UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (13) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: Umm Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 2006496  
Subject: Positive Date: 11/28/2012 2:58 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 60
Perhaps the biggest positive coming out of Obama being re-elected is that the crazy wing of the Republican party will continue to care about the deficit. Something they would have suddenly stopped caring about had a republican won and want to increase the deficit by cutting taxes and going to war.
Print the post Back To Top
Author: DufusGoneSplat Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1840581 of 2006496
Subject: Re: Positive Date: 11/28/2012 10:25 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Perhaps the biggest positive coming out of Obama being re-elected is that the crazy wing of the Republican party will continue to care about the deficit.

Perhaps the biggest positive coming out of Obama being re-elected is that the crazy wing of the Republican party will pretend to care about the deficit.

An important modification.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cjb44 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1840613 of 2006496
Subject: Re: Positive Date: 11/28/2012 12:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Actually the younger Republicans do care about it. Just like the class on 1994 did. The problem is that most Republicans learn by their second or third term that the best way to get re-elected is to spend money.

It's called "Beltway Fever" for Republicans, they soon learn what Democrats already know...it's real easy to spend other people's money, when there are no real consquences. What's the re-election rate for members of the House and Senate?

When will the Democrats start to care about the deficit?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jgc123 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1840677 of 2006496
Subject: Re: Positive Date: 11/28/2012 3:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"Perhaps the biggest positive coming out of Obama being re-elected is that the crazy wing of the Republican party will continue to care about the deficit."

I don't think so. In fact, they IMMEDIATELY stopped caring about the deficits the day after the election. Republicans ONLY care about deficits when they are in the act of running for office.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JoshRandall Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1840689 of 2006496
Subject: Re: Positive Date: 11/28/2012 4:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Positive
========

The only time in recent history when there was a serious reduction of the deficit was when Newt and the Contract for America held a democrat president's feet to the fire and spending was reduced. The really big spike began when the dems took over Congress the last two years of the Bush administration. And Bush was more than happy to oblige the big spending sought by democrats and a few RINO's.


Facts are stubborn things.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MotleyFooley Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1840708 of 2006496
Subject: Re: Positive Date: 11/28/2012 4:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 58
JoshRandall: "The only time in recent history when there was a serious reduction of the deficit was when Newt and the Contract for America held a democrat president's feet to the fire and spending was reduced. The really big spike began when the dems took over Congress the last two years of the Bush administration. And Bush was more than happy to oblige the big spending sought by democrats and a few RINO's.


Facts are stubborn things. "


You say that "the really big spike [in the increased size of the deficit] began when the dems took over Congress the last two years of the Bush administration." The "Bush-era tax cuts" passed in 2001 and 2003 and Medicare D passed in 2003 (to be implemented 1/1/2006). Those things were all within the FIRST two years of the Bush administration, when Congress was controlled by Republicans. And then there was the start of two unfunded wars (Iraq and Afghanistan), which also both started on or before 2003 when Congress was controlled by Republicans.

Are you saying that those things didn't exacerbate any of the subsequent deficits?? That doing those things in 2001 and 2002 and 2003 had nothing to do with the deficits in 2007 and 2008?

If that's your assertion, can you point to specific things that the Democratically-controlled Congress actually passed in 2007 and 2008 that caused the spike you allege??

MotleyFooley

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: eatenbybears Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1840711 of 2006496
Subject: Re: Positive Date: 11/28/2012 4:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Are you saying that those things didn't exacerbate any of the subsequent deficits?? That doing those things in 2001 and 2002 and 2003 had nothing to do with the deficits in 2007 and 2008?

This argument is like complaining about your wife's spending habits in 2010 while you walk up the steps to bankruptcy court in 2012

Moot


Bears

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1840712 of 2006496
Subject: Re: Positive Date: 11/28/2012 4:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Failure. Why you libs even bring up spending is beyond me.

But I'm magnanimous. Please point me to the budget bills that Barack Obama's signed in his first term. It'd be nice to see an actual, official US budget...

...oh, wait. You can't. Because we don't have any.

Again: your party isn't serious on this and never will be.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JohnEBgood Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1840805 of 2006496
Subject: Re: Positive Date: 11/28/2012 10:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Something they would have suddenly stopped caring about had a republican won and want to increase the deficit by cutting taxes and going to war

I wonder what would have happened if Mitt Romney had been elected.

The guy made a disastrous attempt to show that he knew something about foreign policy by making those trips. It was pathetic.

He also kept stumbling over various issues and changing positions. One thing that was consistent was his catering to the Tea Party crowd....well, sort of consistent anyway ;o)

Really....what would he have done as president? I think that we might have had another situation like the one with GW Bush, where we went to war(s) because somebody (Cheney?) told the President that it was a good idea.

Scary prospect.

Jack

Print the post Back To Top
Author: eatenbybears Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1840825 of 2006496
Subject: Re: Positive Date: 11/28/2012 11:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

Really....what would he have done as president? I think that we might have had another situation like the one with GW Bush


Well under Obama, we are still in Afghanistan, Pakistan dont like us,The middle east is a total nightmare, Al Qaeda is stronger than ever .....

The only option is dont get tied up in world events ... Dem or Rep administration

Cold War
Hot War
Gorilla War
Terrorist War

They are all super expensive and super distructive to us or others

Bears

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Umm Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1840857 of 2006496
Subject: Re: Positive Date: 11/29/2012 12:33 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 37
"Failure."

Yep. Another Dope failure. Just like him moving to Canada if Obama ever targeted Bin Laden in Pakistan.

"But I'm magnanimous."

I think you should look up the meaning of the word "magnanimous" because you are using it incorrectly. Magnanimous doesn't mean setting up a red herring to distract and redirect the conversation.

"Again: your party isn't serious on this and never will be."

It is really quite simple Dope. People who are serious on deficit reduction are serious about it regardless of which party controls the White House. Not just when they are in opposition.

People who are serious about deficit reduction would have been screaming for spending reductions when the economy of overheating and going into a bubble from 2003 - 2008. Instead, you were there cheering on tax cuts and unfunded wars both of which increased the deficit.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: crassfool Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1840862 of 2006496
Subject: Re: Positive Date: 11/29/2012 1:19 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
bears says

"Are you saying that those things didn't exacerbate any of the subsequent deficits?? That doing those things in 2001 and 2002 and 2003 had nothing to do with the deficits in 2007 and 2008?"

This argument is like complaining about your wife's spending habits in 2010 while you walk up the steps to bankruptcy court in 2012

Well yes, if your wife wiped out the family's wealth in 2010.


Moot

Not hardly.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rinjr715 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1840899 of 2006496
Subject: Re: Positive Date: 11/29/2012 9:49 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Nobody with a brain believes what any liberal says about anything, but the truth of the matter is that the Pubs did plenty of harm themselves by spending more like Dems than the Dems themselves when the Pubs ran the whole place. If I were in charge of DC I'd kick out almost all the Dems, then pile most of the Pubs on top of them. Then I'd hold a complete new election and start all over.

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (13) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement