Santorum

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You actually did say that. Now with this new flip would mean that Bush is off the hook.The war, tax cuts, spending, etc. were authorized. From now on no President can be blamed.

I did not. Prove me wrong. And yes, Bush is off the hook. The Republicans who controlled Congress for most of Bush's terms and authorized all this big spending are responsible. The fact is that the President doesn't get to spend a single penny unless Congress gives the penny to spend. That's the way it works.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

If Santorum can win, so can Ron Paul and I get $50 if Paul wins a state!

[luckytxn 2,265]

I did not. Prove me wrong. And yes, Bush is off the hook. The Republicans who controlled Congress for most of Bush's terms and authorized all this big spending are responsible. The fact is that the President doesn't get to spend a single penny unless Congress gives the penny to spend. That's the way it works.

Actually I can prove it. Here is one thread and can pull up more. You usually start then explaining about percentage wise of budgets or here where you say that he did because of the recession. You actually think Obama hasn't spent a lot or are saying it in his defense. Obama has had RECORD budget deficits every single year he has been President.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/322310-is-paul-krugman-insane/

Now personally when you come to bash someone we like or make any statement that I think is ridiculous I think of how you said that Obama the Socialist does not spend a lot of money. Any nutjob that says that deserves to see all of their views as moronic.

If Santorum can win, so can Ron Paul and I get $50 if Paul wins a state!

It is an illusion. He will disappear if Ron Paul wins a state.

[웃 910]

Wouldn't have mattered if Ronald "triple the federal debt" Reagan or Bush 1 or Bush 100 was in office right now. The deficits are what they are and were predicted to be so even before Obama took office.

Bush passed off the trillion dollar deficits ($1.2 trillion was the last budget bush passed in 2008). There's nothing that can be done about it. $700 billion just on defense. That is half the GDP of Canada! This doesn't include the $227 billion in interest on the debt (expected to be about $620 billion by 2022).

[luckytxn 2,265]

Wouldn't have mattered if Ronald "triple the federal debt" Reagan or Bush 1 or Bush 100 was in office right now. The deficits are what they are and were predicted to be so even before Obama took office.

Bush passed off the trillion dollar deficits ($1.2 trillion was the last budget bush passed in 2008). There's nothing that can be done about it. $700 billion just on defense. That is half the GDP of Canada! This doesn't include the $227 billion in interest on the debt (expected to be about $620 billion by 2022).

Doesn't matter that Obama the Socialist deficits are record amounts every year. They are what they are. Obama the socialist should be reelected so the records will continue.

[웃 910]

Doesn't matter that Obama the Socialist deficits are record amounts every year. They are what they are. Obama the socialist should be reelected so the records will continue.

If Bush would have followed Clinton's guidelines for what works then he could have went down in history as the only president to actually shrink the debt. Could have nearly eliminated it completely.

Then Obama could have added $12 trillion to the debt and we'd still be in a better position than we are today.

Take a look at the real picture. Unless Obama slashed entitlements, raised taxes, or sawed off the military budget there was nothing he could do to change Bush's legacy of making $1 trillion deficits the norm.

[luckytxn 2,265]

If Bush would have followed Clinton's guidelines for what works then he could have went down in history as the only president to actually shrink the debt. Could have nearly eliminated it completely.

Then Obama could have added $12 trillion to the debt and we'd still be in a better position than we are today.

Take a look at the real picture. Unless Obama slashed entitlements, raised taxes, or sawed off the military budget there was nothing he could do to change Bush's legacy of making $1 trillion deficits the norm.

No friggin kidding. I have never ever said that this was all on Obama. Bush cuts taxes. Bush increased spending and the Federal government to unimaginable levels. The unfunded prescription giveaway was mind boggling. The creation of Homeland security was unbelievably shocking. Not only was it money grubbing boondoggle but the loss of guaranteed rights was numbing to see being allowed by the citizens in this country. And to top it all off Bush started not one but two major wars. Right at the end Bush presided over the collapse of the house of cards called the financial markets. That market and housing was bound to fall. I even remarked how housing was like watching the Dutch Tulip craze unfolding. That market was a partnership of Democrats and Republican in power together. A disaster BTW that we still have to deal with as all we did was place a bandaid over with money and promises.

Now comes Obama the Socialist and his Socialist handlers Pelosi and Reid to run things and we get the huge record breaking deficits that are breath taking but nobody bats an eye. When we are now in such a bad fanancial hole and the forseeable looks for more of the same we get Obamacare. This was the worst possible time to increase Socialism but they have to try and top Bush in that department.

So now I look at the candidates and see more of the same. No matter which major party candidate we get to vote for in November will we see change. The status quo is now guaranteed. Yes I smirk at the Obama lovers and the Romney lovers and Gingrich lovers and the now Santorum lovers so what. You're all sheep.

Edited February 9, 2012 by luckytxn

[웃 910]

No friggin kidding. I have never ever said that this was all on Obama. Bush cuts taxes. Bush increased spending and the Federal government to unimaginable levels. The unfunded prescription giveaway was mind boggling. The creation of Homeland security was unbelievably shocking. Not only was it money grubbing boondoggle but the loss of guaranteed rights was numbing to see being allowed by the citizens in this country. And to top it all off Bush started not one but two major wars. Right at the end Bush presided over the collapse of the house of cards called the financial markets. That market and housing was bound to fall. I even remarked how housing was like watching the Dutch Tulip craze unfolding. That market was a partnership of Democrats and Republican in power together. A disaster BTW that we still have to deal with as all we did was place a bandaid over with money and promises.

Now comes Obama the Socialist and his Socialist handlers Pelosi and Reid to run things and we get the huge record breaking deficits that are breath taking but nobody bats an eye. When we are now in such a bad fanancial hole and the forseeable looks for more of the same we get Obamacare. This was the worst possible time to increase Socialism but they have to try and top Bush in that department.

So now I look at the candidates and see more of the same. No matter which major party candidate we get to vote for in November will we see change. The status quo is now guaranteed. Yes I smirk at the Obama lovers and the Romney lovers and Gingrich lovers and the now Santorum lovers so what. You're all sheep.

Hey, don't call me a sheep. I know we are doomed! $622 billion in INTEREST ON THE DEBT predicted by 2022....Currently at about a quarter trillion.

If they predict $622 billion then it will be more, much more.

For the last 55 years we've been running large deficits every year but a handful of times (4 surpluses under Clinton, then you have to go back to the late 60s to get the other). We've now gotten to the point of $1 trillion deficits being the norm.

The only reason I prefer Obama and Democrats is because I believe their policies are more favorable to the poor and middle class while the Conservatives want to cut aid to the poor/middle class and at the same time (which is a huge slap in the face imo) give welfare to the rich in the form of massive tax cuts. That is not the solution and it is the #1 goal of Republicans. Austerity on the working class and dirt poor does not lift them higher into the economic ranks. It pushes them down and kicks them while they are on the ground.

The Republicans prefer the "alternative fiscal scenario"

Edited February 9, 2012 by ☠

[luckytxn 2,265]

Hey, don't call me a sheep. I know we are doomed! $622 billion in INTEREST ON THE DEBT predicted by 2022....Currently at about a quarter trillion.

If they predict $622 billion then it will be more, much more.

For the last 55 years we've been running large deficits every year but a handful of times (4 surpluses under Clinton, then you have to go back to the late 60s to get the other). We've now gotten to the point of $1 trillion deficits being the norm.

The only reason I prefer Obama and Democrats is because I believe their policies are more favorable to the poor and middle class while the Conservatives want to cut aid to the poor/middle class and at the same time (which is a huge slap in the face imo) give welfare to the rich in the form of massive tax cuts. That is not the solution and it is the #1 goal of Republicans. Austerity on the working class and dirt poor does not lift them higher into the economic ranks. It pushes them down and kicks them while they are on the ground.

The Republicans prefer the "alternative fiscal scenario"

Then you deserve to have record deficits. What you have just explained to me is that you are indeed being a sheep. In fact if they looked up the word in the dictionary your.....

You have bought the party line. No wonder we are doomed.

[웃 910]

The only fiscal conservative I see on that chart that goes back to 1972 is Clinton. Maybe it was luck, maybe it was timing, but let's do whatever he did. He was a true patriot for his fiscal conservatism and getting this country in the right direction.

Yes, I know what is coming (but he helped with the housing bubble). BOO HOO. Bush could have kept the surplus train going and we would have had the money to absorb the losses and put stimulus measure in places without skyrocketing our debt.

Edited February 9, 2012 by ☠

[luckytxn 2,265]

The only fiscal conservative I see on that chart that goes back to 1972 is Clinton. Maybe it was luck, maybe it was timing, but let's do whatever he did. He was a true patriot for his fiscal conservatism and getting this country in the right direction.

Yes, I know what is coming (but he helped with the housing bubble). BOO HOO. Bush could have kept the surplus train going and we would have had the money to absorb the losses and put stimulus measure in places without skyrocketing our debt.

Yes Clinton did and great job. Lets see how he did it OK?

He did try to Socialize medicine and failed. (Surprisingly) At that time we could have done the Socialism easier and with minimal pain. Luckily before he came to office the wall came down and the cold war was over. I was shocked at the events because I was in the service and expected a major war with the Soviets. We had around 34 divisions in the Army. Right before Clinton came was Bush Sr.and who with Powell and the joint chiefs it was decided to have a 'peace dividend' and started to reduce the Army. It was determined that with our treaties and alliances that we could reduce safely to 18 divisions. Fine and dandy. Well this reduction always hurts the economy at first and Bush got creamed at the polls by Clinton. The reduction was almost complete to 18 divisions and the base closings. (Most of the bases were in the north and Northwest) After time the economy recovered from the reduction so Clinton was able to start balancing the budget. He needed more reductions so he ordered reduction down to 10 divisions. The joint chiefs were in an uproar but the commander in chief was in charge. Another slight hiccup in the economy but again recovery was coming as peace filled the air and more business global opportunities.

And Voila we have a balanced budget.

Then came Bush Jr. and Obama. They are the standard bearers of their respective parties. Indistinguishable from each other. The only seeming difference is class warfare but make no bones about it they are the same.

You want more Socialism we need less war and military. We want more war and military then we need less Socialism. Can't have both and no taxes to pay for it. The rich taxing to death is not going to cut it. I seen the figures and taxing the rich will nary put a dent in the deficit. Since almost half of the country pay no taxes then that leaves us middle class stiffs footing the bill to have a balanced budget. But get this both parties promise us middle class to not raise our taxes but promise us everything under the sun.

Enjoy the history lesson? Now can you see why being a sheep of either major party is being a sheep?

Edited February 9, 2012 by luckytxn

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Wouldn't have mattered if Ronald "triple the federal debt" Reagan or Bush 1 or Bush 100 was in office right now. The deficits are what they are and were predicted to be so even before Obama took office.

Bush passed off the trillion dollar deficits ($1.2 trillion was the last budget bush passed in 2008). There's nothing that can be done about it. $700 billion just on defense. That is half the GDP of Canada! This doesn't include the $227 billion in interest on the debt (expected to be about $620 billion by 2022).

Walmart has half the GDP of Canada. So what?

The Dems have not even passed a budget for more than 1000 days and in a few days we will run out of the lastest temporary sending measure they demanded. (and everyone in the upper forum willbe asking if USCIS will be closed if the governemnt shuts down...again) The last one required the continuation of the funding cuts for Social Security. How can you even talk about predicitng deficits when there has been NO BUDGET for 3 years?

Why DOES Obama insist on cutting funding to Social Security?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Actually I can prove it. Here is one thread and can pull up more. You usually start then explaining about percentage wise of budgets or here where you say that he did because of the recession. You actually think Obama hasn't spent a lot or are saying it in his defense. Obama has had RECORD budget deficits every single year he has been President.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/322310-is-paul-krugman-insane/

Now personally when you come to bash someone we like or make any statement that I think is ridiculous I think of how you said that Obama the Socialist does not spend a lot of money. Any nutjob that says that deserves to see all of their views as moronic.

Slow down there buddy. I think what I said was that public spending in response to the recession was grossly inadequate. Too little to make big enough an impact. That remains true. It was also a relative statement. Sure, it's a lot of money but seeing the task at hand, it wasn't enough. It's like taking out $1,000.00 to get a $3,000.00 on your roof done that a storm just severely damaged. With that approach, you'll be sitting there with a bad roof for some time doing further damage to your house which will cost you more to repair down the road than what it would cost to get it done complete and right the first time around. All that aside, it is still Congress that actually spent that money. Good Lord, look it up. The President can spend only what Congress authorizes and/or appropriates. That's the way it is. Not sure why you want to argue with simple, basic facts of how the US government works.

luckytxn: You still believe that Obama the Socialist has not spent a lot of money?

Mr. Big Dog: What has been spent to address the greatest recession since the Great Depression? A fraction of the hole that was left in the economy from the financial meltdown. Nothing compared to what was spent on the nations infrastructure by our grandparents and - for those old enough - parents. A pittance. Something like a mosquito pizz into a gallon jar.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Slow down there buddy. I think what I said was that public spending in response to the recession was grossly inadequate. Too little to make big enough an impact. That remains true. It was also a relative statement. Sure, it's a lot of money but seeing the task at hand, it wasn't enough. It's like taking out $1,000.00 to get a $3,000.00 on your roof done that a storm just severely damaged. With that approach, you'll be sitting there with a bad roof for some time doing further damage to your house which will cost you more to repair down the road than what it would cost to get it done complete and right the first time around. All that aside, it is still Congress that actually spent that money. Good Lord, look it up. The President can spend only what Congress authorizes and/or appropriates. That's the way it is. Not sure why you want to argue with simple, basic facts of how the US government works.

Then when I made the statement that Obama spent a lot of money and you said he did not to me was one of the stupidest posts I ever heard. He has record deficits every single year. To me it has harmed the country and economy. You see it as a good idea.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I did not. Prove me wrong. And yes, Bush is off the hook. The Republicans who controlled Congress for most of Bush's terms and authorized all this big spending are responsible. The fact is that the President doesn't get to spend a single penny unless Congress gives the penny to spend. That's the way it works.

UNLESS...A Democratically controlled Congress does not pass a budget for more than 3 years and simply comtimues funding everything on an "emergency" extension. The House did not even propose a budget for the first two years and now the Senate has refused to pass the budget, but we are still operating.