(07-02-2011 12:02 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(07-02-2011 09:11 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-01-2011 03:11 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(07-01-2011 02:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I suppose the way I worded my post could have been better - looking at it again, it looks like I was attacking Jefferson, but really I was just pointing out that having an opinion of how things should be done, as he did, does not necessarily mean you're going to do it that way. Like with everything else, debt control is easier said than done.

You're absolutely correct. But, that doesn't mean it's not a desirable thing to do.

True. But nobody seemed to care when Reagan was deficit spending. He still has a halo over his head, apparently.

that's a valid criticism. He shared the same fault as every other president of my lifetime, but he still did more than any of them to work against the tide.

Let me see if I can understand your "thinking" here. He runs up the debt but he worked to lower thew debt? How exactly does that work? Besides, I think one can argue that Clinton did more to "work against the tide".

And the current president? What about him?

You know? The guy who has a modicum of control over the CURRENT situation?

What of him?

(07-02-2011 10:42 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-02-2011 09:24 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-02-2011 09:11 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-01-2011 03:11 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(07-01-2011 02:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I suppose the way I worded my post could have been better - looking at it again, it looks like I was attacking Jefferson, but really I was just pointing out that having an opinion of how things should be done, as he did, does not necessarily mean you're going to do it that way. Like with everything else, debt control is easier said than done.

You're absolutely correct. But, that doesn't mean it's not a desirable thing to do.

True. But nobody seemed to care when Reagan was deficit spending. He still has a halo over his head, apparently.

Just so we're clear: Because previous presidents spent like a crack whore with a stolen American Express card, it's okay for current/future presidents to do the same?

I'm just wondering when an appropriate time to reel it in would be.

To paraphrase the Reverend Jackson, "If not now, when?"

No, to you guys on the right, it just becomes and immediate problem when a Democrat is in office.

No, it becomes an immediate problem when the budget deficit/surplus chart launches into a "hockey stick" style turn, similar to those global temperature charts you see floating around.

This isn't to excuse fiscal mismanagement of the 1980s and 1990s. However - and I've must've said this at least a half-dozen times on here - the holes back then were far more manageable and correctable than the crevasse we've seen in the past 3+ years.

(07-02-2011 12:49 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(07-02-2011 10:42 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-02-2011 09:24 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-02-2011 09:11 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-01-2011 03:11 PM)I45owl Wrote:  You're absolutely correct. But, that doesn't mean it's not a desirable thing to do.

True. But nobody seemed to care when Reagan was deficit spending. He still has a halo over his head, apparently.

Just so we're clear: Because previous presidents spent like a crack whore with a stolen American Express card, it's okay for current/future presidents to do the same?

I'm just wondering when an appropriate time to reel it in would be.

To paraphrase the Reverend Jackson, "If not now, when?"

No, to you guys on the right, it just becomes and immediate problem when a Democrat is in office.

No, it becomes an immediate problem when the budget deficit/surplus chart launches into a "hockey stick" style turn, similar to those global temperature charts you see floating around.

This isn't to excuse fiscal mismanagement of the 1980s and 1990s. However - and I've must've said this at least a half-dozen times on here - the holes back then were far more manageable and correctable than the crevasse we've seen in the past 3+ years.

I wish you would just be honest for once. Admit it is all about who is in office. You didn't give a **** about deficits-no matter how "manageable" they were-under the past Republican presidents. This is why the Tea Party nutjobs have no credibility. You don't care about "small" deficits(you said it yourself) as long as it is a Republican running them up.

*sigh*

What about the current president, Robert?

(07-02-2011 01:01 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I wish you would just be honest for once. Admit it is all about who is in office. You didn't give a **** about deficits-no matter how "manageable" they were-under the past Republican presidents. This is why the Tea Party nutjobs have no credibility. You don't care about "small" deficits(you said it yourself) as long as it is a Republican running them up.

I'll cut you some slack and assume that your memory is just foggy. You've seen me post on here through the years. I spent many posts criticizing Bush over Iraq and deficit spending. I've often took the 'liberal line' in such topics in foreign policy and social matters. I've said that I didn't care much if McCain/Palin lost the election because the GOP could use a 4-year "time out" to reevaluate its tenets.

And nowhere did I say I "didn't care" about smaller deficits. It's just that I practice some relativism: A fender-bender sucks, but is not as bad as getting sideswiped. Most importantly, given that I said "3+ years" in my post, simple mathematics in your head should've made you understand that I'm including tail end of Bush's term.

But I'll give you some points in your attempt at deflection, though. I know that chart is tough to witness and digest, and the best option available for you is to resort to the 'You're Just a Partisan Hack' routine (which is thoroughly ironic coming from you).

(07-02-2011 01:17 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(07-02-2011 01:01 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I wish you would just be honest for once. Admit it is all about who is in office. You didn't give a **** about deficits-no matter how "manageable" they were-under the past Republican presidents. This is why the Tea Party nutjobs have no credibility. You don't care about "small" deficits(you said it yourself) as long as it is a Republican running them up.

I'll cut you some slack and assume that your memory is just foggy. You've seen me post on here through the years. I spent many posts criticizing Bush over Iraq and deficit spending. I've often took the 'liberal line' in such topics in foreign policy and social matters. I've said that I didn't care much if McCain/Palin lost the election because the GOP could use a 4-year "time out" to reevaluate its tenets.

And nowhere did I say I "didn't care" about smaller deficits. It's just that I practice some relativism: A fender-bender sucks, but is not as bad as getting sideswiped. Most importantly, given that I said "3+ years" in my post, simple mathematics in your head should've made you understand that I'm including tail end of Bush's term.

But I'll give you some points in your attempt at deflection, though. I know that chart is tough to witness and digest, and the best option available for you is to resort to the 'You're Just a Partisan Hack' routine (which is thoroughly ironic coming from you).

I am so glad to know that you are willing to give me some points for my "deflection". Now if you wouldn't mind, could you please stop lying and admit that you don't care about "smaller" deficits. Your, "well, they were managable debts" back then is a dead givaway that you really didn't care about the "smaller" Republican debts.

Btw, any of you guys heard of the "Two Santa Claus Theory"?

You're right Robert. You got me. I admit it.

- A 4-8 football record is just as bad as 1-11.
- A flu is just as bad as pneumonia.
- Losing $200 gambling is just as bad as losing $1,000.
- A small fire burning one room is just as bad as a fire that burns down a whole house.
- Climbing a large hill takes the same energy as climbing a mountain

Everything is either "perfect" or "really, really bad". There are no degrees of comparison, no relativism.

You're right.

BTW, everything I've said about deficit spending would've been the same, word for word, had McCain been elected. Not that it matters, because this whole thing was just a deflection from the topic at hand (and kudos to you on succeeding, I must confess).

(07-02-2011 02:49 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  BTW, everything I've said about deficit spending would've been the same, word for word, had McCain been elected. Not that it matters, because this whole thing was just a deflection from the topic at hand (and kudos to you on succeeding, I must confess).

Well, considering you don't believe McCain is a Republican, I can see that.

(07-02-2011 02:45 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

You're right Robert. You got me. I admit it.

- A 4-8 football record is just as bad as 1-11.
- A flu is just as bad as pneumonia.
- Losing $200 gambling is just as bad as losing $1,000.
- A small fire burning one room is just as bad as a fire that burns down a whole house.
- Climbing a large hill takes the same energy as climbing a mountain

Everything is either "perfect" or "really, really bad". There are no degrees of comparison, no relativism.

You're right.

What's really bad is running deficits in times of solid economic growth rather than in response to massive downturns in the economy. We're in a hole now not because of anything President Obama did, but because of the flawed Reaganomic policies that ruled for 20 of the prior 28 years.

There are a few traditional responses to economic downturns. The first is to lower interest rates, the second is to lower tax rates, and the third is to borrow and spend. Interest rates were already at or near zero, taxes were already at modern lows, so the only response left was spending. Given the depth of the recession we were facing, we should have had a stimulus of approximately $1.3 Trillion in direct spending. Instead, we got about $750 Billion that contained a huge chunk of non-stimulative tax breaks.

So the short of it is that you GOPers created the problem, have stood in the way of a solution, and live to ***** about anyone trying to fix things. We on the left have managed to keep you from completely destroying the country, but it's getting harder and harder.

(07-02-2011 03:15 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  you GOPers

LOL.

I'm such a hard-core GOP bootlicker that in the past two weeks on this very message board, I have actually typed the words "I agree with Olbermann here," "I liked and still like Clinton" and applauded the NY same-sex marriage outcome.

The rest of your post is actually thought-out and informative, whether or not I agree with its details. Something sorely missing in my last several exchanges in this thread. But not everyone who proposes a governance of fiscal restraint and careful spending is a "Faux News" GOP worshipper, and still not everyone fully agrees with how elected Republicans have 'attempted' it over the years. You're pretty new to the Spin Room it appears, so you haven't seen many of my posts from moons ago. But Robert has, and he's just lurching for a please-change-the-direction-of-the-topic power play.