 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
Not really...he was doing what the Reps wanted him to do...we are taking back our party...people who makes this country great are getting off the sideline and taking it back from the do nothing POSs that are have been running it....Obama is just the latest personification of that worthlessness.Originally Posted by zeus3925
Need to wean some worthless people regards.
Pat, you really know any Libs? I would think they would be pretty few and far between in Oklahoma. Maybe there's an invasion on. Check under your bunk tonight.
Sarge
I don't want to feed an ugly dog!
Yeah...we imported a few from NYC a few years ago...not many of them left though...we went through them pretty fast.
Sorry, but I think you owe Mr. Johndrow an apology for that remark. How dare you make sweeping generalizations about the fine citizens of OK.
Sorry, but I think you owe Mr. Johndrow an apology for that remark. How dare you make sweeping generalizations about the fine citizens of OK.
No..no...Julie...OKlahoma is full of people that work hard, take care of themselves and pay their mortgages...we dont have many liberals here...they just arent hardy folk.
Thanks, Pat.
Sarge
I don't want to feed an ugly dog!
Julie, I love that picture. It makes me laugh everytime I see it.
Then I do believe that you are a "Racist" also Marx.
From Yardley,
You are welcome to believe anything that makes you feel better about me, my income, and my charitable contributions. You are very quick to make assumptions about things of which you know nothing. Check the facts. The overwhelming bulk of all budget deficits incurred by the Federal government since 1964 have been incurred under Republican administrations. The worst "culprits" have been Reagan and Bush II. Those "facts" come from the Heritage Foundation as well as the government.
When you champion your vast knowledge of "the facts", why do you not point out...PRESIDENTS CAN'T SPEND ANYTHING. Only congess does that, and I think you'll find in most cases, the congress was contolled by your party during these periods you are so proud of.
And before you start showing us how well Slick Willy did, not only did he inherit a 'going jenny', but he had a conservative led congress during most of his smarmy and deceptive years in that office.
UB
When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.
The Republicans controlled the Senate during the Reagan Presidency and the House presented little opposition in the face of Reagan's popularity. In fact, Congress actually appropriated slightly less money that Reagan requested in his budgets.
"The traditional pattern of running large deficits only in times of war or economic downturns was broken during much of the 1980s. In 1982 [Reagan's first budget year], partly in response to a recession, large tax cuts were enacted. However, these were accompanied by substantial increases in defense spending. Although reductions were made to nondefense spending, they were not sufficient to offset the impact on the deficit. As a result, deficits averaging $206 billion were incurred between 1983 and 1992. These unprecedented peacetime deficits increased debt held by the public from $789 billion in 1981 to $3.0 trillion (48.1% of GDP) in 1992." [emphasis added]
From "Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2006." Downloaded from www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf. Page 5.
Bush did two basic things to increase the deficit by almost $5 trillion: He implemented massive tax cuts and he launched the war in Iraq while saying it was our patriotic duty to keep living as if there were no war. Both of those actions were taken while congress was under Republican control.
The numbers are pretty clear and speak for themselves in a way that no amount of Teflon can cover:
Republicans and Democrats alike operated in basically a fiscally conservative manner, paying down our national debt from the end of WWII until Reagan finally found his "feet". At that point, new Republican economic theories decided that deficits were OK if they were incurred to support tax cuts or expand defense spending. That "enlightenment" was the cause of deficit growth under both Reagan and Bush II. Bush Senior tried to put the brakes on and was crucified by his own party. Clinton proposed fiscally conservative policies throughout his administration -- a fact that cost him support from the more liberal ends of the party. He was bolstered by a Republican controlled House beginning in 1995. However, the deficit reduction plan which included but tax increases and spending cuts was actually adopted in 1993. However, the division of party control from 1995 was, I believe, a big factor helping to prevent either side from implementing grand schemes -- either in the form of massive tax cuts or massive spending programs -- that would increase the deficit. This was beneficial to the economy and economic growth combined with political deadlock are, I suspect, the reason the national debt was reduced so much.
I believe that both parties have the will to bankrupt our country given total control of the process. As a result, I almost always favor split control and complete ideological frustration of both the right and left.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote