Lucky...

The inference would be that the conservatives have been most of the economic problem, but I agree it is a bit of an ad hominem, they should have stated more explicitly it is the Republicans, whoc have been spenders.

First you have to establish which current spending is wasteful. Please do so and enumerate them, as in, don't group them together, talk about how each is wasteful and why. Also, at least I'm not attacking all Republican presidents of all times, and I don't think anyone else is either, just primarily Reagan and GWB for their horrid economic policies on both spending and taxation. Conversely, GHWB was great, he cut spending (42% on an 8-year standard) from 57% to 42% and he raised taxes in 1990, not to mention amazing handling of Desert Storm and the fact that he was and is the first president that was a real military hero since probably Eisenhower. Reagan was a coward, GWB was a coward, Clinton was a draft dodger and Obama never had an interest in the military either way. So this isn't a partisan attack and I don't think you need to be a military hero to be a good president, but you have to be intellectually competent. Just list the current spending flaws and explain why they are wasteful. Also, explain why they are unneccessary and the probable outcome if said spending isn't made, as in the detriment that could be and how it isn't relevant. At least with me, this isn't a partisan issue, this being spending and taxation, even tho each party has its contemporary norms, they can also depart from them.

Yea, quit putting words in his mouth or he will leave this thread for good again, and then come back. As I've illustrated, Reagan and GWB had spending increases of more than twice that of Clinton. As well, Reagan and GWB cut taxes at an insane level, so pick your poison, these were both presidents who did grave harm to the economy. I posted graph and data after another, please impeach them if wish, otherwise it's just more circular argument with you refusing to address the data, which would clear up the issue.

You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives It's not about the past. It's about the present and how much of the taxpayers' money BHO is giving away. Seems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. When you can't think of anyone to blame but Bush, suck on your thumb and maybe he will go away. It's not about Bush for you, you are looking at this mess as a microcosm that just occurred. Remember, the quarter Obama took office was the 4th out of the last 5 quarters of neg GDP growth, the first full quarter Obama presided over, the 2nd quarter of 09, the growth was -1.0 from -6.4 the previous quarter. So that is a drastic improvement, but let's be fair and objective, without Obama's stimulus, much of what was started in the Bush era, was neccessary to beat this mess. No, you must be thinking of Bush, he inherited a debt from 1776 to 2001 that totalled 5.5T, he tacked on another 5T, so you are thinking of GWB when you think of presidents that gave away as much as all of the presidents before him. And the crazy thing is that GWB inherited a pretty good economy versus Clinton and Obama inheriting a total mess. You forgot Reagan, who tacked onto the debt almost TWICE as much as all the presidents before him. True, and if you compare 1980's dollars to 2000's dollars they did equal damage. They were very much the same president in so many ways.

/Marg At the same time, the infamous shoe thrower was released after 9 months, that would be much higher in the same setting.

Auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler- started by GWB. Bank bailouts - GWB again. AIG - the biggest single bailout - GWB again. Stimulus - remember GWB's checks for everyone? Republicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. And very few if anybody liked it then So much for change huh I think a lot of people agreed it had to be done, like it or not. We would revisit the GD on steroids if that wasn't done. Evidence of it's effectivness is found in the GDP: http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm look at the 2nd quarter of 09, a great improvement. This, 'tough it out' mentality doesn't work. Or as McCain was saying, "we're all whining" about the economic times. Congress and GWB / Obama did the right thing after this mess was started. Of course this mess was started in 01, but we're enjoying the fruits of its labor now.

Sounds to me like the perfect date!! In what way would you be like that guy?? By the way, the first place my ex took me was McDonalds & I paid!! At the time, he was jobless, broke, and temporarily living with his parents on the other side of the ocean from me.. ) Oh my God, you've just described me to a T; we're soulmates

Yea, if he had "game" he could use his cash as a real benefit. He would need to establish a basis for being desireable, then the cash is a big bonus, but never the primary basis for being with someone. It might work with some chicks early on, but even the real ho-bags go tired of it and sometimes find a way to leave with some of it. I think it's classy that you weren't drawn to it, I'm sure a lot of girls feel euphoric at the thought of an $800 meal and all the notariety that goes with it. I guess he'll never date a skydiver again

I think that was a pick-up line.

What you're missing here is that he broke a cardinal rule of Congress which is a VERY serious forum. If you were in a courtroom and you had the right to overtly object, fine, that's the right forum and process. But even in court you couldn't blurt out that someone is a liar, you could just object with a legitimate basis. I saw a specctator call the defendant a liar in such the same fashion in a murder trial about 6 months ago. It was just as the court was recessing and the judge had the man held, told him he could never come back to his courtroom, but the judge could have contempted him and sent him to jail. Without the rules of congress, rules of order we just have a bunch of people at a boxing fight yelling at will. McCain and other R's who call themselves Conservative R's were disgusted, and they agree with the content, but not the act. There comes a point to where if you can't operate under certaon rules you just get out, Wilson passed that point and should resign. Do you think he represented himself well? As for the substantive point here, I just wish the R's would come out with the way they really feel; they don't want everyone to have medical coverage, or just are purely unsympathetic to their fellow AMericans that don't have it. But they realize that wouldn't be a good talking point, so they defer to cost, illegals getting it, and they mitigate the number of legals that are uninsured and cannot afford it. If that's not teh case, then show me one Republican proposal where the substantively call for immediate coverage for the poor who cannot afford it. Just some BS about when the savings come in then they will be funded, or this trigger BS, which is just a was of buying time. I feel it borders on sociopathy to not care if others may be hurting and not be willing to agree with a process that won't cost that person a dime.

You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives It's not about the past. It's about the present and how much of the taxpayers' money BHO is giving away. Seems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. When you can't think of anyone to blame but Bush, suck on your thumb and maybe he will go away. Nice double standard you have going there. Let's look at it another way. If the democrats think all or most of the debt is the republicans fault due to instituting large unfunded gov't programs, why do they now want to do the same sort of thing? Because we don't think that is the totality of the mess, in fact many / most Dems think it's the tax cuts as I've constantly posted here while being ignored by others. Let's go back and review those, shall we? I think most Dems feel that is the issue leading to the debt, but gross overspending sure doesn't help.

You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives It's not about the past. It's about the present and how much of the taxpayers' money BHO is giving away. Seems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. When you can't think of anyone to blame but Bush, suck on your thumb and maybe he will go away. It's not about Bush for you, you are looking at this mess as a microcosm that just occurred. Remember, the quarter Obama took office was the 4th out of the last 5 quarters of neg GDP growth, the first full quarter Obama presided over, the 2nd quarter of 09, the growth was -1.0 from -6.4 the previous quarter. So that is a drastic improvement, but let's be fair and objective, without Obama's stimulus, much of what was started in the Bush era, was neccessary to beat this mess. No, you must be thinking of Bush, he inherited a debt from 1776 to 2001 that totalled 5.5T, he tacked on another 5T, so you are thinking of GWB when you think of presidents that gave away as much as all of the presidents before him. And the crazy thing is that GWB inherited a pretty good economy versus Clinton and Obama inheriting a total mess.

Pay attention - I was writing about about federal revenues, NOT spending. In real terms (constant $$) revenues decreased during GWB's presidency. They increased during Clinton's administration. He said he was going away, but now he came right back.....it's almost like having Brett Favre on the board.

You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives Isn't it just bizzare, the conservatives, so they're called (can't figure out why since they had the largest liberal giveaway of cash with Reagan, then GWB), are acting as though they are the ones who are fiscally stingy? And even if they justify their ill-engaged war in Iraq, that counts for about 18% of the 5T debt increase as Bush left office. But I think it's fair to look at the representations on this forum for the answer. Not saying they're bad guys, just that when people post data and other historical or contemporary supporting facts, they just ignore and off to the races with the Ad Hominem. One guy even said what I wrote was the dumbest (as I recall w/o looking it up) thing he had ever read. I gave him a mountain of evidence and he just goes away. Bizzare. I have to believe they don't reference skydiving manuals (SIMS, etc) or car manuals that way, but I guess that's because religion and politics are emotionally driven in most cases, I just prefer empirical evidence.

Oh I understood what ya meant, bro. I wasn't being sarcastic or picky with that, I knew you were saying that since the Cold War was over, that justified GHWB to cut the military. At the same time, today's Republicans would typically not cut the military in any case and he did which helped the economic health of the US. I was also saying that the whole Cold War thing, past the Bay of Pigs, was a joke. Esp when Reagan thought the Commies were coming, it was totally unnecessary. In 1980 the USSR Communist econmic system was in trouble, that's what caused it to fail in 89. The Cold War was a way to do what the Great President Eisenhower told us not to do; expand the Military Industrial Complex. You have to create an enemy to create need, then appropriations are easy, unless you are.....unAmerican. Agreed. If Perot hadn't run, a guy I voted for and if I didn't I would have voted Bush, GHWB would have won. I agree with your order, too. It really varies. I think that can be true, such as with Reagan, we didn't feel the ouch until the recession of 90-91. But with Clinton we felt the relief as he was in office and felt the ouch of GHWB right away as well and are still feeling it. I think that can be true, but it can also be felt at different times.

When GWB was president The Cold War was ending... Actually it ended 4 1/2 months after GHWB took office. More importantly, GHWB wasn't so delluded, as was Reagan, to think, "The Commies are coming, the Commies are coming." We can find whatever reasoning we need, but GHWB substantially reduced the military and did as all a favor. He did the unthinkable for a Republican President, he: - Reduced teh military - Raised taxes Don't really care why, he did us a huge favor and was so, "un-Republican." And it cost him the presidency, as well as Perot splitting the R vote too.

Excellent, and w/o leaving 1, not 1 piece of data? Ok, well let me send ya off with this: From 1981 to 1988 Regan's spending was from 678,000,000 to 1,064,000,000 Difference of 386,000,000 or a 57% increase. Under 4 years of GHWB spending was 1,143,000,000 to 1,381,000,000 Difference of 238,000,000 or a 21% increase (adjusted for 8 years it would be 42%). Under 8 years of Clinton spending went from 1,409,000,000 to 1,789,000,000 Difference of 380,000,000 or a 27% increase. Under 8 years of GWB spending went from 1,863,000,000 to 2,902,000,000 Difference of 1,039,000,000 or 56% increase. But you are right, without you or any adverse debaters providing data, I am debating myself. My rule is that if I cannot provide data or some legitimate support then my opinion is limited and others aren't required to believe it.

How can you say that, Reagan and GWB had spending increases > twice that of Clinton. Spending = more government; agreed? They've spent less and been more fiscally responsible, how can that be true? Not always, it was for GHWB and wasn't for Clinton. No, insane tax cuts and runaway spending is what got us into this mess; follow the trail: - Bush massive tax cuts - Economy lags - Fed Chairman lowers interest rates too much for too long due to need of economic stimulation. - House payments (PITI) are basically prinicpal and interest, as interest falls, principal climbs and people qualify for higher principal loans with eqqual monthly payments as before. - Since home values increase daily, sub-prime borrowers are welcomed and not screened, thinking the house can outlast even the worst borrower. This is true for a while, but like any ponzi scheme, first in win, last in lose, and the end came about 12/2006. When Obama inherited the mess, we wre in our 4th out of 5 quarters of neg GDP growth, unprecedented since the GD. The stimulus brought 3 consecutive and spiralling negative GDP growth to an end, the GDP had a -1 growth rate last quarter, down from an inconceivable -6.4. So the answer is that the tax cuts led to the mess, in GHWB's recession he decided to leave the interest rate high to avoid this, now they tried lowering it and learned it didn't workout well.

Sure, GHWB was a tax raiser, but he was also an anomoly, as most recent Republicans cut taxes. I'm not being partisan though, as I've given GHWB credit for helping the overall economy and being a very good president. As I posted earlier, he also spent less than Reagan, on an 8-year basis he increased spending 42% as compared to Reagan's 57%, GWB's 56%. Primarily I would assert his spending cuts were miltary. So I don't want to attack the party either, just point out that cutting taxes is devastating, raising them helps; please provide data to the contrary, as I have provided data to support my position.

Where did I say or infer they act alone? You kinda make my point there by saying the gov has been shut down by the president refusing to sign. You agree that the president does have ultimate power over spending bills. As an aside, you are also wrong about the refusing to sign part, as the federal budget is generally submitted before Congress goes on break and the only way a president can refuse to sign and have the bill die is with a pocket veto, so my point is that the president has to overtly veto the bill if congress has more than 10 days before going on break, then he can just ignore it. No but deductively you are in support of tax cuts, thinking they have actually ever improved economic conditions at a federal level, yet are unable to substantiate your claims with any substance, data, reference, etc. And who is for tax cuts; Republicans, so I made the leap. Again, no explanation; why? They were so very different in policy. Reagan and GWB were very similar and GHWB and Clinton were similar. So which president(s) do you like and why? Not sure I agree and how can we infer his beliefs? He pushed hard for "Don't ask dont tell" and then signed the Mariage Defense Act of 1996. I know he conceded to tax cuts in 96-97 so he could get minimum wage increases, but I don't know and haven't seen anything credible out of the Workfare program. Besides, he cut welfare, something you agree with, are you now decrying him for that? Bizzare. You wrote: What is it that you don't get that CONGRESS creates the bills that result in spending. For all intents and purposes the president originates the annual federal spending bill, you claim it comes from Congress; that's wrong. Other than that, how am I misquoting you? I constantly do, that's how I'm able to supplu historical tax data that you refuse to address. Let's tone it down a bit and go back to the original point; taxation / debt / spending. Look at any major tax bill in the last 100 years and tell me how increasing taxes hurt the economy and how cutting them helped. Pick any one MAJOR tax change and make an argument. Don't pick a microcosm in time or a puny tax change, stick with the big ones - that's all I ask. After all, this is our major disagreement, let's hear your side with supporting data.

And I never said you asserted that. But you said the bill starts with Congress, you wrote: What is it that you don't get that CONGRESS creates the bills that result in spending. The part I don’t get is that it isn’t true; it starts with the president at least for the biggest spending measure; the annual budget. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget And altho the president doesn't submit a bill to the House, he does submit a proposal that is the basis of the bill or the threat of veto looms. The president has the most to do with spending, as he proposes it and ultmately votes for or against it as a deciding vote. Considering you think the president plays a subordinate role with the annual budget, I think I don;t need to read up. In trying to defend your great Republican Presidents you want to shift the blame to Congress. Of course under GWB this is fair due to him not casting 1 veto for 5 1/2 years of his Republican Congress.

Retroactively eliminate Reagan as well, before he signed the Amnesty Act in 1986. (not that I'm wholly against it, just that it defies their arguments.

Oh, I am so, so sorry you missed the data provided by the US Gov. Here it is: http://www.whitehouse.gov/.../fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf Look at page 26. From 1981 to 1988 Regan's spending was from 678,000,000 to 1,064,000,000 Difference of 386,000,000 or a 57% increase. Under 4 years of GHWB spending was 1,143,000,000 to 1,381,000,000 Difference of 238,000,000 or a 21% increase (adjusted for 8 years it would be 42%). Under 8 years of Clinton spending went from 1,409,000,000 to 1,789,000,000 Difference of 380,000,000 or a 27% increase. Under 8 years of GWB spending went from 1,863,000,000 to 2,902,000,000 Difference of 1,039,000,000 or 56% increase. So yes, the Republicans are the offenders here, they have spent twice that of the 1 Democrat since 1981, so we really are on the same page here. No, I saw these programs, the biggest of which passed under GWB and implemented in part then too. If we didn't bailout the banks the country would be into GD part II, once again brought to us by the Republican Party. And we manufacture so little durable goods anyway, so to lose the auto industry would be catastrophic. These measures you speak of were often voted for in a bipartisan vote, so not sure what your point is. Tax cuts of GWB ran this county into the crapper and now we have to deal with it whilethe recipients of these cuts are laughing their asses off. Probably not as much as you think, but certainly militay cuts, about as much as under GHWB. Was he also forced to sign NAFTA or the Marriage Defense Act? I don't think he was forced into anything. Now to convolute and detract from Clinton's economic success by transposing the failures of his successor, GWB, is unrealistic. Clinton's fiscal accomplishment stand alone, this GWB-created mess stands alone; let's not mix them. Step 2: supply data with your arguments.

1) tort reform; translation: civil immunity for doctors and insurance companies making a business decision when deciding whether to honor a valid claim, while that person dies in the process. 2) elimination of state barriers and mandates; translation: No real advantage, it just sounds like a good plan to allegedly save money. 3) tax credits for health insurance; translation: No more employer-provide coverage, out of work - out of coverage. You can have your tax credit, but with no job the write-off is meaningless....oh, and we'llbe cutting that tax credit slowly until you don't even have that. Huh, I wonder what people making 15k/yr could do with a tax credit, considering they don't pay taxes anyway with their nothing income? I wonder how a 10-20k tax credit works for people making >100k/yr? Oh, I see, pretty well. Now who are the Republicans here to represent? 4) reducing waste and fraud in the current programs and using the savings to expand Medicaid coverage for those that are truly needy and here legally; translation: When the program allegely saves money, in 5 or 10 years, we will think about divertiung some of that money to a couple people who we deem needy, maybe. Do we really want the same party directing our health coverage that gave us the Katrina response and recovery?

What is it that you don't get that CONGRESS creates legislation that become taxation laws? They do both and the president signs or vetoes. The president is the ultimate legislator; 1 vote can strike or affirm legislation. Other than a rare veto override, the president IS the legislative body. The only thing is he can't initiate legislation, just prompt his allies in Congress to do so. But in a way, he does initiate legislation in 1 aspect, the very aspect we are talking about. The Federal US budget initiates from the president, that's the bill where the president proposes to COngress what he wants so as to not waste time. So once again, what we're talking about here, the president initiates annual spending bills, they go to the House, Senate and then back to the president for sign or veto. And you say the president has nothing to do with spending.....