Republicans against debt...but not really...

[Gipper]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

but the point is, people like Gipper and others seem to want to yell about the debt when its a LIberal Policy, but when the Republicans do it...who cares.

Not true Pocketrocket and you know it.

Many cons myself including criticized W for his spending in his last years in office. But guess what? Libs criticized W for all sorts of things, but one thing they did not criticize was his spending. Remember the Dem congress were the ones who submitted the budget.

Yes the Rs spent too much when they were in power. We agree. So, your solution is to allow the Ds to spend more.

Can we agree that BO and the Dems are spending even more than the Rs or do you not see this? So, you complain about Rs spending, but not Ds. Why?

I reject any new spending proposals until the government budget is cut significantly. And I can agree to cut Defense. Most cons would agree with this, but you Libs will not. So, we can conclude the libs do not really want to solve the problem. They want to make it worse.

 

[Gipper]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

And lets not forget that the only time the Congress has worked to control spending and balance the budget in recent memory, was the Rs under Gringrich. They forced your idol BlowJob Bubba to accept reduced spending.

Do the Rs get any credit for this? Not with you apparently. You are stuck on blaming them for spending under the PROGRESSIVE Bush while commending the spending by BO and Dems. Is this not the height of hypocrisy?

The Ds have never been interested in reducing spending or taxes. In fact, their stated goal is increasing both. Yet, you are stuck on damning the Rs. Do you see how misguided you are?

 

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

With Zero percent chance politically that one of the 2 parties is going to really cut any of the major Spending programs....How do you justify lowering taxes at the same time then?

Because rising deficits and economic stagnation would be the worst scenario possible in my opinion.

If you know no one will cut the spending...it leaves only one way to reduce the debt...and that means someone is going to have to pay ( and some more then others)

Raising taxes (unless accompanied by a boom in growth) is not going to bring in more revenue. Historical, as a percent of GDP, the revenue remains roughly the same. To get more in tax revenue, you need to grow GDP.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Not true Pocketrocket and you know it.

Many cons myself including criticized W for his spending in his last years in office. But guess what? Libs criticized W for all sorts of things, but one thing they did not criticize was his spending. Remember the Dem congress were the ones who submitted the budget.

Yes the Rs spent too much when they were in power. We agree. So, your solution is to allow the Ds to spend more.

Can we agree that BO and the Dems are spending even more than the Rs or do you not see this? So, you complain about Rs spending, but not Ds. Why?

I reject any new spending proposals until the government budget is cut significantly. And I can agree to cut Defense. Most cons would agree with this, but you Libs will not. So, we can conclude the libs do not really want to solve the problem. They want to make it worse.

I stopped reading your post when you already had to resort to name calling again..you ever plan to grow up and learn how to debate? if so let us know when

 

[Gipper]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

I stopped reading your post when you already had to resort to name calling again..you ever plan to grow up and learn how to debate? if so let us know when

Come on pocketpool...ops sorry to make you cry...again...inappropriate name calling involves profanity and personal threats. I have never done this to you nor will I. Though, you have done it to me.

 

[PLC1]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Not true Pocketrocket and you know it.

Many cons myself including criticized W for his spending in his last years in office. But guess what? Libs criticized W for all sorts of things, but one thing they did not criticize was his spending. Remember the Dem congress were the ones who submitted the budget.

You seem to think I'm a "lib", which is true if your definition of "lib" remains "anyone who disagrees with my rather narrow point of view."

So, me being a lib and all, try going back to see where I criticized GWB. Perhaps you could find some phrases like "spending us into the poorhouse" and similar things.

Your black and white, lib vs con, left vs right political philosophy is simplistic not applicable to the real world.

 

[Gipper]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

You seem to think I'm a "lib", which is true if your definition of "lib" remains "anyone who disagrees with my rather narrow point of view."

So, me being a lib and all, try going back to see where I criticized GWB. Perhaps you could find some phrases like "spending us into the poorhouse" and similar things.

Your black and white, lib vs con, left vs right political philosophy is simplistic not applicable to the real world.

Okay so we can conclude from your theory, you are the one who is simplistic.

And here is how...
I have been outspoken in my criticism of W for a long time as have you, but I am also a critic of your Messiah and you are not. So you see, I am the one who is much clearer thinking and unbiased. While you are mostly murky, stubborn, slow witted, and very liberally biased.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Come on pocketpool...ops sorry to make you cry...again...inappropriate name calling involves profanity and personal threats. I have never done this to you nor will I. Though, you have done it to me.

let me know when you grow up and are ready to debate...its pointless to debate little children

 

[Gipper]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

let me know when you grow up and are ready to debate...its pointless to debate little children

There you go again...pocketrocket.

 

[Rick]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Are you going to maintain that Reagan wouldn't be called a RINO?

The vanquisher of the soviet union - a RINO??? (snicker )

OK, Rick, time to step up to the plate and convince us that his trickle down economics worked.

17 year runup in the stock market. End of the Carter double digit inflation/interest rates and recession. For crissake, go read some history.

 

[Apathy]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

The spender of deficits - a RINO??? (snicker )

Im not sure about a "RINO" that a pretty subjective term but by definition he was not a fiscal conservative.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

The vanquisher of the soviet union - a RINO??? (snicker )



17 year runup in the stock market. End of the Carter double digit inflation/interest rates and recession. For crissake, go read some history.

news flash, he did not Vanquish the Soviet Union...it happen to fall when he was in office...he did not cause it.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Im not sure about a "RINO" that a pretty subjective term but by definition he was not a fiscal conservative.

Based on the idea of who is a Rino.. makes you wounder how the Republican party stands, as almost evry one is a RINO..

 

[PLC1]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Okay so we can conclude from your theory, you are the one who is simplistic.

And here is how...
I have been outspoken in my criticism of W for a long time as have you, but I am also a critic of your Messiah and you are not. So you see, I am the one who is much clearer thinking and unbiased. While you are mostly murky, stubborn, slow witted, and very liberally biased.

Nope. Not going to let you slide on that one. You said:

Many cons myself including criticized W for his spending in his last years in office. But guess what? Libs criticized W for all sorts of things, but one thing they did not criticize was his spending. Remember the Dem congress were the ones who submitted the budget.

Since I'm a "lib", and since I criticized his spending over and over, you're simply wrong.

That is wrong, totally wrong, incorrect, mistaken, and not right.

While you're trying to show that you're right, tell us about the Rep Congress and it's budget during the Bush years.

Go ahead. The ball is in your court, it has passed the net, bounced, is headed for your racket....

I'm expecting a whoosh while the ball flies past your head. Prove me wrong if you can.

 

[Gipper]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Nope. Not going to let you slide on that one. You said:



Since I'm a "lib", and since I criticized his spending over and over, you're simply wrong.

That is wrong, totally wrong, incorrect, mistaken, and not right.

While you're trying to show that you're right, tell us about the Rep Congress and it's budget during the Bush years.

Go ahead. The ball is in your court, it has passed the net, bounced, is headed for your racket....

I'm expecting a whoosh while the ball flies past your head. Prove me wrong if you can.

Okay I will accept that you pooped on W for his spending. Good for you.

But that begs the question, why have you not done the same to BO? And, why have you 100% of the time sided with the Left on every issue debated on this forum?