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
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
How far in debt was the U.S. when Clinton left office? Seems to me that
the Dems are a bit better with money.
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
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
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
Republicans have failed. Period.
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.
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
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
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
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?
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.