicans dropping the bar doesn't mean the democrats can conduct themselves at a lower level themselves, though.

Are you implying that it's okay for one party to obstruct the other party because the other party obstructed the first party first?

At some point, one of the parties is going to have to stop obstructing and start compromising. That didn't happen with Obama, but the Democrats didn't really want to compromise, either. If the Democrats don't "take the high road" with Trump, I find it hard to believe the GOP will do so with the next Democrat President.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
They're not, his own party is at this point.
I'd be intrigued to hearing your working out on why the republicans dropping the bar doesn't mean the democrats can conduct themselves at a lower level themselves, though.

Are you implying that it's okay for one party to obstruct the other party because the other party obstructed the first party first?

At some point, one of the parties is going to have to stop obstructing and start compromising. That didn't happen with Obama, but the Democrats didn't really want to compromise, either. If the Democrats don't "take the high road" with Trump, I find it hard to believe the GOP will do so with the next Democrat President.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk

here is some of the 'obstruction' it appears to be for cause:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDB1ZJjJnPA

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
In the meantime, how about we actually let Trump try things out his way?

You missed that the GOP spent eight years doing their best to prevent the last guy from trying out anything his way, up to and including shutting down the government as a last ditch attempt to block a piece of legislation they'd fail to prevent by any other means? As obstructionists, the democrats aren't causing the curry turd half as much aggravation as his own party at the moment, and its the republicans who have a real knack for blocking a president, which they're doing.

Why not let him? Because it would be stupid and destructive.

That as well.
I was just making the point that when a president has been stopped from trying things his way, he's generally not had an R after his name. Complaining about the democrats being obstructionists in the light of how the republicans treated the last three democrat presidents is a very strange argument indeed.

Ignore Moose Little up there. He can't even comprehend that the US will survive Trump (which it will, btw).

If we allow Democrats to treat this Republican President as you allege the GOP treated the last 3 Democrat Presidents (didn't the GOP and President Clinton actually compromise to get shit done? Isn't that what you'd rather have happen? No comment on President Carter vs. GOP; I was a teenager and had my mind on more teenagerly things), how does that help? Or, is the cycle only going to end if the GOP starts it first?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
In the meantime, how about we actually let Trump try things out his way?

You missed that the GOP spent eight years doing their best to prevent the last guy from trying out anything his way, up to and including shutting down the government as a last ditch attempt to block a piece of legislation they'd fail to prevent by any other means? As obstructionists, the democrats aren't causing the curry turd half as much aggravation as his own party at the moment, and its the republicans who have a real knack for blocking a president, which they're doing.

Why not let him? Because it would be stupid and destructive.

That as well.
I was just making the point that when a president has been stopped from trying things his way, he's generally not had an R after his name. Complaining about the democrats being obstructionists in the light of how the republicans treated the last three democrat presidents is a very strange argument indeed.

Ignore Moose Little up there. He can't even comprehend that the US will survive Trump (which it will, btw).

If we allow Democrats to treat this Republican President as you allege the GOP treated the last 3 Democrat Presidents (didn't the GOP and President Clinton actually compromise to get shit done? Isn't that what you'd rather have happen? No comment on President Carter vs. GOP; I was a teenager and had my mind on more teenagerly things), how does that help? Or, is the cycle only going to end if the GOP starts it first?

Of course we will. If you’re going to invent my half of the conversation, no need for you to post.

Alas, we don’t get to “allow” Republicans or Democrats — they’re firmly ensconced.

And I DO get to point out that the same economic bullshit repeated yet again is probably a bad idea.

Go figure.

He can’t even get enough GOP votes, FFS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
They're not, his own party is at this point.
I'd be intrigued to hearing your working out on why the republicans dropping the bar doesn't mean the democrats can conduct themselves at a lower level themselves, though.

Are you implying that it's okay for one party to obstruct the other party because the other party obstructed the first party first?
At some point, one of the parties is going to have to stop obstructing and start compromising. That didn't happen with Obama, but the Democrats didn't really want to compromise, either. If the Democrats don't "take the high road" with Trump, I find it hard to believe the GOP will do so with the next Democrat President.

As the republicans have spent the last three democrat presidencies demonstrating that they won't take the high road, expecting them to do so in future is absurd.
As they've demonstrated that they're incapable of compromising, expecting the democrats to continue trying to do so (after Obama's grovelling and fawning at them in a Steppin Fetchit style for his whole first term was rebuffed) is equally absurd.
In a political system that makes it clear that 'compromise" is a euphemism for "unconditional surrender to what the other side want", expecting either party to cave in is absurd. Myself, I'd like to see the democrats treating the current president with the same degree of contempt that their last guy received from his party. You can make high handed moral judgements about petty tit for tat not belonging in politics all you like, but there is no earthly point in trying to negotiate with people who will not make any concessions under any circumstances. You seem to to regard taking the high road as backing down and letting the other bunch win, and it's no less absurd to expect that from the dems than it is to expect it from the reps.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)