i am voting dempcrat because...

[SSmike1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPG25Wf0aa4

actually,...

i will be voting for McCain/Palin after watching that!
wow, wake up call. :stare

[Rocket Power]

:rolf

[Prince Valiant]

loved the college professor, lol...

[HAMRHEAD]

:rolf:rolf:rolf

[nismodave]

Good Stuff

[GTSLOW]

That shits funny!

[Sprayaway Fox]

A rock OR a hard place, Hmmmm.:confused

[Goat Roper]

:thumbsup http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0xxU :rolf

[Z28Roxy]

http://www.mustangmods.com/ims/u/4036/11007/258435.jpg

[lordairgtar]

http://www.mustangmods.com/ims/u/4036/11007/258435.jpg
I know a lot of people don't understand the difference, but Reagan did not triple the deficit. He tripled the national debt. People often confuse the two (as people think Clinton wiped out the debt when he really had a budget surplus).

Reagan did cut budget deficits even if the national debt tripled. Just like Clinton cut many deficits to the point of a surplus even though the national debt doubled.

But I'll call a spade a spade and say this is inaccurate. Reagan worked under a Democratic Senate and Clinton had worked under a GOP Senate. The House and Senate control these things, the pres only signs or vetoes.

[Z28Roxy]

I know a lot of people don't understand the difference, but Reagan did not triple the deficit. He tripled the national debt. People often confuse the two (as people think Clinton wiped out the debt when he really had a budget surplus).


Cartoon is not 100% accurate but that's not the point of it. Supposed tax and spend liberal (well, we've only had ONE since many people on this website were alive for, much less remember) president by far was the best as far as government spending went by a long shot.

All three supposed "small government" republican administrations have been absolutely horrible in comparison to the clinton administration when it comes to OVERSPENDING.

Some debt figures:

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
12/31/1980 $930,210,000,000.00

Notice how under 1 year of democratic presidency and 9 years of republic can presidency the debt grew well over 3x? And under 7 years of democratic presidency and 3 years of republican presidency is grew less than 1.5x?

By the time Bush leaves office, he will have doubled it in 8 years.



But I'll call a spade a spade and say this is inaccurate. Reagan worked under a Democratic Senate and Clinton had worked under a GOP Senate. The House and Senate control these things, the pres only signs or vetoes.

Sorry, that doesn't fly. The president proposes the budget. It often takes some pork tack ons and other negotiating to get it through congress, but the president doesn't "just sign or veto." The president proposes the budget. And congress can't stonewall for too long or else the government will run out of money and completely shut down.

MOREOVER, saying it is all up to congress and thus we can't blame republican presidents is BUNK too because Bush has worked for SIX FISCAL YEARS under a republican congress and ONE under a democratic congress.

So I too will call a spade a spade. But this time it will be accurate. Republican presidents of recent years have been the overspending party. Democrats have not.

[Prince Valiant]

Actually, the above cartoon fails to account for the realities of the times during each administration operated under...a not too insignificant omission.

Heck, in Bush I, recall that he acquiesced to the demands of dem controlled congress to raise taxes (thus breaking his "no new taxes" pledge) only if each dollar increase in taxes was met with a spending cut. Taxes raised, and spending increased even more so...but wait? Deficits rose to even greater heights?!? Get out! Bush is the only one who could be termed "tax and spend" in this group.

And it can't be pinned on a very brief stint in the persian gulf either.

Reagan of course, got his tax cuts and military spending boost that he wanted...but in order to get these things, he had to compromise with a STRONGLY democratic controlled house of reps, from which the budget is authored out of, hence dramatic spending increases.

And clinton...oh yeah, good ole bill. He inherited a recovering economy that would suddenly take-off during the tech-bubble. He inherit a military unsure what to do in a post-cold war world, thus let it fall in size, budget, and capability. However, his policies and leadership prior to the Nov. '94 takeover by the republicans was SO unpopular, he was roundly considered a once-and-done president. Republicans came in with a mandate and used their political capital...and the house republicans passed the first balanced budget in years...and while they didn't pass a tax-break, by balancing the budget they ended up with a de facto tax break...because deficeit spending is tantamount to a higher tax since the majority of the money comes from selling of bonds, which takes money out of the spending in the private sector to make available to the public sector...albeit, with the prospects of having to pay the amount later with interest.

But Bill? When he had his way with a STRONGLY Dem controlled house and Senate did these things happen? Nope. Not even close. Did he try to reduce the size and scope of the gov't? Nope. Did he push for Welfare reform? Nope again. No, instead he simply lied about the promised "middle class tax cut" and raised our taxes...and found a way to be HUGELY unpopular during an economic recovery. You really can't refer to clinton in "tax and spend" terms as spending was held in check during his term by strong majorities of republicans during most of his two terms.

And then the Term "fiscal conservative" being applied to Bush II? Please. Increasing medicare spending more than any president ever? Increased world aide, especially to Africa more than any single president before? He termed himself a "compassionate conservative" meaning he was really "socially conservative, fiscally liberal"...but then, to be fair, one cannot ignore the realities and cost of the war on terrorism...from the attacked that opened our eyes (ie, 9/11), to the resulting restructuring of security/world alliances to the prosecution of the so named "war on terror".

***************VVVV spade VVVV******************
http://www.halibut.com/~cstaley/images/spade.gif

[Goat Roper]

Actually, the above cartoon fails to account for the realities of the times

This is politics, reality plays no part in politics ;)

[Korndogg]

:thumbsup http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0xxU :rolf

"they're just gays and women" :rolf

[Z28Roxy]

Actually, the above cartoon fails to account for the realities of the times during each administration operated under...a not too insignificant omission.

Heck, in Bush I, recall that he acquiesced to the demands of dem controlled congress to raise taxes (thus breaking his "no new taxes" pledge) only if each dollar increase in taxes was met with a spending cut. Taxes raised, and spending increased even more so...but wait? Deficits rose to even greater heights?!? Get out! Bush is the only one who could be termed "tax and spend" in this group.

And it can't be pinned on a very brief stint in the persian gulf either.

Reagan of course, got his tax cuts and military spending boost that he wanted...but in order to get these things, he had to compromise with a STRONGLY democratic controlled house of reps, from which the budget is authored out of, hence dramatic spending increases.

And clinton...oh yeah, good ole bill. He inherited a recovering economy that would suddenly take-off during the tech-bubble. He inherit a military unsure what to do in a post-cold war world, thus let it fall in size, budget, and capability. However, his policies and leadership prior to the Nov. '94 takeover by the republicans was SO unpopular, he was roundly considered a once-and-done president. Republicans came in with a mandate and used their political capital...and the house republicans passed the first balanced budget in years...and while they didn't pass a tax-break, by balancing the budget they ended up with a de facto tax break...because deficeit spending is tantamount to a higher tax since the majority of the money comes from selling of bonds, which takes money out of the spending in the private sector to make available to the public sector...albeit, with the prospects of having to pay the amount later with interest.

But Bill? When he had his way with a STRONGLY Dem controlled house and Senate did these things happen? Nope. Not even close. Did he try to reduce the size and scope of the gov't? Nope. Did he push for Welfare reform? Nope again. No, instead he simply lied about the promised "middle class tax cut" and raised our taxes...and found a way to be HUGELY unpopular during an economic recovery. You really can't refer to clinton in "tax and spend" terms as spending was held in check during his term by strong majorities of republicans during most of his two terms.

And then the Term "fiscal conservative" being applied to Bush II? Please. Increasing medicare spending more than any president ever? Increased world aide, especially to Africa more than any single president before? He termed himself a "compassionate conservative" meaning he was really "socially conservative, fiscally liberal"...but then, to be fair, one cannot ignore the realities and cost of the war on terrorism...from the attacked that opened our eyes (ie, 9/11), to the resulting restructuring of security/world alliances to the prosecution of the so named "war on terror".


I knew I could count on a spin from you. Regardless of world circumstances, out of the last four presidents, republicans are 0 for 3 and democrats are 1 for 1. I haven't seen ANYTHING about McCain that says they are going to be any different than Bush Sr, Bush Jr, and Reagan. Those facts do not lie.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times and possibly four, and I more than deserve it.

While socialism might be ugly, it's nothing compared to the fascism/corporatism of the GOP. You aren't capitalists. Yet somehow the GOP has convinced people that they are.

[Prince Valiant]

This is politics, reality plays no part in politics ;)
lol...of this i'm well aware.

But the galling thing is, that dem's being portrayed as more fiscally responsible? HA! Recall that when bush wanted to pass the largest spending increase EVER, Dem's opposed it not on fiscal conservatism...but because the spending wasn't enough!!!

They'd counter that they'd "balance the budget by passing tax increases", but fiscal conservatism doesn't amount to a good balance b/w revenues vs expenditures...but overall spending amounts. Dem's are not shy at all about how and where they want to dramatically increase spending..

[nismodave]

You dont realize the mess Carter got us in. Reagan turned the country around.

[Prince Valiant]

I knew I could count on a spin from you. Regardless of world circumstances, out of the last four presidents, republicans are 0 for 3 and democrats are 1 for 1. I haven't seen ANYTHING about McCain that says they are going to be any different than Bush Sr, Bush Jr, and Reagan. Those facts do not lie.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times and possibly four, and I more than deserve it.

While socialism might be ugly, it's nothing compared to the fascism/corporatism of the GOP. You aren't capitalists. Yet somehow the GOP has convinced people that they are.
Lol...so when you are short of facts or reasons, to combat my so-called "spin" you simply yell "fascism" or "corporatism"?

Real sharp. :loser

[Z28Roxy]

Lol...so when you are short of facts or reasons, to combat my so-called "spin" you simply yell "fascism" or "corporatism"?

Real sharp. :loser

To combat my pesky numbers and logic you spin. :loser

[Prince Valiant]

To combat my pesky numbers and logic you spin. :loser
Providing correct historical perspective is hardly spin. Or fascism or corporatism (of which you certainly understand little) for that matter.

Throwing numbers and then using non sequiturs to achieve your conclusions is "spin" however.

[Z28Roxy]

Providing correct historical perspective is hardly spin. Or fascism or corporatism (of which you certainly understand little) for that matter.

Throwing numbers and then using non sequiturs to achieve your conclusions is "spin" however.

Are asserting that the debt has not risen more in both relative and absolute terms under Bush Jr, Bush Sr (double it because he was a one termer) and Reagan?

[Rocket Power]

Yeah bring back the days of Carter, misery index, double digit interest home loans, gutted military etc. that's what we need.
Clinton would have been nothing without the Rep congress that was elected in 94, remember the middle class tax cut he promised when elected? then raised taxes?

[Rocket Power]

Thank god we have a democrat controlled congress now to save us. Oh wait their approval rating is even lower than Bush's. :rolf