No. of Recommendations: 3
http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/01/if-you-dont-think-spen...

"When Bill Clinton so famously "balanced the budget" with the Internet boom and all the taxes from those stock sales, the GOP and Newt Gingrich passed a budget (yes, Congress used to do that) of $1.7 trillion in expenditures. Adjusted for inflation, our federal government would be spending $2.3 trillion today and collecting $2.5 trillion in "revenues," resulting in a $200 billion surplus. But instead of increasing government spending in line with normal inflation, under Bush and Obama we are spending $3.8 trillion today. Democrats, who believe we have a "revenue" problem instead of a "spending" problem, must also think they have a bartender problem, not a drinking problem."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
That's a solid article that unfortunately won't get very much discussion here.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
It also clearly says that the libs are delusional in their thinking that it is a revenue problem.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"That's a solid article that unfortunately won't get very much discussion here. "

Yep, facts are a stubborn thing that libs ignore every single fricking day!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It also clearly says that the libs are delusional in their thinking that it is a revenue problem.
____________________________-

You do not like that delusion?

What about the one that government research is the road to all that is good and clearly the best path because a couple of major projects spawned off unrelated good results or were used in ways the government did not intend?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"What about the one that government research is the road to all that is good and clearly the best path because a couple of major projects spawned off unrelated good results or were used in ways the government did not intend?"

I guess according to libs those "unrelated good results" are worth defaulting on our debt or at least a major sovereign debt crisis that WILL cause more misery for more people then simply cutting spending today.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What do I hear? Crickets from the left. LOL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
our federal government would be spending $2.3 trillion today and collecting $2.5 trillion in "revenues

So, what you saying is very simple.

Conservatives dramatically increased costs of govt starting in 2001 *without* corresponding increases in revenues. That resulted in massive and escalating govt deficits.

Tax cuts pay for themselves--right? Or not? LOL !!!

Companies will not allow markets to become unstable because it is bad for business. LOL !!!

Then conservatives lost control of govt. And now they are whining about the fact they caused the problem. They do not want to be held accountable.

ROFLMAO !!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Adjusted for inflation, our federal government would be spending $2.3 trillion today and collecting $2.5 trillion in "revenues," resulting in a $200 billion surplus.

Do you realize that what you're saying is that had Bush not cut taxes, increased spending and abetted a deregulatory financial train wreck, he'd have left Obama with a significant surplus instead of an economy on the verge of depression?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Conservatives dramatically increased costs of govt starting in 2001 *without* corresponding increases in revenues. That resulted in massive and escalating govt deficits.
"

Nope, liberal policies. Conservative policies had zero to do with it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Do you realize that what you're saying is that had Bush not cut taxes, increased spending and abetted a deregulatory financial train wreck, he'd have left Obama with a significant surplus instead of an economy on the verge of depression? "

Do you realize that you just MUS.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 21
"Do you realize that what you're saying is that had Bush not cut taxes, increased spending and abetted a deregulatory financial train wreck, he'd have left Obama with a significant surplus instead of an economy on the verge of depression? "
---
Do you realize that you just MUS.


Nope. Clinton left Bush with a surplus. Bush cut taxes, increased spending and contributed to the greatest financial crash since 1929, all of which caused the deficit to skyrocket. What of that is made up?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Nope. Clinton left Bush with a surplus. Bush cut taxes, increased spending and contributed to the greatest financial crash since 1929, all of which caused the deficit to skyrocket. What of that is made up? "

The whole If statement. Your conclusion is all made up, because you or anyone else can't answer it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 37
Clinton left Bush with a surplus. Bush cut taxes, increased spending and contributed to the greatest financial crash since 1929, all of which caused the deficit to skyrocket. What of that is made up? "
---
The whole If statement.


Please join the reality-based community.

Clinton left Bush with a surplus: http://www.salon.com/2012/10/13/us_deficit_tops_1_trillion_f...

Bush cut taxes: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/bush...

Bush increased spending: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/federal-deficit-b...

Bush policies contributed to the 2008 crash:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?page...

Okay, that last one is a matter of opinion, but which of those statements is untrue?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Again here is what I said. Get it now? Your conclusion is all made up???

Jeesh!

"The whole If statement. Your conclusion is all made up, because you or anyone else can't answer it."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Bush policies contributed to the 2008 crash:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?page......

Okay, that last one is a matter of opinion, but which of those statements is untrue?


Actually, that one is fact. You did say "contributed". And they did. Had you said "solely responsible", then I think we would have to question it. But you didn't. Another major contribution was Gramm-Bliley. It eviscerated Glass-Steagall, and basically let Big Finance go on a rampage as if they were using Monopoly™ money.

The person you are responding to should change his moniker to "nemesistoreality". It's more accurate (and descriptive).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Conservatives dramatically increased costs of govt starting in 2001 *without* corresponding increases in revenues. That resulted in massive and escalating govt deficits.
"

Nope, liberal policies. Conservative policies had zero to do with it.


Huh? Written and passed by a conservative Congress with GWB as President.

Which of those is "liberal"? Please tell us, as that was NOT the claim made "way back then". Or are you now using Orwell's "doublespeak"?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Huh? Written and passed by a conservative Congress with GWB as President.
"

I see you are incapable of breaking down what a conservative or liberal policy is irrespective who passed the legislation.

A politician calling oneself conservative does not mean they will not support liberal policies.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
A politician calling oneself conservative does not mean they will not support liberal policies.

Thus, Obama is a conservative (using your interpretations).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Thus, Obama is a conservative (using your interpretations). "

you are clueless.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I see you are incapable of breaking down what a conservative or liberal policy is irrespective who passed the legislation.

A politician calling oneself conservative does not mean they will not support liberal policies.


Would you consider Paul Ryan a conservative? He voted for all of these policies (Medicare Part D, the wars, the stimulus, tax cuts, etc.), but he's held up by the Republican party as the paragon of fiscal conservatism.

Honestly, there aren't a lot of fiscal conservatives in DC. And I don't see Obama as being any worse than Ryan or other Republicans, so I figured I might as well vote on social issues.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Would you consider Paul Ryan a conservative? He voted for all of these policies (Medicare Part D, the wars, the stimulus, tax cuts, etc.), but he's held up by the Republican party as the paragon of fiscal conservatism.
"

Boy, libs are letting the point fly right over their heads...too funny.
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement