You have 15 minutes to convince me how to vote

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Bush Sr was that most rare of things. A Republican who actually tried to be honest saying we actually had to pay for our spending; ...

Indeed! He balanced the budget--except for funding the interest payments on the debts run up by his predecessors. Papa Bush

[Ben Kenobi]

DanS:

The difference is an order of magnitude on spending. The worst Republican promises to spend a tenth of what the best Democrat will.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by DanS
Hey, but if you vote in the GOP, you know that they will stumble around without a clue as to why they're in Washington. With lack of direction, they'll merely feed the GOP version of special interests. Better to elect Obama, who you know will drive the economy off the cliff -- saves a step or two.

That was my dad's opinion in 1988. He was convinced that it would have been better (as a republican) for a certain Massachusettian to have won the election, because then Bush could come back in 1992 and beat the **** out of him after he ruined the economy, or at least claim so (as he suspected a recession was due).

Ironic how it turned out pretty much the other way around ...

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
DanS:

The difference is an order of magnitude on spending. The worst Republican promises to spend a tenth of what the best Democrat will.

Bush: 3.1 trillion
Senate Dems: Something in the 2 trillions

Which is spending less again?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'm not exactly sure why Dems slam George Herbert Walker Bush for his recession. He tried to cut the deficit and made a hard decision to raise taxes and deal with a minor recession so that the country would be on the right path financially. I guess he could have just ignored it, but he didn't.

Why slam him for that?

Because that way they can credit Clinton with saving the economy

[Arrian]

DanS:

The difference is an order of magnitude on spending. The worst Republican promises to spend a tenth of what the best Democrat will.

What universe do you inhabit?

The Republicans haven't been the fiscally responsible party in a long time. They're as bad, if not worse, than the Dems. It's really frustrating.

-Arrian

p.s. Bush Sr. >>> Bush Jr.

[dannubis]

Well, Bush Sr did seem to have something called common sense. His son has always been "out there"

[Dinner]

Dan is on his own little magic carpet ride. Republicans have taken the budget from 1.8 trillion to 3.1 trillion in just 8 years in power.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
DanS:

The difference is an order of magnitude on spending. The worst Republican promises to spend a tenth of what the best Democrat will.

Tom DeLay

[DanS]

Originally posted by snoopy369
That was my dad's opinion in 1988. He was convinced that it would have been better (as a republican) for a certain Massachusettian to have won the election, because then Bush could come back in 1992 and beat the **** out of him after he ruined the economy, or at least claim so (as he suspected a recession was due).

Ironic how it turned out pretty much the other way around ...

It is true that the GOP has been on the wrong end of the business cycle lottery. However, the GOP had at least 4 years of good times in the '00s where spending should have eventually converged with income.

I'm convinced that nobody in the GOP establishment in Washington even had that as a goal. What have these jokers done with my party? What ever happened to lower taxes, lower spending, and a budget roughly in balance?

[Dinner]

They've taken it to its logical conclusion. don't you feel like a sucker for believing the lies?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by DanS

I'm convinced that nobody in the GOP establishment in Washington even had that as a goal. What have these jokers done with my party? What ever happened to lower taxes, lower spending, and a budget roughly in balance?

what happened was Gingrich (who was probably more responsible for the budget surpluses and fiscal responsibility than anybody) was seemingly rejected by the voters and the republicans drew the conclusion that his ideas had been discredited.

[Harry Tuttle]

Three things:

1)There was a threat. Republicans will throw **** to the wind if there's a threat to security. We all know this. It happened with Reagan, it happened with Ike. 9/11 happened folks. Fiscal responsibility means nothing when there's an Enemy. It's an on/off switch for Republicans.

2)Republicans believe in lowering taxes. The 2001 tax cuts and the resulting tax laws over the past 6 years are proof.

3)Newt was not discredited. He was brought up on ethics charges and got a wee bit power crazy.

[Dinner]

Tuttle, the vast vast majority of the new spending was nondefense related. It was for things like farm subsidies, medicare drug benefits that were rigged to provide little actual benefit and endless piles of pork for Republican districts.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Tuttle, the vast vast majority of the new spending was nondefense related. It was for things like farm subsidies, medicare drug benefits that were rigged to provide little actual benefit and endless piles of pork for Republican districts.

No doubt about it. The NEW spending bill is a pile of crap. It contains the same meaningless junk that permeated all congressional budgets from the 1930 to 2007. It contains things that rival the Big Dig, the Bridge to Nowhere, public housing projects, etc... The other fact is that recent spending has also revolved around national security, something that's needed.