OT Ping<>

Page 2 of 4  
TBone wrote:


That is just hilarious!! You tell me the Dems do have a backbone and took a hard stance on this...now you make excuses for them to require pork in order to sign it. Real hardline stance the Dems took there! lol

They do when they take a hard stance towards something as you claim the Dems did.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
miles wrote:

Right ... the Dems are sick of Bush spending money is HIS (failing) agenda rather than the American people. Now, that does not in any way justify porking up bills. I am disappointed in the Dems so far.

Again? I never said that they were conservative. They are, however, more in tune to the fact that you can't keep spending money that you don't have. They prefer the "pay-as-you-go" plan. That's the best we can hope for in the financial mess that Bush has created.
9 TRILLION dollars. Bush and the Republican congress that was in control until a few months ago are directly responsible for the majority of that.

How far in debt was the U.S. when Clinton left office? Seems to me that the Dems are a bit better with money.
Craig C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Craig Christian wrote:

So a lousy Dem agenda is better? The Dems took control and immedieatly tossed out their campaign promises. As a result the Dem led congress' approval rating has plummeted sharply since.

And you base that on the Dems spending history over the past several decades or their current spending since gaining control? The Dems are certainly not in tune unless you like sour notes.

Bull. The Dems say that but have never practiced it. The Dems are two-faced especially since the richest members of congress are Dems and the poorest are Reps.

And the Dems that are in the control increased spending since gaining that control. They moved in an immediatly pushed and passed increased spending bills. Quit buying into their talk and look at their voting record. Even the vast majority of Dems voted right along with the Reps over the past 9 years worth of spending bills. Their latest attempt was to add 20 billion of unrelated pork to the war spending bill.

We didn't have 9/11, Katrina or Rita during Clintons years. But the debt did increase every year Clinton was in office despite the lefts so called surplus.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
miles wrote:

Maybe, maybe not. I guess we'll see.

True, but they still have some time to redeem themselves.

Again I ask, how far in debt was the U.S. before Bush took control?

Republican led government == 9 trillion in debt. Dem led government, 2 trillion in surplus.
It's the numbers miles ... they don't lie.

Blah blah blah. Bush + Republican congress = 9 trillion debt. There's no excuse.

Uh huh. Suggestion: get off your knees, wipe Bush's spunk off of your chin and face reality. Your hero, George W. Bush, has SUNK this country in 9 trillion dollars worth of debt. You can't blame the Dems or anything else.
Republicans have failed. Period.
Craig C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Craig Christian wrote:

The debt went up every year a Dem has been in office since I was born. How old are you? 9/11, Katrina and Rita all happened after Bush took office. Ya, I know. Those are all Bush's fault anyways!

Oh geez. Not that Clinton surplus BS so many liberals have bought into despite actual figures. The surplus was only a projection and not based on actual revenue vs. spending. Look up a year by year account of ACTUAL $'s spent vs. revenue during Clintons years. In not a single year did revenue exceed spending. Not one. The debt increased every year Clinton was in office.
Furthermore as a % of GDP the national debt reached 68% and averaged 66% over his 8 years. Under Bush the debt has reached a high of 65% and averaged 63% of GDP.

The true numbers show there never was an actual surplus. Only a projected surplus that was wishful thinking that never happened.

Now here is some typical liberal whining. Anyone who doesn't like Dems must love Bush acourding to you. Bush and the Rep party suck but the Dems have no solutions and have shown they can do even worse. Their past 9 years of voting records do not suggest they were against spending and now that they are in control their current voting record proves they are even worse with spending.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
miles wrote:

Once again, what was the U.S. debt before Bush took office? Why won't you answer that, miles?

True, the numbers presented are fuzzy numbers. However, the debt has never been higher than it is right now. Say what you will about Clinton and the spending habits of Dems, but it doesn't hold a candle to the current administration.

Excuses, excuses. If you want to complain, complain about Bush's spending, not Clinton's, because there's no comparison.

:-)
Presenting cold, hard numbers is whining? You haven't been around children or women much, if you think so.

Nope. You have defended the prick on numerous occasions. That's how I know you worship him.

Both parties leave much to be desired.

That may be true, miles. But you still cannot deny one simple fact: Clinton and a Democratic controlled congress spent less and were more fiscally responsible. Prior to Bush the national debt wasn't anywhere near what is now. Bush and is Republican controlled congress have put this country in a financial mess that we may never recover from.
You can argue all day that Dems spend more, but the numbers just don't support it.
Craig C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Craig Christian wrote:

Once again unlike you and your liberal anti-bush rhetoric, this isn't a rep vs. dem or lets just bash Bush issue. Thats your only goal, follow the liberal bandwagon. Both the Reps and the Dems in congress are to blame. Bush can't spend money and the Dems voting record on spending is every bit as bad as the Reps.

That can be said of every year Clinton was in office as well. Every year was higher than it ever had been before.

You seem to not care about the voting record of the Dems in congress the past 7 years. You seem to not care that the Dems voted for the majority of spending bills, not against them. You seem to not care that since the Dems took control the rate of spending has INCREASED. You seem to not care that since the Dems took control they escalated the spending bills and pork. It's not a Rep vs. Dems or anti-Bush issue. It's congress on both sides.

Bush can't spend money. Neither could Clinton. Dang liberals are too bent on bashing to understand their own government system. Nor do you bother to look at congressmen' voting records.

Um, no, thats just your anti-Bush, bash Bush rhetoric talking. You keep praising Dems and bashing anything to do with Bush, typical liberal bandwagon rhetoric. Read back the past several years. I am no fan of Bush I'm not going to praise the Dems as a result and you have trouble with that.

Democratic controlled? Oh geez. You're more into bashing with your political bias than realize reality. The Republicans took control of congress in 1993. Do you know what years Clinton was in office?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

As a percentage of GDP the national debt is running about the same as it has for 30 or more years. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1820.cfm
I'm not Repub or Dem and I think the govt spends way too much it always has and always will until we the people stop giving them money to spend.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Diamond Dave wrote:

That is true. As a % of GDP it's actually just slightly lower than during the 90's. That means there has been significant economic growth.
The problem is that everyone talks about run away spending. But people completely disagree on what areas should be cut. No matter anyone suggests large cuts be made it's going to hurt someone. There will never be consensus on where to cut. There never has been and therein lies the problem. People are ok to cut from someone else but never themselves.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Craig Christian wrote:

Harry Truman coined it, from a sign on he had on his desk: http://www.trumanlibrary.org/buckstop.htm Bryan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Craig Christian wrote:
> snipped
Care to tell me why you keep stating the Dems have control by the slimest of margins?
Democrats have a 233-202 majority in the House. Hardly slim.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
miles wrote:

I didn't. When did I state that?

Right ...
I'm confused. What is your point here?
Craig C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Craig Christian wrote:

Sorry, That was TBone. His rhetoric is very close to yours.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

He is probably talking to me.

How about the Senate Miles.

--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

It's a tie I believe. But the real thing to look at is the Reps AND Dems voting record with regards to spending prior to and after their gaining control. Prior to they voted right along with the Reps and adding their own pork riders to bills just the same. After they increased spending bills, not decreased. Congress as a whole is a mess, both Reps and Dems. The entire bunch is worthless and their plummeting approval rate says it all. It's not a Rep vs. Dem issue. It's a bunch of worthless politicians.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Then you would believe wrong as a tied Senate would belong to the Reps. the Dems control it by 1 seat and that is the slimest of margins.

And this was done for the same reason the Reps do it. The Reps created and passed a balanced budjet under Clinton but did little to follow it. Since the Reps controlled both houses and the office of the President, what real choice did the Dems have. When they tried to stop things the correct way, the Reps kept changing the rules.

Once again, you do what you whine about what others do. You spout headlines with no substance to back them up.

On this we can agree but unless you are willing to separate yourself from the party line, nothing is going to change and people like you never will.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

It was tied until Thomas died and left a seat vacant. However, Liberman and Sanders are Independent (Liberman actually created his own party). Both have vowed to caucus with the Dem party. That gives the Dems a 51 to 48 majority. 3 seats, not 1.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Yes but thats true of all politicians regardless of party. And their replacement may or may not be of the opposing party. Per your logic the Dems are in trouble because the Dem control congress's approval rating has plummeted since they took power. They have not delivered on their promises. Pelosi "We have a plan" has no plan.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

LOL, give me a break Miles, they have only been in power for a few months and only control be a few votes and the President is on the opposite side. Far from the case for the Reps who controlled by more votes and had the President on their side. I agree, the Dems have not done what they promised so far and they really need to take some lessons form the right wing smear committee to make the Reps look like the villains when they don't agree with the Dems plans. The Reps have become masters at this and sadly, it is now the way it must be done and if the Dems don't learn this, they will be short lived in power.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

The Dems haven't even tried. Instead they have passed one spending bill after another and attached huge unrelated pork barrel spending riders to anything they can. This is 100% opposite of what they said they would do when campaigning.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.