So YOU blame the Bush administration for deficits?---REALLY? How about some FACTS.

[amrchaos]

I have finally come to the conclusion on what we need in the government.


A democrat as President

Republicans in controll of Congress.

Any other combination lead to deficits or economic recession!!--Check the history!!


Look like that is exactly what we are going to have come Fall 2010. We just have to bend the corner folks!! We can do it!!

 

[beowolfe]

The Democrats have controlled spending for years. This was true even when Bush was the President. They could have cut spending any time they wanted to. Obviously they chose not to. This is just fact.

Up until 1992, the democrats controlled congress for 40 years. That is true. We were not running any significant budget deficts until Reagan became POTUS.

Question: If in those 40 years, there were no significant budget deficits, what changed in 1980? Democrats were still in control of congress. The only thing different was Reagan was POTUS. And we've seen nothing bud red ink since. Except for 1999-2000 when Clinton left Dubya a balanced budget. A few days after Dubya's taking office, we were back in the red again. And that is just Fact.

You seem to forget that the Dems were not in control of congress from 1992 until January 2007.

This is my problem with today's GOP and its supporters. They refuse to take responsibility for ANYTHING!!! And for me, unless and until that changes, they don't deserve to be back in power.

 

[amrchaos]

The Democrats have controlled spending for years. This was true even when Bush was the President. They could have cut spending any time they wanted to. Obviously they chose not to. This is just fact.

Up until 1992, the democrats controlled congress for 40 years. That is true. We were not running any significant budget deficts until Reagan became POTUS.

Question: If in those 40 years, there were no significant budget deficits, what changed in 1980? Democrats were still in control of congress. The only thing different was Reagan was POTUS. And we've seen nothing bud red ink since. Except for 1999-2000 when Clinton left Dubya a balanced budget. A few days after Dubya's taking office, we were back in the red again. And that is just Fact.

You seem to forget that the Dems were not in control of congress from 1992 until January 2007.

This is my problem with today's GOP and its supporters. They refuse to take responsibility for ANYTHING!!! And for me, unless and until that changes, they don't deserve to be back in power.

Oh we can give the Republicans some power.

Justt don't let one party controll everything next time. OH yeah--we citizens have to shake things up every now and then or else our crazy leaders will start up a war based on suspicion.

See Korea, Vietnam, the second Iraq war

 

[Truthmatters]

I have finally come to the conclusion on what we need in the government.


A democrat as President

Republicans in controll of Congress.

Any other combination lead to deficits or economic recession!!--Check the history!!


Look like that is exactly what we are going to have come Fall 2010. We just have to bend the corner folks!! We can do it!!

BULLSHIT!

It was the 1993 budget reduction act that was responsible for the deficit reduction under Clinton. THAT IS WHAT THE CBO SAYS!

That was passed without ONE SINGLE R vote, they fought it like Dogs and told the American peopel it would kill the country.

They won a senate majority by riding the hate of this bill as a Bad bill and it worked.

They lied and it turned out to be a Great bill that reduced the budget deficit.

Then the Rs claimed the credit for the reductions even though The CBO said it this bill.

They lie , they lie and then they lie some more and you buy it like an idiot.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

That's a fair & valid criticism. The Republicans and especially George Bush have betrayed true Conservative principles in recent years. You'll get no argument with me on that one. However the Democrats have controlled spending for years and this included a couple of years when Bush was still President. They have actually managed to make things much much worse. That's why i always say that there aren't any real differences between Socialists & Neocons. They both agree on much more than they disagree on. They hate to admit this but it is true. The Republicans do need to get back to true Conservative principles and I think this might be happening. I guess we'll see though. I blame both the Socialists & Neocons for the mess we're in. Hey that's just how i feel anyway.

 

[amrchaos]

I have finally come to the conclusion on what we need in the government.


A democrat as President

Republicans in controll of Congress.

Any other combination lead to deficits or economic recession!!--Check the history!!


Look like that is exactly what we are going to have come Fall 2010. We just have to bend the corner folks!! We can do it!!

BULLSHIT!

It was the 1993 budget reduction act that was responsible for the deficit reduction under Clinton. THAT IS WHAT THE CBO SAYS!

That was passed without ONE SINGLE R vote, they fought it like Dogs and told the American peopel it would kill the country.

They won a senate majority by riding the hate of this bill as a Bad bill and it worked.

They lied and it turned out to be a Great bill that reduced the budget deficit.

Then the Rs claimed the credit for the reductions even though The CBO said it this bill.

They lie , they lie and then they lie some more and you buy it like an idiot.

First--you already stated this
Second, Democrats were in control of Congress with Reagan--we got a deficit

Third, I am not an idiot--you are just a pro-democratic party partisan.

Also, if you think only republicans "lie, lie and then lie some more" then what do you call it when the Democrats speak. Elaborate truth telling?

 

[beowolfe]

The Democrats have controlled spending for years. This was true even when Bush was the President. They could have cut spending any time they wanted to. Obviously they chose not to. This is just fact.

Up until 1992, the democrats controlled congress for 40 years. That is true. We were not running any significant budget deficts until Reagan became POTUS.

Question: If in those 40 years, there were no significant budget deficits, what changed in 1980? Democrats were still in control of congress. The only thing different was Reagan was POTUS. And we've seen nothing bud red ink since. Except for 1999-2000 when Clinton left Dubya a balanced budget. A few days after Dubya's taking office, we were back in the red again. And that is just Fact.

You seem to forget that the Dems were not in control of congress from 1992 until January 2007.

This is my problem with today's GOP and its supporters. They refuse to take responsibility for ANYTHING!!! And for me, unless and until that changes, they don't deserve to be back in power.

Oh we can give the Republicans some power.

Justt don't let one party controll everything next time. OH yeah--we citizens have to shake things up every now and then or else our crazy leaders will start up a war based on suspicion.

See Korea, Vietnam, the second Iraq war

Oh, they have 'some' power now. And IMO, they are using what they have a whole lot more effective than the Democrats. Actually, if you look at that 40 run for the Democrats, the country did pretty well with either a Democrat or a Republican as POTUS. That leads me to think that it's not one party having all the levers of power, but the quality of the members of that party when they have all the levers of power. The GOP and this current group of Democrats have and are proving they are not made of the same stuff as past Democrats and Republicans.

 

[beowolfe]

That's a fair & valid criticism. The Republicans and especially George Bush have betrayed true Conservative principles in recent years. You'll get no argument with me on that one. However the Democrats have controlled spending for years and this included a couple of years when Bush was still President. They have actually managed to make things much much worse. That's why i always say that there aren't any real differences between Socialists & Neocons. They both agree on much more than they disagree on. They hate to admit this but it is true. The Republicans do need to get back to true Conservative principles and I think this might be happening. I guess we'll see though. I blame both the Socialists & Neocons for the mess we're in. Hey that's just how i feel anyway.

See, I knew you were just playing the 'idealogue'. Though we have political differences, I know from MSNBC that you were not a 'wide eyed' idealogue, but that you just get caught up in it sometimes....

 

[Truthmatters]

The facts are that when we have a republican president we get deficits.

When we had an entire dem gov. like in 1992 we got the best fiscal legislation that created a budget deficit reduction like we had not seen under any current gov with a R component.

The CBO said it and you refuse to acdept the facts and instead LONG for a R president? Reagan ran huge deficits. He had a veto pen you know?

 

[Oldandtired]

What about all those years the REPUBLICANS had complete control?

The OP clearly referred to that.

4 straight years of declining deficit.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Still,with a Super Majority the Democrats really have been a miserable failure. They used their overwhelming power in a destructive manner. I mean literally locking Republicans out of meeting rooms? How petty and lame is that? Pelosi & Reid have failed and change is needed. Make 2010 count people.

 

[Oldandtired]

The facts are that when we have a republican president we get deficits.

When we had an entire dem gov. like in 1992 we got the best fiscal legislation that created a budget deficit reduction like we had not seen under any current gov with a R component.

The CBO said it and you refuse to acdept the facts and instead LONG for a R president? Reagan ran huge deficits. He had a veto pen you know?

Veto pen?

TM....do you know anything about government spending budgets?

DO you know the process, the imnportance, the conrtol and the.....ahem,...use of the "veto pen" as it pertains to this?

Gee...I wonder how you would have felt if Bush vetoed a budget and the next day the lights went out as government had no budget to work with....so we simply came to a halt.

 

[Truthmatters]

Still,with a Super Majority the Democrats really have been a miserable failure. They used their overwhelming power in a destructive manner. I mean literally locking Republicans out of meeting rooms? How petty and lame is that? Pelosi & Reid have failed and change is needed. Make 2010 count people.

Have you forgotten what the republicans did to these very same people when they had power?

Why was it OK then and not now even if it were true (which its not true).

The republicans have voted against bills they co sponsered becaused the dems backed them.

 

[Truthmatters]

The facts are that when we have a republican president we get deficits.

When we had an entire dem gov. like in 1992 we got the best fiscal legislation that created a budget deficit reduction like we had not seen under any current gov with a R component.

The CBO said it and you refuse to acdept the facts and instead LONG for a R president? Reagan ran huge deficits. He had a veto pen you know?

Veto pen?

TM....do you know anything about government spending budgets?

DO you know the process, the imnportance, the conrtol and the.....ahem,...use of the "veto pen" as it pertains to this?

Gee...I wonder how you would have felt if Bush vetoed a budget and the next day the lights went out as government had no budget to work with....so we simply came to a halt.

Bush Renews Budget Veto Threat, Gives Lawmakers Time (Update1) - Bloomberg.com

 

[amrchaos]

Still,with a Super Majority the Democrats really have been a miserable failure. They used their overwhelming power in a destructive manner. I mean literally locking Republicans out of meeting rooms? How petty and lame is that? Pelosi & Reid have failed and change is needed. Make 2010 count people.

Jut understand this--they have had the super majority for 1 year and the main thing on their agenda was to pass UHC/Healthcare reform through a "bipartisan" legislation.

The problem with this is that 1) UHC/HR was a really really big bill and 2) in order to make it 'bipartisan', the other side has to be a willing part of the debate.

It is kind of hard to accomplish anything when the other side accuses you of Marxism, humanicide, bureaucratic and arrogant. In fact, I would even dare to say that the Republicans never wanted anything to begin with. No UHC, no reform, no not a damn thing.

 

[Conspiracist]

The facts are that when we have a republican president we get deficits.

When we had an entire dem gov. like in 1992 we got the best fiscal legislation that created a budget deficit reduction like we had not seen under any current gov with a R component.

The CBO said it and you refuse to acdept the facts and instead LONG for a R president? Reagan ran huge deficits. He had a veto pen you know?

Veto pen?

TM....do you know anything about government spending budgets?

DO you know the process, the imnportance, the conrtol and the.....ahem,...use of the "veto pen" as it pertains to this?

Gee...I wonder how you would have felt if Bush vetoed a budget and the next day the lights went out as government had no budget to work with....so we simply came to a halt.

Would be fun to see.

 

[Truthmatters]

COVER STORY: Time to Go! Inside the Worst Congress Ever : Rolling Stone


American government was not designed for one-party rule but for rule by consensus -- so this current batch of Republicans has found a way to work around that product design. They have scuttled both the spirit and the letter of congressional procedure, turning the lawmaking process into a backroom deal, with power concentrated in the hands of a few chiefs behind the scenes. This reduces the legislature to a Belarus-style rubber stamp, where the opposition is just there for show, human pieces of stagecraft -- a fact the Republicans don't even bother to conceal.

"I remember one incident very clearly -- I think it was 2001," says Winslow Wheeler, who served for twenty-two years as a Republican staffer in the Senate. "I was working for [New Mexico Republican] Pete Domenici at the time. We were in a Budget Committee hearing and the Democrats were debating what the final result would be. And my boss gets up and he says, 'Why are you saying this? You're not even going to be in the room when the decisions are made.' Just said it right out in the open."

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Making things much much worse and then blaming Republicans for this just seems so lame to me. The Democrats had a Super Majority for God's sake. They could have done anything they wanted. If all these 'horrible" things George Bush did really bothered them,why did they go ahead and support the same exact policies and make things so much worse? There has been no change in this country. The Democrats really did blow it and it is time for real change. Make your voices heard America.

 

[Maple]

What about all those years the REPUBLICANS had complete control?

I think that the post answered that, when Republicans had control they had spending under control.

 

[Truthmatters]

What about all those years the REPUBLICANS had complete control?

I think that the post answered that, when Republicans had control they had spending under control.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

you are insane