Reply With Quote
Look up.
A record.
Look up.
Less than it would be under democrats.
That's OK because you have Limbaugh and Insannity making these Republican talking points perfectly clear to voters....they are like PSA's for voting Democrat.....I am not running for office
Not necessarily.
Considering there was a surplus when Bill Clinton left office and a deficit when he came in and under Bush we've now had the largest budget and trade deficits in history, I'd watch my mouth if I were you.
Are you that naive? Check your records again and look at where we were at the beginning of Bush and now.
Even McCain knows republicans raised the deficit. That is one thing he has not forgotten.
How can you credit president Clinton for the rise in economy that was done by business, and several other reasons including the Y2K scare? Dropped after 2000 rolled around, right? Computer technologies exploded with the widespread usage of CMP starting in 1994. Everyone wanted the newest thing, and the technology was leaping at a faster rate than ever before. Internet stocks blossomed.
Besides, there was no surplus. It was an accounting trick. The last time we had a real surplus was under president Nixon. That was the last time the debt actually decreased.
Even republicans realize how much their out of control spending has COST them.
I never said they didn't. How much more will the deficit and debt grow with the promised free health insurance along with all the other programs the lib s promise us?
Even McCain knows republicans raised the deficit. That is one thing he has not forgotten.
Remember too, conservatives did not support republicans very will in 2006 because of too much spending and immigration policies. Liberals reward such idiotic stuff, conservatives penalize it!
Fine, but all I know is that our country was under better fiscal shape by almost astronomical levels under Clinton that it was under Reagan, Bush 1, and now W. Especially under W- I don't understand how you can hammer Democrats for spending after your guy for 8 years has spent and borrowed more than any administration ever.
And as I'm sure you know, we're not talking about the national debt, we're talking about the budget defecit.
Wrong bucko! It was the American people who rejected republicans and their crazy spending. Not to mention all the scandals.
Right. Now keep things in perspective too. Because of inflation, every year will be record spending. You have to look at it in terms or % of GNP, GDP, per capita, etc.
As a percentage, the spending under president Bush really isn't as bad as people like to believe!
I'm sorry, I said conservatives because I didn't think liberals would support republicans either way. Should I have included them too?
Yes it is. In fact, it's far worse than even I thought.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=51342
[comparing] spending by the federal government, adjusted for inflation, during the Clinton years vs. the Bush years. In Clinton's first term, federal expenditures rose 4.7 percent. In his second term, they rose 3.7 percent. In the first term of the Bush administration, however, spending rose 19.2 percent.
ulative growth in federal expenditures, adjusted for inflation, during the Clinton years actually shrunk by 1.1 percent. Yet, in the Bush first term, it rose 15 percent.
During President Bush's first five years in office, the federal government increased by $616 billion," Viguerie writes. "That's a mammoth 33 percent jump in the size of the federal government in just his first five years! To put this in perspective, this increase of $616 billion is more than the entire federal budget in Jimmy Carter's last years in office. And conservatives were complaining about Big Government back then! How can Bush, (Dennis) Hastert, (Bill) Frist and company look us in the eye and tell us they are fiscal conservatives when in five short years they increased the already-bloated government by more than the budget for the entire federal government when Ronald Reagan was assuming office?"
Shut up pretty quick there didn't you Cobra?
"spending under president Bush really isn't as bad as people like to believe!"
.... you're excluding the $2T+ "emergency/supplementaries/off-books" for Iraq, right?
You're doing a heckuva job, dubya
hmm. i guess the value of the dollar has no effect on that at all. impossible.
could you please put up the value of the dollar chart to go along with this?"spending under president Bush really isn't as bad as people like to believe!"
.... you're excluding the $2T+ "emergency/supplementaries/off-books" for Iraq, right?
You're doing a heckuva job, dubya
You see anything wrong with these people?
G. Gordon Liddy
James Hensley
Charles Keating, Jr.
Rick Davis
Oleg Deripaska
Carol McCain vs. Cindy
Cindy McCain
Joseph 'Joe Bananas' Bonanno
Donald W. Riegle (K5)
Dennis DeConcini (K5)
Alan Cranston (K5)
Bob Riley
Charlie Black
Tom Loeffler
Peter madaigan
Charles Black, Jr.
John Green
Tom Loeffler
Bob Perry
Harold Simmons
T. Boone Pickens
Carl Linder Sr.
Harlan Crow
Jack E. Caveney
Albert Huddleston.
Rick Renz
I won't tell you what all they did, because I think you'll enjoy finding out about who these terrorists, corrupt lobbyists, corrupt politicians, mobsters, criminals, convicted felons, people he screwed over, drug addicts, s and bums are. Is McCain even a "good" guy? If we're going to do 'guilt by association' he's clearly not qualified to be running for anything.
You go look those people up, what they did, how they built their empires, the ties they have, and then you can come back and list Obama's 4 names. List them with pride. And know that when you do, we'll be thinking about these 26 names of people far more questionable and far more sinister.
You think McCain's greatest hits have been played loud enough for America to have heard them? That party hasn't even begun yet. Rest assured that it will.
And I didn't even mention the ministers he sought out the endorsement of along the way.
Filthy rich to get a free ride. How many of them or their children actually serve in the military. They get the most out this country, yet contribute the least.
Giving your life >>>>> paying taxes
I believe I hear a little "class" envy here. Those mean old "rich" people. Taking advantage of
the "poor" people who fight their wars.
There you go couldn't have said it better myselfI believe I hear a little "class" envy here. Those mean old "rich" people. Taking advantage of
the "poor" people who fight their wars.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
