Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
OK sob, let's make this real simple:
1) the "fiscal conservatives" have yet to show that they're fiscally conservative. Reagan and both Bush's were more than happy to cut funding for social programs, safety programs, and infrastructure programs, and shift all that funding, and then some, to the military. That's not fiscally conservative.
|
Simple, all right. Simply wrong.
It was pretty easy for Clinton to cut the military after Reagan ended the cold war. Especially when Clinton did NOTHING about the threat of terrorism. You're very fond of ignoring the enormous expenses generated by 9/11.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
3) Clinton left office with no deficit and a surplus.
|
Besides being essentially redundant, that's untrue. Have you taken a look at what the national debt did under Clinton? He raided SS just like everyone else.
And if you're giving him credit for all that, why haven't you given him the blame for the stock market crash, which occurred on his watch, and was the REAL reason the deficit returned?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
4) Seeing that we were running a deficit again, and therefore out of money, Bush immediately reacted by cutting taxes. He did not, however, cut spending. Care to explain how that's smart?
|
Yes. Cutting taxes raises government income. You said it yourself, in post #16 of this thread. Right before your incorrect statement that people buying more TVs doesn't increase government income.
But I like the part about cutting spending. You're very fond of saying we should cut military spending. How about cutting money to people who don't work? I've been putting up with that for years but that's okay with people such as you. Can you explain to me the justification for taking money from one citizen to give it to another? How about if we do it with your money, not mine?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
As to your echoing the republican call for smaller government, that's really old and tired, especially since it's a load of total horseshit. They don't want smaller government. They want big government in different areas - namely the military - and they're willing to sacrifice public wellfare programs (meat inspection, highway repair, etc) in order to do it.
|
The problems you mention have been dogging us for a lot longer than four years, and they weren't fixed when Democrats were in power. The Democrats seem to operate on the principle that if you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's vote.
And they're willing to import voters to do it, even if it means letting criminals and terrorists into the country. How economically sound is that?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Reagan and Bush tried this dumbassed economic plan for 12 years and it tanked. Now Bush is trying it again. Republicans seem to like to beat their head against the same wall over and over again, and the hell of it is, people go for it every freakin' time!
|
Yes, they seem to be fooled by those economic booms every time.