I hope I am not too late to the party to tell wordkyle/pyle/bile to not even bother responding to this B post with his neocon bullshiate.
Clinton neglected the nation's business while conducting his own business with interns. He ignored the terrorist threats -- including refusing to take bin Laden when Sudan offered him up -- and his inaction emboldened our enemies.As for those "good times" you had when Clinton was in office -- we're all going to pick up the tab.
The Bush tax cut is working for everyone, even Slick Willie. Any of you liberal weenies notice how the budget deficit is being reduced at greater numbers than even the "experts" were predicting? Now will you admit that tax cuts are good and tax hikes are bad? Elect a socialist and watch it all turn around.
Sir, you uttered the phrase "budget deficit is being reduced" by the Republican administration. Prepare yourself for the onslaught. This could get ugly.
9:15 pull your head out of your deficit. Look at how much your leader is spending and how your greatgrandchildren will pay for it.
What a shame he was for our nation.But I thought you would really like bill, barry. Guess i was right!
Just stating the facts. Can you show me where it is getting bigger?
BSG, It is useless attempting to discuss Clinton or the current huge deficits with wordkyle or 9:15. They listen to different made-up "facts" and redefine deficits and off-budget spending all the time. Fact Check recently debunked the Bush administration's budget claims. Go there for unbiased information.
You tax cut Reaganomics morons! David Stockman, Reagan's "Supply-side, Trickle Down" guru wrote a book saying it was all a bunch of crap invented by a bunch of greedy white men. Nice job reducing that debt. NOT!09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.2309/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.5009/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.3209/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.6209/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.1609/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.0609/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86Reagan was a senile fool and Bu$h is a moron.But DAMN those "tax and spend Democrats" they always do better with our money HEADLINES THAT YOU NEVER READ IN THE REPUBLICAN-OWNED U.S. MEDIA:President Ronald Reagan is the first President to increase the National Debt by more than $100 Billion in one year!President Ronald Reagan is the first President to increase the National Debt by more than $200 Billion in one year!President George H.W. Bush is the first President to increase the National Debt by more than $300 Billion in one year!President George H.W. Bush is the first President to increase the National Debt by more than $400 Billion in one year!President George W. Bush is the first President to increase the National Debt by more than $500 Billion in one year!President George W. Bush has increased the National Debt by more than $500 Billion AGAIN! Almost hits $600 Billion!President George W. Bush has increased the National Debt by more than $500 Billion a THIRD time!President George W. Bush has increased the National Debt by more than $500 Billion a FOURTH time!WordPyle: Are you mainlining Limpbaugh and O'Lielly?
Hey all you weenies, do a google search of "Federal deficit sharply lower" by Martin Crutsinger, AP economics writer. No need to apologize. Just trying to inform the uninformed.
And isn't Bill Clinton in bed with Dubai? I thought we couldn't trust them to manage our ports but we can trust Willie to tell them how to invest their money of which he gets a huge cut. The Republican-ownded US media won't tell you that now will they. Summer is here and the tin foil is heating the peroxide and giving TxSheehan drain bamage again.
Okay, kiddies, here we go:1) One of the complaints Conservatives had with the Republican-controlled Congress and President Bush is their lack of control on spending. Conservative disappointment manifested itself in November 2006. Having said that, the Bush tax cuts are reducing the deficit faster than expectedso 9:15's point is correct.2) The deficits during the Reagan and Bush administrations are in large part due to defense spending. They both dramatically increased funds going to defense. Under Clinton, defense spending decreased, both in real dollars and percentage of GDP.With America being targeted by Islamic terrorists during the Clinton administration (WTC bombing '93, embassy bombings '98, USS Cole '00), perhaps a bit more spent on defense might have been wise. As usual with Clinton (and Liberals in general), someone else had to pick up the tab.3) To Txsharon: That "senile fool" Reagan brought down the Berlin Wall and ended the Cold War. David Stockman had a bit of an ax to grind after being publicly chastised by Reagan. Stockman was, first and foremost, a politician. He's currently facing 30 years in prison for defrauding investors, banks and creditors.Tax revenues -- which "supply side" actually addresses -- went up under Reagan. The deficits were due to excessive spending.That "moron" John F. Kennedy believed in "trickle-down" economics: "The rising tide lifts all boats."4) Do you guys think your argument is more convincing if you call people names?
Bill Clinton was and continues to be a disgrace to this country. He can make all the bags of money in the world but he'll never possess that which is far more important---integrity.Barry, you and all your little lib buddies just don't get it. Lying, cheating, committing aldultery, etc. are not and never will be virtues. Without integrity nothing else matters!
Wow, I haven't heard one word about the BLOOD that is being spilled on Iraqi soil by all you liberals! No "where are the WMD's?" Just talk about DEBT! I can't believe all you LIEberals haven't thrown in your usual garbage about Pres. Bush.I applaud you on your restraint! It must be difficult!
Why is it unimaginable when a professional athlete makes big bags of money, but when Clinton drags home the bags it is ok? If both can pack the house and sell tickets, then both should drag the bags. The posts/comments on this blog wear me out to no end. People will put spin on anything to try and defend their political affiliation. When will people realize that we "supposedly" live in a free country but come election time we only have 2(viable) choices. There is not a single political topic that you cannot find information defending both sides of the issue/controversy. Anyone with basic internet skills can Google up something to defend what they believe is the truth. The truth is both political parties in this county are extremely radical, all you have anymore is right-wing nut jobs vs. left wing nut jobs. Common-sense no longer prevails in our society. As a people we have let politics cloud our ability to reason and compromise. When we vote now we are basically being assigned the task of picking the lesser of two evils.
The day the majority of this country can read and agree on Devil's last post, THEN, get off their collective spoiled, lazy, self-indulgent, TV-addicted asses, and actually act like contributors to the process, THAT is when this country's decline will be reversed. Until then, it's becoming a little embarrassing to be an American watching so many of us act so dumb for so long. Devil, you so hit the proverbial nail etc. on this one. thanks.
You hit that nail right square in the middle, Mr. Devil. Funny, wise words coming straight from hell ;)
Devil, I agree with your general concept regarding a lack of common sense, but there are a couple of points:1) You have more than two choices for most elections. Right now there are, what, sixteen presidential candidates? Even after all the primaries, the ballot will have more than two choices.2) The "lesser of two evils" is a standard complaint, because it appears so true. However, the opposite would be that a person require a candidate to agree with that person's stances in every respect, which is a near impossibility.We have to compromise on our candidates to get most of what we want. A truism is that the best people never run for office because they refuse to be subjected to the ordeal they would have to go through to get elected.So while I agree with your position in principle, I have to ask "So what do you propose as an alternative?" I endorse term limits myself. I don't believe the turnover can do much more harm than the career politicians are doing.
Well stated Devil. The country needs a middle of the road party. One that respects individual and personal choice rights, supports clean air and land without being environmentally wacko, cares about the elderly and sick but expects those that are able to work, understands that immigrants are vital to our economy and provides legal ways for them to enter our country that are not overwhelming, a party that would build more medical schools so the hundreds of talented applicants that are denied entrance could be trained to address our health care needs, A new party that takes the subsidies away from oil companies and drops the federal gas tax. A party that says it doesn't matter where your company headquarters are if you do business in the US then you will pay taxes. A party that understands when a company makes huge record profits while inflating their prices and are basically a monopoly --that is price gouging and they will be prosecuted. Yes we need a new party of Common Sense.
kyle....Thanks for pointing out the # of candidates running, which will ultimately be narrowed down to two! There are only two political parties that really have a chance once it all comes down to it.As for comments on my "lesser of two evils" statements you are correct, that is a common idiom. However, you are projecting your own beliefs on me that I would feel that a candidate would need to agree with my ideals wholly. I never said that. That comment, while probably used for the most part as you suggest, can be individual in nature. Meaning I would not always use that idiom when there is one candidate that I really like(rare ocassions). I would actually be quite disturbed if a candidate agreed with me in whole, being as I am incredibly morally-compromised. (Which in admittance of that fact makes me a hypocrite as well...oh well!)I agree that it is a truism that most genuine people would never run for a national office, but on state and local levels ocassionaly you get a good one.As for what do I propose:1. Increase in viable national parties, no more two-party system.(I know, this is a tough one) 2. Tougher laws on governing special interest.3. Greater protection for our bill of rights...as they were issued by our forefathers...not how they have been recently trampled on. Our county is great based on the bill of rights, it is time to protect it! (No need to jump on me I am not just talking about Bush/repubs)4. New legislation to put limits of powers on the exective branch( this war could have been avoided without compromising national security).5. Caps on Federal governmental growth from one administration to the next.I agree with you on term limits.
In the aftermath of Selection 2000, there was an Onion front-page story showing a triumphant Junior Bush, with the headline "Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity Is Over." How tragically, desperately, sadly true that has become.
Devil, my compliments on your thoughts. Playing devil's advocate -- pardon the expression -- how would you accomplish these? I can say that the world should live in peace and harmony, but if the other guys are predisposed to want to kill us regardless of what we do, then my peaceful dream is not practical.For example, the two-party system -- maybe not the best, but what IS the ideal number? Is it a coalition government? Doesn't that bring us back to "quid pro quo" politics? A benevelont dictatorship might be the best form of government, but it's not practical.Regarding your statement that "this war could have been avoided without compromising national security," it's simplistic to proclaim, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, what SHOULD have been done. In 2003, the situation was much different -- the entire world thought Saddam Hussein possessed WMD and he was also secretive and recalcitrant. Consider the opposite situation -- what if Bush had done nothing (as Clinton did for 8 years) and the US was attacked again, with Iraq helping the terrorists? I would have pushed for his impeachment myself.I would be interested in how you would reconcile "protecting the Bill of Rights" and its principle of free speech, with your "tougher laws on governing special interests." One person's free speech is another's special interest.All in all, I agree in principle with most of what you say.
Again and again wordkyle poses a false premise to arrive at his false conclusion. For example, 1. The entire world thought Saddam had WMDs. This is not true. Many in the intelligence community (and the UN inspectors) doubted his possession of these weapons. The administration cherry picked opinion to support their desire to go to war. 2. Clinton did noting about terrorists. Clinton did bomb a supposed terrorist arms factory in Sudan thought to be a weapons plant. Turned out not so but he tried. Clinton also executed some military strikes into Afghanistan and authorized others. They didn't prevent 9/11 but it wasn't nothing. Also please note that many countries "aid" terrorist and we don't invade them. And again, Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. 3. As for protecting the Bill of Rights and free speech, this administration has consistently violated both the intent and letter of the law. They continue to attempt to stonewall congress and hope to "run out the clock" before actually being held accountable and indicted for their crimes. Wordkyle is a verbose right wing nut (one person's name calling is another's objective identification).
i did not have sex with that woman, ms. lewinsky.
Reganomics/trickle down works, which is WHY during the last 2 years of Bush Sr.'s administration and the first 6 of Clinton's the United States enjoyed the GREATEST period of economic prosperity in the history of the U.S. "W" acquired a waning economy and 9/11 which further damaged the deterierating economy. "W's" re-implementation of "trickle down" is what enabled the U.S. to experience an UNPRESIDENTED economic RECOVERY to PRE-Clinton Era decline.When the people who write paychecks are successful they write MORE paychecks.Hopefully, there will ALWAYS be the VERY rich thus assuring there will ALWAYS be a HEALTHY and ABUNDANT middle class.It is the middle-class that keeps the U.S. economy oiled and running. If EVERY dime was bled from the wealthy it would not make up even 20% of what the middle-class pays in taxes in one year.I MUST support the Republicans with regard to their desire to CREATE wealth as opposed to the Democrats who desire to redistribute wealth. Face it, what TRULY matters to ANY individual is their PERSONAL bottom line. The Democrats would have ONLY their VERY elite WEALTHY and the remainder (you and I) would be LOWER middle-class which is ONE reason the Democrats so desperately encourage/instigate class hatred. However, the Republicans still SUCK for ATTEMPTING to legislate morality.In short, sensible people have ALWAYS known, Republicans and Democrats are chock full of DOUCHE BAGS.
Mzchief, While your last point is unquestionably correct, your claim that the middle class pays most of the taxes is incorrect. Actually the top 10% pay over half of the income taxes. Taxing them even higher would increase government revenues and these very rich wouldn't even miss it. When you're making 200,000 to multi-millions, an additional income tax would be unnoticeable. And when crediting or blaming anything on the Clinton administration, please recall the Republicans controlled congress for 6 of his 8 years. So who should get the credit/blame for that period?
Post a Comment