[moneyline]

... once he is judged by Republicans and Democrats alike for what he does and accomplishes, as opposed to the way he's been judged so far, for who he is not and for what Bush didn't do correctly.

People like Ryan would like to give him a two term free pass because it will take 20 years to fix the Bush presidency.

How many of you other kool-aid drinkers are just as willing to give Obama a free pass for years to come?

[VegasDave]

Gotta actually give him his 4 years before deciding on his 2nd 4 years.

[moneyline]

So he gets four free years devoid of accountability because of the Bush presidency then?

[VegasDave]

How did you interpret that from what I said?

He gets 4 years because thats how long a term is. It isn't "free"... it is 4 years. I'm saying what are you worried about his 5th through 8th years already for? You have no idea how well or poorly he will do. Neither do I.

If we are moving in the right direction, he gets an extra 4 years. If he is doing a miserable job and we need another shake-up, he doesn't. Seems simple enough that it should be performance based...

[EBSB52]

Originally Posted by moneyline

... once he is judged by Republicans and Democrats alike for what he does and accomplishes, as opposed to the way he's been judged so far, for who he is not and for what Bush didn't do correctly.

People like Ryan would like to give him a two term free pass because it will take 20 years to fix the Bush presidency.

How many of you other kool-aid drinkers are just as willing to give Obama a free pass for years to come?

This is a classic example of why your party is outed big time. Yes Obama had a free ride into the WH and for probably 2 terms. And still your party is blaming and being sarcastic. Until you get more young blood and lose the typcial neo-con ahole image of the party, you'll just be financing a Democratic-run country.

It took Clinton until early into his 2nd term to start to un**** Reagan/Bush's 12 years, this mess will likely take twice that. The only hope your party has is to quit the idiocy and fix itself or wait for the Dems to implode bigger.

[EBSB52]

Originally Posted by moneyline

So he gets four free years devoid of accountability because of the Bush presidency then?

Why not, the R's have had 20 years since 1981 of no accountability.

[moneyline]

Really? You're not holding Bush accountable for the past eight years. If not, you are the only whiny Dem not to be doing so (but I suspect you are ...)

Obama -- a man who got elected, not on his record or accomplishments, but because the guy there before him did a sub-standard job. Now, there's something to put on the old CV!

[EBSB52]

Originally Posted by moneyline

Really? You're not holding Bush accountable for the past eight years. If not, you are the only whiny Dem not to be doing so (but I suspect you are ...)

Obama -- a man who got elected, not on his record or accomplishments, but because the guy there before him did a sub-standard job. Now, there's something to put on the old CV!

Read closely, I wrote: Why not, the R's have had 20 years since 1981 of no accountability.

8 years fascist Ronnie
4 years GHWB
8 years GWB

Perhaps math wasn't your strongsuit, but that's 20 years of no real accountability until now. They were allowed to run the debt to from <1T to over 10.5T and counting. The Dem in the middle was Clinton who, in his last year, virtually ended debt increases, then your guy thought it was a good idea to hammer it up again. So am I whiny? Yea, sure, whiny the trash a brilliant guy like you elects.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Obama -- a man who got elected, not on his record or accomplishments, but because the guy there before him did a sub-standard job.


Uh, the 3 guys you mean, as in Reagan. Bush. Bush, before him, as in the same party before him? You or I could have been elected under the Dems, but when your genius party puts a clone of the same neo-con trash forward, it's a rubber stamp. Idiot American don't understand the debt, so they have to wait for the wheels to fall off.

As for Obama's record absent the Repub total failures, Obama is very qualified, certainly moreso than GWB or Reagan.

Laughable to watch you defend a failed party, yet when teh facts hit the paper you would run like the wind.

[MilfDriller]

You people are both wrong. He gets 4 years of zero criticism because he's black. End of story.

The media won't say anything negative about him because that would be racist. Unfortunately, he'll have to step up to the plate in the end as the media is a force of negativity that feeds off of itself and can only be propelled by negative information. So that will be interesting when it happens. Of course, the University of Washington has suffered b/c of a similar situation with Ty Willingham. The guy can't win a game, but you can't criticise him b/c he's black. So now they have the worst program in the country, lmao.

This also has had a big impact on illegal immigration. If you even say a word about illegal immigration, you're racist. Never mind the prisons getting jammed packed, cops getting killed, crime going up. These are real things that are happening. Then you have the 50% high school drop-out rate and the #1 pregnancy rate for teens.... and people act as if this doesn't exist.

[MilfDriller]

I'll use a small number. You have more than 1,000 illegals cross the border each day.

Well, we're used to it. No big deal, right?

Think of it this way. Let's say I'm Canadian. All of a sudden there are 1,000 illegal Chinese citizens crossing into Canada each day. Visualize that. That's a lot of Chinese people... and at the end of year you've got more than 360,000 illegal Chinese immigrants in Canada. .... That would be an astounding development. But in the US... not a word. Very interesting.

[EBSB52]

Originally Posted by MilfDriller

You people are both wrong. He gets 4 years of zero criticism because he's black. End of story.

The media won't say anything negative about him because that would be racist. Unfortunately, he'll have to step up to the plate in the end as the media is a force of negativity that feeds off of itself and can only be propelled by negative information. So that will be interesting when it happens. Of course, the University of Washington has suffered b/c of a similar situation with Ty Willingham. The guy can't win a game, but you can't criticise him b/c he's black. So now they have the worst program in the country, lmao.

This also has had a big impact on illegal immigration. If you even say a word about illegal immigration, you're racist. Never mind the prisons getting jammed packed, cops getting killed, crime going up. These are real things that are happening. Then you have the 50% high school drop-out rate and the #1 pregnancy rate for teens.... and people act as if this doesn't exist.

You people are both wrong. He gets 4 years of zero criticism because he's black. End of story.

Lush Rimjob said the same thing about McNabb and then he went on to win 11 of the next 12 games or something crazy like that. Idiot said that social concern will make McNabb a great player and that he is overrated. Well, racists understand each other, so I think you know what Lush was thinking.

The media has said plenty about Warren Moon, he's a wife beater, he was washed up at the end of his career, he should have retired sooner.

Then you have the 50% high school drop-out rate and the #1 pregnancy rate for teens.... and people act as if this doesn't exist.

And because poor inner-city teens w/o descent parents much of the time get preg that means......????????????? Does that mean Obama can do no wrong?

[EBSB52]

Originally Posted by MilfDriller

I'll use a small number. You have more than 1,000 illegals cross the border each day.

Well, we're used to it. No big deal, right?

Think of it this way. Let's say I'm Canadian. All of a sudden there are 1,000 illegal Chinese citizens crossing into Canada each day. Visualize that. That's a lot of Chinese people... and at the end of year you've got more than 360,000 illegal Chinese immigrants in Canada. .... That would be an astounding development. But in the US... not a word. Very interesting.

Interesting, considering the last president to give amnesty to all illegals was Reagan in 86..... kinda blows your theories, huh?

[MilfDriller]

Hello, friendly liberal. I see you missed the entire point about immigration. And you grab a snippet and turn it for your own liberal bent. Nice.

Of course Regs gave amnesty... and look where it has led us.

Keep sippin' your Starbucks, Mr. Clueless.

[MilfDriller]

'decent' .. btw .... not 'descent'

The point about the #1 drop-out rate and teen pregnancy is not about Obama. That relates to the illegal immigration issue and is an offshoot of your 10 million illegal Mexicans.

Since you're a confused liberal, the point is about discussion and openness of topics. That is, if Willingham sucks tard, the University of Washington can really do nothing about it because he's black. The same goes illegal immigration. To actually enforce our laws and deport those who break them.... well, that would be racist. To even talk about it.... oops, blasphemy.

[MilfDriller]

For the record. Warren Moon was great. McNabb sucks ass.

I tend to think that if you put a quarterback with EBSB's mindset, you'd have a McNabb-ian quarterback in the huddle.

[EBSB52]

Originally Posted by MilfDriller

Hello, friendly liberal. I see you missed the entire point about immigration. And you grab a snippet and turn it for your own liberal bent. Nice.

Of course Regs gave amnesty... and look where it has led us.

Keep sippin' your Starbucks, Mr. Clueless.

And you make assumptions; I don;t support illegal immigration, nor does Obama. I'm for the wall, neo-con. Since fascist Ronnie gave illegals amnesty, this is not a partisan issue, but a national issue or apathy, the same apathy that got us attacked on 911.

[EBSB52]

Originally Posted by MilfDriller

'decent' .. btw .... not 'descent'

The point about the #1 drop-out rate and teen pregnancy is not about Obama. That relates to the illegal immigration issue and is an offshoot of your 10 million illegal Mexicans.

Since you're a confused liberal, the point is about discussion and openness of topics. That is, if Willingham sucks tard, the University of Washington can really do nothing about it because he's black. The same goes illegal immigration. To actually enforce our laws and deport those who break them.... well, that would be racist. To even talk about it.... oops, blasphemy.

Down to correcting spelling now? You are a joke w/o a point. Other than long posts, just tag along, you'll see several; I concentrate on the substance rather than the fray. You see people w/o ability to address issues doing that, it's a sort of ad homiem.


OK and that is a Dem issue? You infered blaem, to the left, now you're retracting it???

That is, if Willingham sucks tard, the University of Washington can really do nothing about it because he's black.

What a doink.

1) What affirms that a college coach can't get fired due to sucking?

2) How is this a precedent that all blacks have a safe haven?

3) I was born and raised there, lave that f'd up place, the weather sucks.

4) You still have to show me that Willingham has a free ride due to his race and that hypothetically, even if he does, that somehow translates to all other businesses/areas.

5) Football is not life, you seem pretty hung-up over this.


I'm sorry you're angry and that your party sucks and got its ass handed to them in virtually an unprecedented fashion, but perhaps look in the mirror, you'll understand why.

[EBSB52]

Originally Posted by MilfDriller

For the record. Warren Moon was great. McNabb sucks ass.

I tend to think that if you put a quarterback with EBSB's mindset, you'd have a McNabb-ian quarterback in the huddle.

McNabb's lifetime record as of the end of last year is 73-39, 7-5 in the playoffs. Yea, I see your point there, Lush Rimjob groupie.

http://www.donovanmcnabb.com/

Now go ahead and credit his team. If you do that would be so loser of you, a team can carry a guy for a while, but not forever. Look at Dilfer, Baltimore's D couldn't carry him that long and the coach dumped him. Players don't have 9-year records that impressive and get carried.

You're obviously a clone of Rimjob.

[EBSB52]

Originally Posted by MilfDriller

For the record. Warren Moon was great. McNabb sucks ass.

I tend to think that if you put a quarterback with EBSB's mindset, you'd have a McNabb-ian quarterback in the huddle.

More brilliance once again disproven:

Philly vs Arizona:

McNabb: 27 of 39 for 260 yds @ 69.2% 4 TD 0 INT QB RATING 121.7

Oh, and before you say that it was just the Cardinals, they were 7 and 4 before this game.

Now, back to worship Lush Rimjob for ya.....

[curious]

Originally Posted by EBSB52

Read closely, I wrote: Why not, the R's have had 20 years since 1981 of no accountability.

8 years fascist Ronnie
4 years GHWB
8 years GWB

Perhaps math wasn't your strongsuit, but that's 20 years of no real accountability until now. They were allowed to run the debt to from <1T to over 10.5T and counting. The Dem in the middle was Clinton who, in his last year, virtually ended debt increases, then your guy thought it was a good idea to hammer it up again. So am I whiny? Yea, sure, whiny the trash a brilliant guy like you elects.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Obama -- a man who got elected, not on his record or accomplishments, but because the guy there before him did a sub-standard job.


Uh, the 3 guys you mean, as in Reagan. Bush. Bush, before him, as in the same party before him? You or I could have been elected under the Dems, but when your genius party puts a clone of the same neo-con trash forward, it's a rubber stamp. Idiot American don't understand the debt, so they have to wait for the wheels to fall off.

As for Obama's record absent the Repub total failures, Obama is very qualified, certainly moreso than GWB or Reagan.

Laughable to watch you defend a failed party, yet when teh facts hit the paper you would run like the wind.

I detest the Bush family. Prescott Bush gave Hitler 38 synthetic fuel plants which allowed Hitler to seriously plan WWII (without the synthetic fuel plants there was no way). Bush the Elder sold out the Reagan revolution. Bush the Lesser just sold us out period.

Having said that, there is no way you can put President Reagan into the same category as the Bush family.

I was a young adult during the Carter depression. Unemployment +10%, inflation +12%, interest rates +20%, top income tax rate 75%. The stated economic policy was "keep inflation low by keeping unemployment high". Interest rates were sky high because the money supply was so ridiculously tight.

President Reagan had a degree in economics. His supply side economic policies increased the money supply. The result was a drastic reduction in interest rates with a corresponding increase in employment and a drastic drop in inflation. Reagan's economic policies gave us the start of the highest economic growth in the history of our country. Perhaps the history of the civilized world.

President Clinton's economic policies were closer to Reagan's policies than either of the Bush's. Both Bush the elder and Bush the lesser, particularly Bush the Lesser sold out President Reagan's policies.

To call President Reagan a "fascist" exposes your bias. To say that President Reagan was unqualified exposes your ignorance.

[slacker00]

Good stuff, Curious.

I'll simply add, let us criticize the policy and not the man. Let history judge the man.

[custom2006]

Listen guys, republicans are the puppet on the right, democrats are the puppet on the left......who's in the middle? We the people have been duped! Maybe we should be identified as Republicrats or Democans! There is no difference!!! Barrack Hussein Obama will not change anything. (neither would McCain) All that he claims he can not change will be blamed on Bush. Funny thing about Bush's presidency, is that all of this debt our nation is accumulating (wall street bailout, auto builder bailout) the democrats (including Obama) voted for it! Actually, all the money that Bush has borrowed from China (debt) for the fake war on "terrorism" was approved by the democrats as well??? The only reason that Clinton was able to "balance the budget" (note: not pay off our national debt) was because he cut the US forces defense budget my BILLIONS....closed military bases all over the world! Actually, the worst thing that Clinton did that is coming back to haunt us now is, "NAFTA" ....North American Free Trade Agreement. Yes, Bush has done the same thing with "CAFTA" Central American Free Trade Agreement. With these two programs they have essentially set the wheels turning to eventually turn this country into a third world nation....go ahead and laugh now....you will see! Just google "Amero" (our new currency that has already been printed) or google "Trans Texas Corridor" that is being built right now. (super highway from South America through the US with main hub in Kansas City, then north into Canada) If you just take some time and do very minor research you will find that the government of this country (democrat, republican, right, left, liberal, conservative are all NO GOOD)
They have kept us fat, lazy, spoiled (keep us happy with prosperity while they pull the rug out from under us) and side tracked with TV, video games, internet etc... and they have managed to keep us divided (united we stand, divided we fall) on every issue....abortions, race, homo sexual lifestyle....BIG SMOKESCREEN! Here's what they really think of you...

"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it". (H.L. Mencken)

"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods." [H. L. Mencken]

"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."[H. L. Mencken]
"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."[H. L. Mencken]

[custom2006]

Continued:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." [H. L. Mencken]

(Does'nt the above quote sound familiar.....terrorism! Al-Quaida, Bin-Laden....every where....look in your closet, under your bed....meanwhile, please give up your liberties and freedoms.....or Global warming.....or the guns that go and kill people all the time)

"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" [Dosteovsky's 'Grand Inquisitor']

"It is thus necessary that the individual should come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole ... that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual. .... This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture .... we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man." [Adolph Hitler, 1933]
***Remember, Hitler was selected as Time Magazine's "Man of The Year" in 1939***

There is the great, silent, continuous struggle: the struggle between the State and the Individual; between the State which demands and the individual who attempts to evade such demands. Because the individual, left to himself, unless he be a saint or hero, always refuses to pay taxes, obey laws, or go to war. [Benito Mussolini]
***Mussolini was Time Life's "Man of The Year twice...1937 & 1940***

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." [Nikita Khrushchev , February 25, 1956 20th Congress of the Communist Party]

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." [Hillary Clinton, Speech promoting her book "It takes a village" January, 1996 Borden's Book Store, Chicago, IL. ]

We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..." [President Bill Clinton, 'USA Today' March 11, 1993: Page 2A]

We must organize all labor, no matter how dirty and arduous it may be, so that every (citizen) may regard himself as part of that great army of free labor.... The generation that is now fifteen years old .. must arrange all their tasks of education in such a way that every day, and in every city, the young people shall engage in the practical solution of the problems of common labor, even the smallest, most simple kind. [Vladimir Lenin]
***THIS IS ONE OF OBAMA'S PLANS***

I am here because I want to redefine the meaning of citizenship in America... If you're asked in school 'What does it mean to be a good citizen?' I want the answer to be, 'Well, to be a good citizen, you have to obey the law, you've got to go to work or be in school, you've got to pay your taxes and --- oh, yes, you have to serve..."

"In his April 5 radio address outlining the goals of the summit, the President endorsed compulsory volunteerism -- and even called for extending it to middle schools. In other words, the man who so famously avoided the dangerous duty of fighting in Vietnam as a young man now proposes drafting a new generation of young people to perform a different set of difficult tasks." [Editorial, New York Post, April 27, 1997]

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
Written by: Alexander Tyler...about America, No!!!! He wrote this over 100 years ago about the fall of the Athenian Republic!!!!!!
But, it does sound familiar!

[custom2006]

If you have time google these: Operation Garden Plot
Northwoods document...should remind you of 9-11
Operation Cable Splicer
Civilian Prison Camps...(how convenient that Clinton
closed all those military bases)

OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE.....QUIT BEING SHEEPLE....IT DOES NOT MATTER WHO IS SITTING IN THE OVAL OFFICE!!!!

[custom2006]

"civilian Prison Camps"
"operation Northwoods"
"operation Garden Plot"
"operation Cable Splicer"

[custom2006]

Also

"REX-84"

[EBSB52]

Originally Posted by curious

I detest the Bush family. Prescott Bush gave Hitler 38 synthetic fuel plants which allowed Hitler to seriously plan WWII (without the synthetic fuel plants there was no way). Bush the Elder sold out the Reagan revolution. Bush the Lesser just sold us out period.

Having said that, there is no way you can put President Reagan into the same category as the Bush family.

I was a young adult during the Carter depression. Unemployment +10%, inflation +12%, interest rates +20%, top income tax rate 75%. The stated economic policy was "keep inflation low by keeping unemployment high". Interest rates were sky high because the money supply was so ridiculously tight.

President Reagan had a degree in economics. His supply side economic policies increased the money supply. The result was a drastic reduction in interest rates with a corresponding increase in employment and a drastic drop in inflation. Reagan's economic policies gave us the start of the highest economic growth in the history of our country. Perhaps the history of the civilized world.

President Clinton's economic policies were closer to Reagan's policies than either of the Bush's. Both Bush the elder and Bush the lesser, particularly Bush the Lesser sold out President Reagan's policies.

To call President Reagan a "fascist" exposes your bias. To say that President Reagan was unqualified exposes your ignorance.

To call President Reagan a "fascist" exposes your bias.

Bias? Yes, I am biased against fascist leasers that illustrate their bias via busting labor organizations and handing the country over to corporations. Corporatism is an element of fascism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

Political scientists may also use the term corporatism to describe a practice whereby a state, through the process of licensing and regulating incorporated social, religious, economic, or popular organizations, effectively co-opts their leadership or circumscribes their ability to challenge state authority by establishing the state as the source of their legitimacy, as well as sometimes running them, either directly or indirectly through corporations. This usage is particularly common in the area of East Asian studies, and is sometimes also referred to as state corporatism. Some analysts have applied the term neocorporatism to certain practices in Western European countries, such the Proporz system in Austria.At a popular level in recent years "corporatism" has been used to mean the promotion of the interests of private corporations in government over the interests of the public.

To say that President Reagan was unqualified exposes your ignorance.

This exposes your inability to comprehend: I wrote: As for Obama's record absent the Repub total failures, Obama is very qualified, certainly moreso than GWB or Reagan.

Where did I “say” that Reagan was unqualified? I didn’t, I just stated that Obama was more qualified than GWB or Reagan. This shows your inability to co0mprehend basic passages. With that, I’m not stating Reagan’s point of qualifications either way other that stating that Obama is more qualified than most recent previous presidents as he goes in. To support that I state that Obama is an academician and an intellect rather than a failed businessman, actor or other.

I detest the Bush family. Prescott Bush gave Hitler 38 synthetic fuel plants which allowed Hitler to seriously plan WWII (without the synthetic fuel plants there was no way). Bush the Elder sold out the Reagan revolution. Bush the Lesser just sold us out period.

Bush the elder as in GHWB I assume? In your ambiguity I assume you mean by selling out the Reagan revolution GHWB raised taxes, so by raising taxes that sold out the Reagan revolution? Yea, what a beautiful revolution it was, cut taxes, hammer the fvck out of spending and triple the debt; brilliant. He busted labor and sided with every business over the individual, starting the massive shift of wealth and starting the separation of healthcare away from people via busting unions. I don’t give a fvck if you don’t like that busting labor is an act of corporatism/fascism, but that is the truth by definition.
GHWB’s raising taxes after inheriting a mess from Reagan was necessary to offset 8 years of disastrous voodoo economics. Do you know where that term arises? Voodoo, as in wave your hand and several trillion dollars magically appear, no one has to pay taxes. And fascist Ronnie referred to Carter as a tax-n-spender; what a joke.
Here’s an example of your hero and the neo-con trash: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

Notice the negative GDP spending, meaning a surplus during the FDR years up to Nixon? The real sell-out here, in your terms, is Eisenhower, he was as fiscally responsible as ALL of the Dems since post-WWII up to now. Remember, the graph indicates an increase in debt based upon the GDP, so a negative increase is a good thing, unless you’re a neo-con.
Here’s the net result: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/78/US_Debt_Trend.svg/450px-US_Debt_Trend.svg.png

This debt increase after all is figured; notice the great increases under the neo-cons? Notice the mess Clinton inherited and then turned downward? I’m guessing you think debt is a good thing, right?
Here’s a great one; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

1978-2005
Federal spending increase Dems 9.9% to Reps 12.1%, Federal debt increase Dems 4.2% to Reps 36.4%, GDP increase Dems 12.6% to Reps 10.7. To summarize, the Republicans since Reagan have spent 22% more than the Dems, produced 18% less than the Dems and increased debt by 767% more than the Dems. And this doesn’t even include the worst years, 2005 to present. Not to take anything from fascist Ronnie, he tripled the debt and started this idiocy of cut tax-n-spending via voodoo idiocy. Of course as I write that, I look at the years of largest increase and see that the only 3 double-digit years of debt increase are owned by fascist Ronnie: 1983 15%, 1985 12.3%, 1986 13.9%. To put it more in perspective, Reagan’s best years was a 6.3% increase in debt and Clinton’s worst year was a 4.6% increase and that was his first year after inheriting a mess, the subsequent years were much lower.

Having said that, there is no way you can put President Reagan into the same category as the Bush family

That’s true, Reagan’s disastrous fiscal numbers dwarf the other two combined, the Bush’s are just amateurs as compared to cut tax-n-spend fascist Ronnie.

I was a young adult during the Carter depression. Unemployment +10%, inflation +12%, interest rates +20%, top income tax rate 75%. The stated economic policy was "keep inflation low by keeping unemployment high". Interest rates were sky high because the money supply was so ridiculously tight.

If you can’t be honest, little boy, you should just go away.

Carter depression: it was a recession, learn the difference.

Unemployment: From Jan 77 to Jan 81 it peaked at 7.8% and averaged, I would asses w/o mathematically figuring it, at low 6%. Not to mention post VN during Ford it peaked at 9% and hung around the high 8’s, so Carter inherited that mess as well, altho not Ford’s fault, it was the post VN BS both Ford and Carter had to deal with.
What is hysterical is that you would bring up unemployment when Reagan’s years were the worst since the Great Depression. He peaked at 10.8% in late 1982, almost 2 years after he was in office, certainly time for his policies to take effect. This blows me away that you would dare to enter the unemployment argument when fascist Ronnie is the worst since the GD.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

Inflation: Yep, it peaked during the Ford years and then at the end of the Carter years, probably a reaction to post VN costs.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8c/US_Historical_Inflation.svg/800px-US_Historical_Inflation.svg.png

interst rate: Actually peaked at 19% for a short time, averaged around 12% if you took all of the Carter years. Also, it peaked at 15% during the Ford years. So when you say the interest was +20%, that’s not true at all, it peaked at 19% for a brief time, averaged around 12% as an estimation, so you are once again exaggerating a bad time.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/Federal_Funds_Rate_%28effective%29.svg/640px-Federal_Funds_Rate_%28effective%29.svg.p ng

top income tax rate 75%: Actually 70%, but it had been that since 1971 and higher before that. Fascist Ronnie cut it down to 50% and then 28% and look at the result: TRIPLED THE DEBT. So what that translates to is less productivity and more debt, as well as a greater disparity in wealth. GHWB increased it to 31% and Clinton to 40%, then the deficit turned to a surplus and the debt virtually halted. Of course Reagan neo-cons think that’s a bad thing.
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

The stated economic policy was "keep inflation low by keeping unemployment high".

Your inference is that Carter stated this, even though you didn’t overtly state this, I find that dishonest. What you’re trying to describe is the term, “stagflation.” This term was coined by Iain Macleod in 1965, he was a Scottish conservative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Macleod

It is believed that the 1970’s stagflation, which was worldwide, was largely caused by OPEC in reaction to Nixon’s wage and price controls. It appears we experienced stagflation recently here too, also caused by high oil prices. So was this phenomenon really Carter’s fault?

Explaining the 1970s stagflation
Following Richard Nixon's imposition of wage and price controls on August 15, 1971, an initial wave of cost-push shocks in commodities was blamed for causing spiraling prices. Perhaps the most notorious factor cited at that time was the failure of the Peruvian anchovy fishery in 1972, a major source of livestock feed. The second major shock was the 1973 oil crisis, when the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) constrained the worldwide supply of oil. Both resulted in actual or relative scarcity of raw materials. The price controls resulted in shortages at the point of purchase, causing, for example, queues of consumers at fueling stations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation

President Reagan had a degree in economics. His supply side economic policies increased the money supply.

I have a degree in Justice, should I become a lawyer w/o going to law school? Your statement is a nice way to say that as a result of his tax cutting policies they had to keep printing more money; finally, a point we can agree upon. He tripled the debt as a result too and his reckless actions also led to GHWB’s recession in 91-92 causing him to increase tax rates to fix the problem.

The result was a drastic reduction in interest rates with a corresponding increase in employment and a drastic drop in inflation.

Interest raters fell from 1970’s levels, inflation fell from 1970’s levels, but unemployment grew much higher, then finally fell to moderate levels. Again, this mess in all of the 1970’s was an after-effect of VN and OPEC in reaction to Nixon. This was a world stagflation event, not just US or Carter. Cutting taxes to the degree that Reagan did was reckless, esp to then cut them at the end of his 2nd term. This led to a tripling of the debt, which, as I see, is a positive thing for you.

Reagan's economic policies gave us the start of the highest economic growth in the history of our country. Perhaps the history of the civilized world.

So now Reagan gets the credit for Clinton’s growth? I’m not surprised to read that from you, esp in light of Reagan's tripling of the debt, Clinton's balancing of the budget; brilliance.

President Clinton's economic policies were closer to Reagan's policies than either of the Bush's.

Once again, trying to spill Clinton’s success backwards to Reagan; what a joke. Which policies? Clinton had diametrically opposed tax policies to Reagan. Clinton was more for labor and the underclass than was Reagan, by a lot. Please make comparisons. And really, out of the entire group, the only war hero was GWHB.

Both Bush the elder and Bush the lesser, particularly Bush the Lesser sold out President Reagan's policies.

No, they followed them to a T. They cut taxes and fvcked labor - how can you not figure this out. Ohhhhhhh, I seeeeeeee, cutting taxes makes the rich want to produce more…..riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, that’s what Hoover said too.

To say that President Reagan was unqualified exposes your ignorance.

Your incorrect unsupported assertions demonstrate plenty of ignorance from you, fix your own house first.


Now let me summarize, I don’t defend a lot of what Carter did and don’t think he was a standout president. I think he was vanilla ice cream, but Reagan was caustic, caustic to working people primarily and very helpful to his rich buddies

[EBSB52]

Originally Posted by custom2006

Continued:

![/i]

I just spent a couple hours answering the previous post, so I'm burned for now, but I will get to your later. As I scan it, I agree in part, but noticed a quote you posted: We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..." [President Bill Clinton, 'USA Today' March 11, 1993: Page 2A]

Altho you did, ..., the posting is dishonest in that it makes a general sense that Clinton wants to fail to preserve rights in a blanket sense. The entire quote is: Clinton: You know, you can't have – be so fixated on a desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles. It's something that I strongly support. You can't be so fixated on that that when you're unable to think about the reality of life that millions of Americans face on streets that are unsafe, under conditions that no other nation – no other nation – has permitted to exist. And at some point, you know, I still hope that the leadership of the National Rifle Association will go back to doing what it did when I was a boy and which made me want to be a lifetime member of it – (laughs) – because they put out valuable information about hunting and marksmanship and safe use of guns. But just to ignore the conditions we face today in a lot of our cities and other places in this country and the enormous threat to public safety is amazing.


http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...e_cant_be.html



You seem as tho you have good moderate things to say, but let's be honest.

[slacker00]

Custom,

We are steadily creeping to the left, albeit slowly. At this rate, we'll be very close to pure Communism in a couple generations. I've been reading Karl Marx, "The Communist Manifesto" a lot lately, just trying to understand WTF Communism is all about. It was written back in the 1850's, back at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Marx basically says that Communism is inevitable as the final system because eventually innovation in technology will stagnate and that will hinder the ability of the wealthy to continue accumulating wealth through speculation. Essentially, the working class will be the only class. It's complicated and more involved than that, but that's basically what he's saying. In any case, as I read and reread it, it's eerie how exact and accurate he was in his predictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Plan...nist_Manifesto

This is the gist of Marx's vision. As you can see, there are only a couple of the 10 "planks" that haven't been implemented yet in the U.S. When the U.S. Constitution was written, we proably had zero, a nation completely void of Communism, purely Capitalistic. It's amazing how we've changed. In fact, it all started with the New Deal & FDR. Probably none of us here know what real Capitalism is all about. We've all been brought up under Socialist rule.

Maybe it's for the best? Anyone who wants an education has access. Nobody really goes hungry. We seem to be doing fine internationally, although maybe that's just momentum from a prior age of economic supremacy. Our social order, domestically, is fairly stable and continues to stabilize as far as equality of opportunity regardless of race, sex, social class, etc. I still get shivers, though, at the prospect of true Communism. It's maybe leftover memories of Cold War political rhetoric that I'll never be able to reconcile. The next generation and generation after that will forget about the Cold War and the anti-Communist rhetoric, probably pushing us the rest of the way towards Communism, 50 years from now. Let's just hope we can handle it better than the Soviets did.

[slacker00]

http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/planks.html
http://hempsavetheworld.wordpress.co...ve-in-the-usa/

Here's a couple more links that go into deeper detail about what I was saying above.

[EBSB52]

Curious, I spent 2 hours compiling data to disprove your theories, I tried to PM you, you have all PM's blocked, are you unable to support your assertions? Please, address ALL of my points, I will enumerate them if you wish...... this is where I get a one-liner again reiterating how Curious thinks I am ignorant, yet with no support to any of his invalid assertions.

[EBSB52]

Originally Posted by slacker00

Custom,

We are steadily creeping to the left, albeit slowly. At this rate, we'll be very close to pure Communism in a couple generations.

Show me a country that has a pure system? Even the USSR had capitalism, it was called the black market. I don’t know of pure systems, but I do appreciate your desire to overdo your point so you exaggerate. Next, how is it that we are one of the most hardcore capitalist nations ever, yet we are going to forego socialism and move right to communism in 2 generations? Again. Try to be logical and can the Reagan-like fear mongering.

I've been reading Karl Marx, "The Communist Manifesto" a lot lately, just trying to understand WTF Communism is all about. It was written back in the 1850's, back at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Marx basically says that Communism is inevitable as the final system because eventually innovation in technology will stagnate and that will hinder the ability of the wealthy to continue accumulating wealth through speculation. Essentially, the working class will be the only class. It's complicated and more involved than that, but that's basically what he's saying. In any case, as I read and reread it, it's eerie how exact and accurate he was in his predictions.

And yet zero, fvcking zero comparisons to how contemporary America is going that way. Logically you are required to draw comparisons from that writing to today’s America and make your point, rather than just injecting fear - hence vote Republinazi.

I can give examples to the contrary with contemporary America that you say you agree that the working class will be the only class. In the US there is far more wealth than other countries, and there are also many more homeless and impoverished than some other countries. We are dividing into 2 classes, while there are sub-classes in-between. So I see no leveling of the class playing field as you assert. And as far as the ending of technology, look at the innovations with electric cars, nuclear power plants, medical advancements and so, so many other tech inventions/discoveries. Again, you need to cite WTF you are talking about by showing some examples, not just theory. Neo-cons are a funny creature, they fail to show a comprehensive, let alone any examples. Marxism is theory, now make an argument by showing how application bears out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Plan...nist_Manifesto

This is the gist of Marx's vision. As you can see, there are only a couple of the 10 "planks" that haven't been implemented yet in the U.S. When the U.S. Constitution was written, we proably had zero, a nation completely void of Communism, purely Capitalistic.

And yet you don’t have the ability/honesty to post the 10 and make an argument.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

EBSB52 ASKS / STATES: Show real examples of mass abolition of private land ownership. All I see is that corporations get the gov to tear down neighborhoods to erect a stadium at tax-payers expense for corporate profit.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

EBSB52 ASKS / STATES:Our taxes are amongst the lowest of all industrialized nations. Can you actually make a real point?

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

EBSB52 ASKS / STATES: All rights of inheritance, IOW’s, 100% tax on estates and inheritance. We have fairly low estate and inherotance taxes, what is your point? We are no where near, ALL” in regard to taxes.

4./ Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

EBSB52 ASKS / STATES: As in?????? how the fvck does this apply?

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

EBSB52 ASKS / STATES:The FDIC insures, but the banks are not run on state/fed money. How does this apply? The recent bailout is not an example of this, that’s an example of corporatism.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

EBSB52 ASKS / STATES:How does this apply?

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

EBSB52 ASKS / STATES:Right, this is communism; the means of production owned by the state. In capitalism the means are owned by the market, please make an argument that the state owns the means or will have in 40 years as you stated.

8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

EBSB52 ASKS / STATES:We are diverse in that some work, some don’t, I don’t see this militant workforce. I could see this more in Asian countries.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

EBSB52 ASKS / STATES: Most cities are still population centers, rural populations have nit grown to the proportion that this could be evidenced.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.[6]
According to the Communist Manifesto, all these were prior conditions for a transition from capitalism to communism (but Marx and Engels later expressed a desire to modernize this passage[7]).


EBSB52 ASKS / STATES: Free education in public schools? Then we have been communism since the inception of the US, or at least the last 100 years.

It's amazing how we've changed. In fact, it all started with the New Deal & FDR. Probably none of us here know what real Capitalism is all about. We've all been brought up under Socialist rule.

It’s a different world from the Walton’s to now. In the 18th, 19th and early 20th century, we had nuclear families to support 3 or 4 generations in the same houses, the early 20th brought us the disintegration of that, so we had displaced people. If FDR had not passed SS and employment laws like the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act we would have elderly dying in the streets and no 40 hour workweek. We would need dump truck to pick up the dead in the streets after the 3 terms of Republicans that got us into the Great Depression if we didn’t have government intervention. We would have public uprisings like in 3rd world countries.

Maybe it's for the best? Anyone who wants an education has access.

You’re not refereeing to post secondary, just basic K-12.

Nobody really goes hungry.

Really? http://www.gardenharvest.org/hungerUS0704.htm

We seem to be doing fine internationally, although maybe that's just momentum from a prior age of economic supremacy.

In what regard? We’re fvcking hated due to your president. Economic supremacy? We have a high GDP, but we are bankrupt. China is kicking our asses and you say we’re supreme?

Our social order, domestically, is fairly stable and continues to stabilize as far as equality of opportunity regardless of race, sex, social class, etc.

You conveniently forgot class. We are not a fair nation as far as class goes.

I still get shivers, though, at the prospect of true Communism.

And yet you’re not able to make an argument using examples. Here’s one: EXPLAIN HOW WE’RE 15 MINUTES FROM COMMUNISM WHEN WE DON’T EVEN HAVE SOCIALIZED, UNIVERSAL MEDICINE.

It's maybe leftover memories of Cold War political rhetoric that I'll never be able to reconcile.

Yea, fascist Ronnie’s rhetoric brainwashed you for sure.

The next generation and generation after that will forget about the Cold War and the anti-Communist rhetoric, probably pushing us the rest of the way towards Communism, 50 years from now. Let's just hope we can handle it better than the Soviets did.

How were the Soviets so bad? The idiot politicians didn’t like how each other did things after the US and USSR worked wonderfully in WWII to save the world. The Cold War was a political clusterfvck, nothing else. This USSR/Russian rhetoric was BS then and now.

[andywend]

When discussing our country's national debt, socialist democrats like EBSB52 always try to link it to the political party of the president even though its congress that controls our government's spending and NOT the president.

The reason why he continues to make this flawed argument is trying to make the connection that republicans are more likely to increase the deficit than the democrats. When comparing which party controlled CONGRESS and the resulting changes in national debt, its easy to see that the democrats are the party much more likely to increase our national debt:

Ronald ReaganR1981-198532.6%43.9%0.65+11.3%Reagan2 Ronald ReaganR1985-198943.9%53.1%1.04+9.2%Bush GHW George H. W. BushR1989-199353.1%66.2%1.40+13.1%Clinton1 Bill ClintonD1993-199766.2%65.6%1.12-0.6%Clinton2 Bill ClintonD1997-200165.6%57.4%0.42-8.2%Bush GW1 George W. BushR2001-200557.4%64.3%1.15+6.9%Bush GW2 George W. BushR2005-2009 projection64.3%68.2% projection+3.9% projection

The democrats had full control of congress from 1981-1994 and our national debt rose SUBSTANTIALLY during this time. The republicans took over congress in 1994 and the national debt went down.

There is no excuse for the reckless spending that took place starting with the Bush administration. Republicans had full control of the White House and congress and our deficit exploded which is why they were sent packing in 2006. Unfortunately, the GOP proved that they are every bit as inept as the democrats when given full power.

EBSB52, 409 posts in one month? Don't you have anything better to do with your time?

[EBSB52]

Originally Posted by andywend

When discussing our country's national debt, socialist democrats like EBSB52 always try to link it to the political party of the president even though its congress that controls our government's spending and NOT the president.

It’s a shame that Wendy doesn’t know that the president has the final word, it’s called signing the tax / appropriations bill or vetoing it. Congress can override that with a 2/3 vote. If the president signs it, he/she can’t come by later, or the neo-con fans can’t come by later and say, ‘Congress did it, not me.’ That is, unless congress overrode his veto.

For example, Bush didn’t veto 1 thing from the Republican Congress in his first 5 ½ years, then he vetoed the stem cell bill to fund stem cell research. Since the congress took control of the house and partially took control of the senate in 2006, there have been 11 additional vetoes, 4 have been overridden by Dem House, sometimes Dem senate. That’s a 33% override; only exceeded twice in US history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...dential_vetoes

The reason why he continues to make this flawed argument is trying to make the connection that republicans are more likely to increase the deficit than the democrats.

Here is a graph of the debt by US President: http://blog.haniobaid.com/wp-content...08/10/debt.png

Here is that same debt graph, but the GDP figured in: http://blog.haniobaid.com/wp-content...debtpctgdp.png

The GDP infusion means how much money uncle Sam owes Vs how much America produces. Is this a coincidence? How can Andy keep saying all that matters is congress, when the president’s party seems to predicate whether we slam our debt or we start to repair it? We’ve had a variety of congress compositions with each party and the result is the president’s party determines how we do financially.

When comparing which party controlled CONGRESS and the resulting changes in national debt, its easy to see that the democrats are the party much more likely to increase our national debt:

Ronald ReaganR1981-198532.6%43.9%0.65+11.3%Reagan2 Ronald ReaganR1985-198943.9%53.1%1.04+9.2%Bush GHW George H. W. BushR1989-199353.1%66.2%1.40+13.1%Clinton1 Bill ClintonD1993-199766.2%65.6%1.12-0.6%Clinton2 Bill ClintonD1997-200165.6%57.4%0.42-8.2%Bush GW1 George W. BushR2001-200557.4%64.3%1.15+6.9%Bush GW2 George W. BushR2005-2009 projection64.3%68.2% projection+3.9% projection

WTF am I supposed to do with this? Really, is this what you neo-cons call data? This is garbled BS. If you have the ability, you need to sort it out and post it, don’t forget to post the site, even if it’s from a site I originally posted.

The democrats had full control of congress from 1981-1994 and our national debt rose SUBSTANTIALLY during this time.

This is an outright lie. In case you are unaware, congress is composed of 2 sides, the House and the Senate. The Senate was controlled by:

(1981-1983) 97th Congress Majority Party: Republican (53 seats)

(1983-1985) 98th Congress Majority Party: Republican (54 seats)

(1985-1987) 99th Congress Majority Party: Republican (53 seats)

(1987-1989) 100th Congress Majority Party: Democrat (55 seats)

(1989-1991) 101st Congress Majority Party: Democrat (55 seats)

(1991-1993) 102nd Congress Majority Party: Democrat (56 seats)

(1993-1995) 103rd Congress Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)

(1995-1997) 104th Congress Majority Party: Republican (52 seats)

(1997-1999) 105th Congress Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

(1999-2001) 106th Congress Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

(2001-2003) 107th Congress Majority Party Both back and forth

(2003-2005) 108th Congress Majority Party: Republican (51 seats)

(2005-2007) 109th Congress Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

(2007-2009) 110th Congress Majority Party: Democrat (49 seats) actually both, as Lieberman called himself an Independent Democrat, caucused with the Dems, yet was pro-war and pulled for McCain in the presidential election, so call him what you will, he was the ultimate swing vote and didn’t always go with the Dems in votes.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/his...s/partydiv.htm

I placed the Republican presidents in bold, Clinton not, and as you see we had a variety of compositions of the senate during this time, same Fed Reserve Chairman and the results are only constant by way of the president’s party; Republicans raised the deficit, Dem lowered it to a surplus.

Here’s actually a better graph that illustrates which party had control of congress, both house and senate: http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgov...division_2.htm

So as you see, not only is your assertion that, “The democrats had full control of congress from 1981-1994” erroneous, but that as the debt grew and almost leveled off, deficit grew and then turned to a surplus at the end of the 20th century, approximately, that the primary independent variable is the president, not the congress. IOW’s you can’t take the congress composition and draw a scientific conclusion that a given composition was what healed the US fiscal picture, whereas you can with the president’s party. Here are some examples of presidents vetoing budgets:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0071113-6.html

http://www.cbpp.org/11-27-07fa.htm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=15579667

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLI....ap/index.html

http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/pr...nciliation.php

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C1A96F958260

So as you see, the president has the final word, regardless of the composition of congress, other than in the few cases of a congressional override, then you can say the congress is at fault, good or bad, for whatever bill that is written and passed. This current turd has had 4 of 12 overridden, just an amazing rate.

Here’s a better example of how the president establishes the budget. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...federal_budget

The Budget of the United States Government is a federal document that the President submits to the U.S. Congress. The President's budget submission outlines funding recommendations for the next fiscal year, which begins on October 1st. Congressional decisions are governed by rules and legislation regarding the federal budget process. House and Senate Budget committees each develop budget resolutions, which provide spending limits for the House and Senate Appropriations Committees' subcommittees, which then approve individual appropriations bills to allocate funding to various federal programs. After Congress approves an appropriations bill, it is sent to the President, who may sign it into law, or may veto it. A vetoed bill is sent back to Congress, which can pass it into law with a two-thirds majority in each chamber. Congress may also combine all or some appropriations bills into an omnibus reconciliation bill. In addition, the President may request and the Congress may pass supplemental appropriations bills or emergency supplemental appropriations bills.


So this further establishes how the president has the most control over the budget and how congress is strapped to rules. The president is the one responsible for the US budget and ultimately the US fiscal condition.

The republicans took over congress in 1994 and the national debt went down.

Once again, you are patently wrong on 2 points.

1) The debt hasn’t gone down since Eisenhower, some say 1969 as well with war surplus. Before that it was in the 1920’s. You Don’t know sh!t, do you? What you’re trying to say is that the deficit went down. Yes it did, under Clinton’s direction.

2) The Republicans did not take over all over congress for Clinton's terms, it was a combination. Furthermore, Clinton was constantly fighting with them to do the right thing bugetarily, and as I recall even shut down the gov or almost did as a result of them not submitting a workable budget; how do you like the results of the Clinton overall economy?

There is no excuse for the reckless spending that took place starting with the Bush administration. Republicans had full control of the White House and congress and our deficit exploded which is why they were sent packing in 2006.

Yep, same thing that happened under Reagan and GHWB, with a variety of congressional compositions.

Unfortunately, the GOP proved that they are every bit as inept as the democrats when given full power.

You still have yet to tie in fiscal success or failure with a given congressional composition. There just isn’t any repeatable result, unlike presidential relationship to the debt / /deficit.

EBSB52, 409 posts in one month? Don't you have anything better to do with your time?

Nope, disproving neo-cons is my life.

[EBSB52]

Andy, Curious? What, no response? Did I spank ya pretty well? Ah, now comes the one-liner. Why not address the mountain of evidence I posted? No real way to impeach it. Oh well, I'll be patiently awaiting the one-liner.