TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Republican Party Leadership
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Republican Party Leadership - Page 4

post #91 of 101
4/18/10 at 10:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
It's funny that you should mention Romney. He was one of the republican candidates with the most votes in the southern GOP meeting last week.
I have never liked Romney.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Misty8723 View Post
And Barack has added more to the deficit than all the the past 43 presidents before him combined.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
Indeed. Why don't these "liberal mecca's" (sic) take a lesson from states like Nevada? Gambling, legalized prostitution, quickie divorces, whatever it takes to keep the economy humming!
Hey, I'm sorry if the truth hurts, the fact is the biggest liberal states with the most give-away programs are broke, bankrupt and they have skyrocketing taxes so high people are fleeing those states. They have taxed their citizens and businesses to the saturation point.

Nevada has a one billion dollar shortfall it is coping with and making the necessary cuts to alleviate.

FTR, prostitution is not not legal in Clark County. But hey, I thought the left was all about a woman's "right to choose."

FTR2, You can get a "quickie divorce in any state in the union.
That label was from the 1950's I think when people came here and had to live here for six weeks before they got their "quickie" divorce. I don't think in the year 2010 we would call that "quick" anymore.
Reply
post #92 of 101
4/18/10 at 10:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I have never liked Romney.
Me neither...I wouldn't vote for him, OR buy a horse from him.


Quote:
And Barack has added more to the deficit than all the the past 43 presidents before him combined.
Money that needed to be spent, all domestically, and almost none of it to kill people. Unless you count the effect it had on the money worshipers when it passed.
Reply
post #93 of 101
4/19/10 at 6:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Money that needed to be spent, all domestically, and almost none of it to kill people. Unless you count the effect it had on the money worshipers when it passed.
Reality check: Spending in Iraq is at or close to the levels under the Bush administration, and spending in Afghanistan has almost doubled under Obama.
Reply
post #94 of 101
4/19/10 at 6:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Reality check: Spending in Iraq is at or close to the levels under the Bush administration, and spending in Afghanistan has almost doubled under Obama.
Reality check: It will continue to be...so what's new about it? Iraq is a failed war, there will be no getting out with success. Even as I post this, the Iraqi "government" (small "g") is doing nothing but keeping the seats warm for their favorite clerics, just waiting for the foreign forces to leave so they turn them over to the leaders the Iraqi people really want.
Reply
post #95 of 101
4/19/10 at 6:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Reality check: It will continue to be...so what's new about it? Iraq is a failed war, there will be no getting out with success. Even as I post this, the Iraqi "government" (small "g") is doing nothing but keeping the seats warm for their favorite clerics, just waiting for the foreign forces to leave so they turn them over to the leaders the Iraqi people really want.
My point, of course, is that the Obama administration is spending as much as or more than the previous administration on killing people, contrary to your statement.
Reply
post #96 of 101
4/19/10 at 6:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
My point, of course, is that the Obama administration is spending as much as or more than the previous administration on killing people, contrary to your statement.
So to clarify, as you seem to be defending the statement made earlier...you're alluding that Obama added war spending to the deficit?

How were we paying for it up till now?
Reply
post #97 of 101
4/19/10 at 7:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
So to clarify, as you seem to be defending the statement made earlier...you're alluding that Obama added war spending to the deficit?

How were we paying for it up till now?
It was "off budget," the same as Social Security borrowing was in the Clinton administration. Both were budgetary tricks to hide the deficit. I'm guessing Obama will stick with the SS trick, but he's put the war spending back "on budget." But the amount being spent is just as high, killing just as many people, if that was your point.

But the current administration has greatly increased other spending, to the point that this year's deficit is expected to be $1,300,000,000,000, or roughly 30% higher than the last Bush year, even when Bush added the $700,000,000,000 TARP bill, much of which will eventually be repaid. And the CBO says there will not be a deficit below $1,000,000,000,000 anytime in the next ten years. Of course, they are notoriously bad about predicting booms, or busts. So anything more than a couple of years out is pretty speculative.
Reply
post #98 of 101
4/19/10 at 7:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
It was "off budget," the same as Social Security borrowing was in the Clinton administration. Both were budgetary tricks to hide the deficit. I'm guessing Obama will stick with the SS trick, but he's put the war spending back "on budget." But the amount being spent is just as high, killing just as many people, if that was your point.

But the current administration has greatly increased other spending, to the point that this year's deficit is expected to be $1,300,000,000,000, or roughly 30% higher than the last Bush year, even when Bush added the $700,000,000,000 TARP bill, much of which will eventually be repaid. And the CBO says there will not be a deficit below $1,000,000,000,000 anytime in the next ten years. Of course, they are notoriously bad about predicting booms, or busts. So anything more than a couple of years out is pretty speculative.
That wasn't my point, actually. The "war" is business as usual, and will be for as long as we want a "democracy" to exist in Iraq. Because once the troops leave, within a mere few months all semblance of western democracy will be gone. It's not something Obama "added".

Some of these arguments remind me so much of the guy that puts $2 worth of gas in his car every day. He knows full well that he'll have to spend the money again tomorrow, but just cannot live without having tomorrow's $2 in his pocket today. But if you run out of gas, it costs you even more money to get going again. The difference is, however, that if you run out of healthcare while you're busy fondling your money, it's not as easy as walking to a gas station to get more.
Reply
post #99 of 101
4/19/10 at 9:57am
I actually agree with you. I'm tired of the budgeting tricks, and I always thought they were a bad idea. Of course, if you restate the budgets over the last 20 years or so without those tricks, some funny things happen. For example, the Clinton "surplus" disappears. Social Security has been bankrupt for years. Funny things like that.
Reply
post #100 of 101
4/20/10 at 7:44am
Thread Starter 
There you guys go again - turning a discussion about GOP leadership into an Obama bashing thread.

So if you want to discuss the budget, what would the REPUBLICAN leaders do about it? And which leaders would that be?

You guys are harder to herd than a bunch of cats!
Reply
post #101 of 101
4/20/10 at 11:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
There you guys go again - turning a discussion about GOP leadership into an Obama bashing thread.

So if you want to discuss the budget, what would the REPUBLICAN leaders do about it? And which leaders would that be?
They would probably do what they've done all along, which is just about nothing.

That is why our democracy is most effective when the party in power changes on a regular basis. The House was virtually moribund in 1994, before the Republicans won a majority. They pretty quickly turned things around, and they deserve almost all the credit for the "Clinton surplus," whatever that might have been.

However, buy 2006, it was time for a change, and it came. I've been disappointed in the Democrats' reluctance to make real changes despite having a super majority in the Senate. If they don't get on the stick, the power will shift again...and again...and again, as it should.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Republican Party Leadership