• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Romney Will Explode the Debt By Trillions

Beerina said:
You'd be wrong in that theory, then. I'm sure there are some racist jackasses opposed to Obama no matter what, but these Tea Party people in general got their start because the Republicans started climbing in bed with the Democrats to skyrocket the debt under Bush.
Click to expand...

Thats some interesting revisionist history there. Republicans controlled both houses of congress until 2006 so why would they have to "climb into bed" with anyone? Republicans did that all on their own. You want to blame Bush's policies (massive spending, massive tax cuts, and the largest expansion of the federal government in history) and the republican congresses' support of those policies on being tricked by the democrats but that dog just wont hunt.
 
Unabogie said:
It's my contention that Republicans were faking concern over the debt to mask their unreasonable hatred of Obama. I'm trying to demonstrate that fact. You're helping me. Put up a fight, at least?
Click to expand...
Unreasonable? No. Lefty-libs are just hated due to their ideas and actions.
 
Beerina said:
You'd be wrong in that theory, then. I'm sure there are some racist jackasses opposed to Obama no matter what, but these Tea Party people in general got their start because the Republicans started climbing in bed with the Democrats to skyrocket the debt under Bush.


They are a reaction not to the Democrats, of whom it's given they have a desire for the ever-leftward ratcheting of government bloat, but to the wing of the Republicans that's happy with massive spending increases. They're trying to drag the party back to fiscal responsibility, understood as borrowing "only" $200 billion a year.


I think a lot of the left doesn't realize that.
Click to expand...

Baloney. The Tea Party didn't exist during the eight years that GWB was racking up debt. It wasn't until after the election of Obama that they suddenly became outraged.


eeyore1954 said:
Do you think the Tea Party conservatives are happy about Romney as the Republican nominee?
Click to expand...

I think the Tea Partiers won't complain a lick as long as it's a GOPer who's doing the spending, just as they didn't complain for the eight years that Dubya was spending.

Steve S
 
Beerina said:
You'd be wrong in that theory, then. I'm sure there are some racist jackasses opposed to Obama no matter what, but these Tea Party people in general got their start because the Republicans started climbing in bed with the Democrats to skyrocket the debt under Bush.

[...]

Well, the Republicans won't continue it...if the Tea Party gets its way.
Click to expand...

:boggled:

Biscuit said:
Thats some interesting revisionist history there. Republicans controlled both houses of congress until 2006 so why would they have to "climb into bed" with anyone? Republicans did that all on their own. You want to blame Bush's policies (massive spending, massive tax cuts, and the largest expansion of the federal government in history) and the republican congresses' support of those policies on being tricked by the democrats but that dog just wont hunt.
Click to expand...

Yeah, what he said. There was nothing whatsoever bi-partisan or appeasing about W's presidency. He may have acted like the spendthrift caricature of a Democrat the Right has in its mind, but he certainly didn't cooperate with them.

The only attempted cooperation I can think of right away was W's attempt at immigration reform, one of the few things I respected him for, and of course he was vilified by his own party for trying it...

The Tea Party has a large number of motivations. I know two County Coordinators here in California -- and they agree on almost nothing. One of of those motivations is concern about fiscal responsibility, and this is one of the concerns I share. But in my view, the Tea Party has been hijacked, just like the Libertarian Party has, by unrealistic viewpoints that I will charitably call "obstructionist."

Once in a while you'll find a Tea Partier who bangs the table about the deficit, but then freely admits that slashing the military is part of the solution. This kind of Tea Partier deserves attention. She's also lost in the noise created by the rabble, those that are mere Reaganites with a poor grasp of history.

Thus far I see no evidence that the Tea Party is a restoring force for sanity in the Republican Party, no matter how well intentioned.
 
Last edited:
AlBell said:
I'm trying to think of a lefty-lib idea I agree with; no luck.

Y'all may deserve 4 more Obama years; the US doesn't.
Click to expand...

No, I'm serious.

Which ideas and actions do you object to. Just give us the 10,000 foot view to start, please?

I want to get to the root of your objections, because I think you are objecting to a stereotype that mostly doesn't exist, and having some specifics will let me discuss with you how I see the same issues.
 
steve s said:
...

I think the Tea Partiers won't complain a lick as long as it's a GOPer who's doing the spending, just as they didn't complain for the eight years that Dubya was spending.

Steve S
Click to expand...
You imo are wrong. And I don't even have a scooter and only wish I never need one.

At some point stimulus ends. What remains is debt, and I don't like the Greek and Spain examples.
 
AlBell said:
Unreasonable? No. Lefty-libs are just hated due to their ideas and actions.
Click to expand...
Never mind that the actions of the GOP is increased spending and increased deficits.

AlBell said:
I'm trying to think of a lefty-lib idea I agree with; no luck.
Click to expand...
But you don't mind that rightie-repubs increase spending while irresponsibly lowering tax rates boosting deficits. Did you like the lefty-lib idea of balanced budgets under Clinton? Damn, would have been nice if a Republican had ever done that, don't you think.

Y'all may deserve 4 more Obama years; the US doesn't.
Click to expand...
We certainly don't deserve trillions of dollars of debt to pay for tax breaks for the rich and powerful that's for damn sure.
 
AlBell said:
You imo are wrong. And I don't even have a scooter and only wish I never need one.

At some point stimulus ends. What remains is debt, and I don't like the Greek and Spain examples.
Click to expand...
You can't get out of debt if your economy isn't expanding. Two Nobel prize winning economists say that stimulus is what is needed now.
 
BenBurch said:
No, I'm serious.

Which ideas and actions do you object to. Just give us the 10,000 foot view to start, please?

I want to get to the root of your objections, because I think you are objecting to a stereotype that mostly doesn't exist, and having some specifics will let me discuss with you how I see the same issues.
Click to expand...
Keynesianism.
Moral issues.
Ratio of Defense vs transfer payments.
 
RandFan said:
Never mind that the actions of the GOP is increased spending and increased deficits.
Click to expand...
RINOs exist.

But you don't mind that rightie-repubs increase spending while irresponsibly lowering tax rates boosting deficits.
Click to expand...
Not a given even with Mitt, but I share that fear.

Did you like the lefty-lib idea of balanced budgets under Clinton? Damn, would have been nice if a Republican had ever done that, don't you think.
Click to expand...
The republican congress had quite a bit to do with Clinton's performance in deficits.

We certainly don't deserve trillions of dollars of debt to pay for tax breaks for the rich and powerful that's for damn sure.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Damn shame taxing them at 100% makes such a minor difference to debt.
 
AlBell said:
Unreasonable? No. Lefty-libs are just hated due to their ideas and actions.
Click to expand...

What actions of President Obama's have generated this hatred? Was it is ending our two wars? Expansion of gun owner rights? Killing Bin Laden?

Please explain how this hatred is anything but irrational.
 
I've become fond of pointing this out, so I will do so again: over the 65 years spanning 1947-2011, the U.S. government spent more than it earned in 53 of those years. Just 12 out of 65 years did the U.S. government take in more in receipts than it spent on outlays (with 4 of those 12 surplus year occurring from 1997-2000). For 28 consecutive years, from 1970 through 1996, the U.S. government ran a deficit.

Thus the unpleasant reality that few, it seems, wish to acknowledge: the U.S. is addicted to deficit spending. The party in charge of Congress and/or the White House appears to matter little.
 
Corsair 115 said:
I've become fond of pointing this out, so I will do so again: over the 65 years spanning 1947-2011, the U.S. government spent more than it earned in 53 of those years. Just 12 out of 65 years did the U.S. government take in more in receipts than it spent on outlays (with 4 of those 12 surplus year occurring from 1997-2000). For 28 consecutive years, from 1970 through 1996, the U.S. government ran a deficit.

Thus the unpleasant reality that few, it seems, wish to acknowledge: the U.S. is addicted to deficit spending. The party in charge of Congress and/or the White House appears to matter little.
Click to expand...

Except of course that the republicans of late are just so much better at it. It takes a republican to turn a surplus into record setting deficits in the name of fiscal responsibility.
 
Biscuit said:
What actions of President Obama's have generated this hatred? Was it is ending our two wars? Expansion of gun owner rights? Killing Bin Laden?

Please explain how this hatred is anything but irrational.
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, the hatred is entirely, and in order;

1. He's not a Republican.
2. The sheriff is a <BELL SOUND HERE>
3. His daddy was a Muslim.
4. Did we mention that the sheriff is a <BELL SOUND HERE>?
5. He doesn't bark when the coal companies offer a treat like a Republican does.
6. We did mention that the sheriff is a <BELL SOUND HERE>, right?
 
Last edited:
AlBell said:
The republican congress had quite a bit to do with Clinton's performance in deficits.
Click to expand...
Not that you had much credibility to begin with but comments like this just show you have no interest in honest debate. It must be nice living in such a simple world where everything bad is the fault of the other team and everything good is because of your team.

One less Republican sympathizer to pay attention to.
 
AlBell said:
Keynesianism.
Moral issues.
Ratio of Defense vs transfer payments.
Click to expand...

Let's start with #1

The Keynes school is based on the observation that a totally free market is not an efficient market, and that in some industries, the degree of inefficiency is so high as to be detrimental to the health of the economy as a whole. Therefore, some regulation of those sectors is in the best interests of the country.

Now, have you read "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money"? Let me know so I know what level to pitch my questions at.

If you have not read it, it would be most helpful to the discussion if you did.

etext here; http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=100077788
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom