To The Bush Haters

[brvheart 1,752]

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: KramitDaToad.· View this post· Un-ignore KramitDaToad

Also, feel free to continue your attacks unabated... I'm logged in now.

[KramitDaToad 0]

I'm SO happy that I checked this thread out when I got to work and I wasn't logged in... otherwise I wouldn't have seen your post since youre on ignore.

You always go to such lengths to explain how you saw this post when you "weren't logged in" and to point out "I'm on ignore" and yet you reply to them all.Kinda the same way a fat person is always on a diet but can't stay out of McDonalds

The Origination Clause of the Constitution (Article I, section 7) grants the House the sole prerogative to originate revenue legislation. Yet I have heard Senators say they must wait for an appropriations bill to come over from the House. Must spending bills also originate in the House? How important is the power to originate in the actual process? - 5/3/00You are right that the Constitution is clear about revenue legislation but does not directly address appropriations, or spending, measures. Extending the House's right to originate to the spending category has been a matter of long dispute between the House and the Senate. The Senate has repeatedly asserted its right to originate spending legislation, adopted resolutions to that end, even called for commissions to study the dispute. However, the House has a different perspective. House precedents have defined "revenue measures" to include general appropriations bills, claiming that at the time the Constitution was adopted, "raising revenue" meant "raising money and appropriating the same."So, whenever the Senate does initiate appropriations legislation, the House practice is to return it to the Senate with a blue piece of paper attached citing a constitutional infringement of House prerogatives. The practice of returning such bills and amendments to the Senate without action is known as "blue-slipping."Without House action, Senate-initiated spending legislation cannot make it into law. So in practice, the Senate rarely attempts to initiate such bills anymore, and if it does, the House is diligent about returning them.

It's customary when cut & pasting instead of thinking for yourself to give credit to the authorhttp://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly32.asp

just throw out insults, even when you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Pot meet kettle

[Nimue1995 1]

look, i voted for the guy twice and i still have to admit that he wasnt much of a president. although i think a lot of the economic problems cant be blamed on him completely. after all, clinton only balanced the budget because of the tech bubble. it wasn't anything he did. as far as the war, i keep thinking about how we didnt need to be there. i lost a couple friends and i'm not sure what we gained by it. even if we are winning now. and unlike a lot of my friends, i know that iraq had no connection with osama. most of the hijackers were from sadi arabia. why didnt we attack them? i guess hindsight is 20-20.

And there was only 6 years of prosperity under Bush because of the housing bubble so he can't take credit for that either. I'm going to have a great laugh if Obama succeeds in turning this economy around. And a bigger laugh if he succeeds in implimenting a plan to reduce the deficit once that happens. I'm not saying it will be back to the way Clinton had it when he handed it over to Bush but you all don't think Obama will even try. I at least am going to wait to see what happens before I decide if it's good or bad. By the way, are you better or worse off than you were in 1998? Prosperity is soooo fleeting isn't it?

[hblask 1]

<I'm going to have a great laugh if Obama succeeds in turning this economy around.

I was playing poker the other night, and 72o won at a full table.It's still not the kind of thing I'd bet on.

[Balloon guy 158]

For me as a foreigner Bush was a bad president. But not only for what he did, also HOW he did it.

How he did it? That's a little silly to demand leaders not only do things, but do them a certain way.

The things he did that I felt was bad was taking your economy (far from his fault entirely) and your budget (his fault) and really destroying it. Your national debt is ridiculous and your future generations will have to repay it, somehow.

Actually our debt is controllable, it's less than 3/4 of our GDP. Kind of like a person making $100,000 a year owing $75,000. Doens't mean I like it, but let's ont pretend we are ready to forclose.

He also did a lot of bad things with science IMHO. Banning stem cell research on fetuses was just plain stupid. Making sure your auto industry didn't have to lower emissions was utterly stupid, and we can see some of the results now, few want to buy American cars here (as in Europe).

the real problem here is that only America is allowed to do research on stem cells. If only other countries could do their own R&D then the ban on stem cells research by Bush wouldn't have mattered.

Denying global warming for sooo long was unforgivable. And then when he finally acknowledge it, he did nothing.

That's because the record cold spell made him ignore it. Those pesky tempratures keep going down instead of up and it's hard to worry about global warming while an entire state is declared a national disaster because of ice storms.

But the worst part was how he did it. "Come and get us". Stuff like that. Totally alienating citizens of other nations.

Personally, I don't care about othe nations. But as a fact, we elected a president of the United States, not the president of the Entire World. so as long as he takes care of protecting us, the rest of you can just continue to hope Russia stays in it's borders while you ignore public defense and trust that the US stays in NATO.

Frankly I did not mind you guys going to Afghanistan at all. I did not mind Iraq at the beginning, my opinion about that only changed after I realized you killed more civilians than Saddam. Epic fail on rebuilding Iraq too.

Actually it was the terrorist that killed most of the civilians, and you should really call it what it was. It wasn't RE-building, it ws building. their infrastructure was nearly worthless, let's not pretend they had electricity all over all day throughout Iraq before we went in.

So yeah, if Iraq becomes this center for democracy that the Bush gang is hoping for then I will at least give him some credit for it. But the rest that I've mentioned overshadows this by far.

You really haven't mentioned much other than personal opinions of dislike, hardly worthy of overshadowing a democracy created in the middle of teh Middle east distrupting terrorism and stabilizing the world's oil. I think bush could pretty much fail in most things and if he accomplished that alone, it should deserve a nice attaboy at the very least.

Now I didn't realize what a huge thing it would be at the time, but I'm fairly sure the first four years with Gore would have been better. So much for having an election where the guy with the most votes win!

Gore would have been a disaster, complete and utter. He couldn't even figure out how to lead himself to win an easy election, why anyone would want him driving a car, let alone running a country is beyond me. Let's let him continue to get wealthy off the global warming carbon credit scam he is pushing, he deserves to rip off people dumb enough to buy a carbon credit.

[hblask 1]

Actually our debt is controllable, it's less than 3/4 of our GDP. Kind of like a person making $100,000 a year owing $75,000.

If a person has $75K in debt on $100K income, it is a problem if it all credit card debt spent on hookers and drugs.If the $75K is offset by an appreciating asset, such as a house or business, then it is not a problem.The current wave of federal spending seems to be more like the former than the latter.

[Loismustdie 0]

And there was only 6 years of prosperity under Bush because of the housing bubble so he can't take credit for that either. I'm going to have a great laugh if Obama succeeds in turning this economy around. And a bigger laugh if he succeeds in implimenting a plan to reduce the deficit once that happens. I'm not saying it will be back to the way Clinton had it when he handed it over to Bush but you all don't think Obama will even try. I at least am going to wait to see what happens before I decide if it's good or bad. By the way, are you better or worse off than you were in 1998? Prosperity is soooo fleeting isn't it?

Me, I tend to look at a handful of shit and just call it shit- no reason to think it could be anything else. From a conservative perspective there is nothing better than Obama being what we knew he would be- all the easier to dump his socialist ass in 4 years.

[Sal Paradise 57]

If a person has $75K in debt on $100K income, it is a problem if it all credit card debt spent on hookers and drugs.If the $75K is offset by an appreciating asset, such as a house or business, then it is not a problem.The current wave of federal spending seems to be more like the former than the latter.

whoa whoa whoa... stop trying to turn me into a democrat

[brvheart 1,752]

And there was only 6 years of prosperity under Bush because of the housing bubble so he can't take credit for that either. I'm going to have a great laugh if Obama succeeds in turning this economy around. And a bigger laugh if he succeeds in implimenting a plan to reduce the deficit once that happens. I'm not saying it will be back to the way Clinton had it when he handed it over to Bush but you all don't think Obama will even try. I at least am going to wait to see what happens before I decide if it's good or bad. By the way, are you better or worse off than you were in 1998? Prosperity is soooo fleeting isn't it?

How could the economy NOT turn around? It can't get much worse. That doesn't mean Obama had anything to do with it. Plus, we'll have the media telling us how great everything is for the next 8 years, and people are stupid.

[brvheart 1,752]

By the way, are you better or worse off than you were in 1998? Prosperity is soooo fleeting isn't it?

I don't know anyone that is worse off now than in 1998. Is this your point? What do you mean by worse off? Total net worth? Buying power? Listening to the media?

[theresa113 0]

I don't know anyone that is worse off now than in 1998. Is this your point? What do you mean by worse off? Total net worth? Buying power? Listening to the media?

If you are in your 30s or 40s you most likely will be better off now than 10 years ago. This is not because of any political party being in power. It has to do with the fact that you have more skills, earn more, are not yet sandwiched between college kids and aging parents and that you most likely are smarter with money.However, I do know many people who have recently become worse off. I live in Central Florida and this is the first time that we have been hit the hardest from a recession. Normally when the economy turns down we are the last to be affected and the first to recover. This time... it is very gloomy. It use to be during an economic downswing the low performers or the recently hired were laid off. This time, no one is safe. So many talented and high producing co-workers have been let go because their departments were cut by 25%, 50% and in one case by 75%! When your cuts are that drastic even the creme of crop is lost. I have no facts (nor am I going to go and do the research) but from unscientific observation, my viewpoint is that we keep getting in these messes by having industry that is semi government funded or semi government regulated. During the great depression it was banks and railroads that failed and took forever to recover. Now it is banks and autos. In the past we experienced junk bonds, Enron and MCI World Com. Both parties are heavily handed in funding and regulating these failed industries, the only difference is how. I know this thought is simplistic but it seems when you have any entity half interested in another entity you are doomed for failure. It is like a cheating boyfriend or a part time employee... there just is no real stake in the game until it falls apart.

[brvheart 1,752]

If you are in your 30s or 40s you most likely will be better off now than 10 years ago. This is not because of any political party being in power. It has to do with the fact that you have more skills, earn more, are not yet sandwiched between college kids and aging parents and that you most likely are smarter with money.However, I do know many people who have recently become worse off. I live in Central Florida and this is the first time that we have been hit the hardest from a recession. Normally when the economy turns down we are the last to be affected and the first to recover. This time... it is very gloomy. It use to be during an economic downswing the low performers or the recently hired were laid off. This time, no one is safe. So many talented and high producing co-workers have been let go because their departments were cut by 25%, 50% and in one case by 75%! When your cuts are that drastic even the creme of crop is lost. I have no facts (nor am I going to go and do the research) but from unscientific observation, my viewpoint is that we keep getting in these messes by having industry that is semi government funded or semi government regulated. During the great depression it was banks and railroads that failed and took forever to recover. Now it is banks and autos. In the past we experienced junk bonds, Enron and MCI World Com. Both parties are heavily handed in funding and regulating these failed industries, the only difference is how. I know this thought is simplistic but it seems when you have any entity half interested in another entity you are doomed for failure. It is like a cheating boyfriend or a part time employee... there just is no real stake in the game until it falls apart.

I agree with most of this, I just don't live in Florida and don't have the same experiences as you.

[Sal Paradise 57]

my life was a whole hell of a lot better in 1998. I was in high school, lived with my parents, didn't have a job, drank whenever I wanted to, hung out with girls... man, I'm not opening this thread anymore.

[hblask 1]

I have no facts (nor am I going to go and do the research) but from unscientific observation, my viewpoint is that we keep getting in these messes by having industry that is semi government funded or semi government regulated. During the great depression it was banks and railroads that failed and took forever to recover. Now it is banks and autos. In the past we experienced junk bonds, Enron and MCI World Com. Both parties are heavily handed in funding and regulating these failed industries, the only difference is how. I know this thought is simplistic but it seems when you have any entity half interested in another entity you are doomed for failure. It is like a cheating boyfriend or a part time employee... there just is no real stake in the game until it falls apart.

Your observation has historical data backing it, although I don't know of anywhere that it is collected in one place for those with short attention spans. But yeah, crony capitalism doesn't work, and is probably the leading cause of economic damage in this country. Things in this category include favorable tax laws and regulation, and market-distorting subsidies.Unfortunately, many of the problems from crony capitalism are blamed on free markets, when in reality it is the expansion of government that allows crony capitalism to exist.

[Sal Paradise 57]

Unfortunately, many of the problems from crony capitalism are blamed on free markets, when in reality it is the expansion of government that allows crony capitalism to exist.

you know, I was thinking about this on the way to work the other day, and in my opinion, this has been the biggest failure of the bush administration. the fact that he used ridiculous spending and was basically the most liberal republican in history fiscally speaking, but that he was still a "republican" by name, gives every keynesian liberal spending freak the ammunition to (falsely) say "hey look! tax breaks and the free market didn't work! friedman's stoopid!"I think the fact that he pretended to be fiscally conservative while being the exact opposite (and he certainly isn't the first republican to be guilty of this either) will ultimately be the nail in the coffin of free market economics for many, many years, and to me, that is a disaster.

[Avaron 0]

Your observation has historical data backing it, although I don't know of anywhere that it is collected in one place for those with short attention spans. But yeah, crony capitalism doesn't work, and is probably the leading cause of economic damage in this country. Things in this category include favorable tax laws and regulation, and market-distorting subsidies.Unfortunately, many of the problems from crony capitalism are blamed on free markets, when in reality it is the expansion of government that allows crony capitalism to exist.

please explain this further. does the growth of governmental institutions (creates by the way lots of jobs...) always create crony capitalism?because the only way i could imagine that, is, if the governement favors certain industries (maybe up to the point where it controls them, although this is not necessary) and therefore make them built a cartel to only work together. obviously that is something that should not happen...

[hblask 1]

please explain this further. does the growth of governmental institutions (creates by the way lots of jobs...) always create crony capitalism?

No, there is no reason to a priori assume that the growth of government institutions has a net positive effect on job creation. In some cases it may, but historically it has a net negative effect.

because the only way i could imagine that, is, if the governement favors certain industries (maybe up to the point where it controls them, although this is not necessary) and therefore make them built a cartel to only work together. obviously that is something that should not happen...

I agree it is not something that *should* happen, in that is is unfair and economically damaging. But that is what *does* happen. If you study public choice theory, it is obvious why: dispersed costs, concentrated benefits. In other words, my incentive to stop *any particular program* may amount to a few cents per year, so it is irrational for me to even pay for postage for a letter complaining about it. On the other hand, the recipient of that program stands to gain millions of dollars for merely flying to Washington DC and accidentally leaving a suitcase full of unmarked bills in their legislator's office. Over time, this causes crony capitalism, that horrid system by which we pretend we have free and fair competition exists, but in reality those with political connections get a huge head start. Obama's Anti-Stimulus Act of 2009 is basically the result of this dynamic -- a huge, economy-wrecking bill filled with payoffs to loyal supporters.

[brvheart 1,752]

Obama's Anti-Stimulus Act of 2009 is basically the result of this dynamic -- a huge, economy-wrecking bill filled with payoffs to loyal supporters.

Please stop posting. I'm getting depressed.

[Zeatrix 0]

How he did it? That's a little silly to demand leaders not only do things, but do them a certain way.Personally, I don't care about othe nations. But as a fact, we elected a president of the United States, not the president of the Entire World.Actually it was the terrorist that killed most of the civilians, and you should really call it what it was. It wasn't RE-building, it ws building. their infrastructure was nearly worthless, let's not pretend they had electricity all over all day throughout Iraq before we went in.

First line: Think you misunderstood me (or I expressed myself not so well). I meant the way he communicated the things he did.Second line: Of course, I understand. I wrote this from a foreigners perspective since I thought it might add something to the discussion. I make no claims that he was my president. But some of his actions does indeed affect us (foreigners). For example denying global warming.Third line: Nowadays terrorists kill more. But not at the start of the war. And don't pretend civilians aren't still killed by American troops.Also, the US is not the only country that did stem cell research on embryos. Sweden, Great Britain and Japan are just some of the countries that allow it and has allowed it for some time.

[85suited 0]

Second line: Of course, I understand. I wrote this from a foreigners perspective since I thought it might add something to the discussion. I make no claims that he was my president. But some of his actions does indeed affect us (foreigners). For example denying global warming.

At December's U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"I asked myself, why would such obviously smart guy say such a ridiculous thing? But it turns out he's right.The earth's temperature peaked in 1998. It's been falling ever since; it dropped dramatically in 2007 and got worse in 2008, when temperatures touched 1980 levels.Meanwhile, the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center released conclusive satellite photos showing that Arctic ice is back to 1979 levels. What's more, measurements of Antarctic ice now show that its accumulation is up 5 percent since 1980.In other words, during what was supposed to be massive global warming, the biggest chunks of ice on earth grew larger. Just as an aside, do you remember when the hole in the ozone layer was going to melt Antarctica? But don't worry, we're safe now, that was the nineties.Dr. Kunihiko, Chancellor of Japan's Institute of Science and Technology said this: "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other … every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so." Now why would a learned man say such a crazy thing?

[Loismustdie 0]

At December's U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"I asked myself, why would such obviously smart guy say such a ridiculous thing? But it turns out he's right.The earth's temperature peaked in 1998. It's been falling ever since; it dropped dramatically in 2007 and got worse in 2008, when temperatures touched 1980 levels.Meanwhile, the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center released conclusive satellite photos showing that Arctic ice is back to 1979 levels. What's more, measurements of Antarctic ice now show that its accumulation is up 5 percent since 1980.In other words, during what was supposed to be massive global warming, the biggest chunks of ice on earth grew larger. Just as an aside, do you remember when the hole in the ozone layer was going to melt Antarctica? But don't worry, we're safe now, that was the nineties.Dr. Kunihiko, Chancellor of Japan's Institute of Science and Technology said this: "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other … every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so." Now why would a learned man say such a crazy thing?

What's the point? People will believe what they want to when it comes to Religion.

[Zeatrix 0]

At December's U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"I asked myself, why would such obviously smart guy say such a ridiculous thing? But it turns out he's right.The earth's temperature peaked in 1998. It's been falling ever since; it dropped dramatically in 2007 and got worse in 2008, when temperatures touched 1980 levels.Meanwhile, the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center released conclusive satellite photos showing that Arctic ice is back to 1979 levels. What's more, measurements of Antarctic ice now show that its accumulation is up 5 percent since 1980.In other words, during what was supposed to be massive global warming, the biggest chunks of ice on earth grew larger. Just as an aside, do you remember when the hole in the ozone layer was going to melt Antarctica? But don't worry, we're safe now, that was the nineties.Dr. Kunihiko, Chancellor of Japan's Institute of Science and Technology said this: "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other … every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so." Now why would a learned man say such a crazy thing?

Well, I just don't know what to say about this anymore. The IPCC (the organ set up by UN to research global warming) has been working on collecting scientific data and summarizing it since the nineties. WAAAY before any media hype. The media only caught on to it after Gore released and got a lot of attention for his film. Also, the "conference" you are referring to was organized by people and organizations that gains from no actions against man made global warming being taken. At that conference you got PAID to hold a presentation about why global warming was false. Not so hard to find people then. At a serious scientific conference you don't get paid. Also, I have yet to see a serious published scientific paper that casts significant doubt on global warming. NONE. You know why? Because there is none. And all those quasi facts you ramble about in the last lines must have come out of your ass. The south pole is loosing ice. Still is. And temperatures fell drastically in 2007? http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2008.htm Better check some facts dude.Also, I've heard this stuff about the ozone layer before and I'm perplexed when people bring it up since they obviously have NO clue what they are talking about.Yes, the ozone hole has shrunk drastically over the years. And it's not because we've sat idle by and watched it. Sweden was the first country to ban chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) since they were thought (and later proven) to cause ozone depletion. This was back in 1978. Over the years most other countries have also banned CFCs and other similar substances and THAT caused the ozone layer to go back to normal levels. Get a clue.

[Nimue1995 1]

Well, I just don't know what to say about this anymore. The IPCC (the organ set up by UN to research global warming) has been working on collecting scientific data and summarizing it since the nineties. WAAAY before any media hype. The media only caught on to it after Gore released and got a lot of attention for his film. Also, the "conference" you are referring to was organized by people and organizations that gains from no actions against man made global warming being taken. At that conference you got PAID to hold a presentation about why global warming was false. Not so hard to find people then. At a serious scientific conference you don't get paid. Also, I have yet to see a serious published scientific paper that casts significant doubt on global warming. NONE. You know why? Because there is none. And all those quasi facts you ramble about in the last lines must have come out of your ass. The south pole is loosing ice. Still is. And temperatures fell drastically in 2007? http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2008.htm Better check some facts dude.Also, I've heard this stuff about the ozone layer before and I'm perplexed when people bring it up since they obviously have NO clue what they are talking about.Yes, the ozone hole has shrunk drastically over the years. And it's not because we've sat idle by and watched it. Sweden was the first country to ban chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) since they were thought (and later proven) to cause ozone depletion. This was back in 1978. Over the years most other countries have also banned CFCs and other similar substances and THAT caused the ozone layer to go back to normal levels. Get a clue.

It's pretty useless to debate 85Suited since he's a troll with an agenda and won't believe or will ignore any facts to the contrary of his established prejudices.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Facts can be deceiving.

Facts aren't nearly as deceiving as ideology. People with a right-wing ideology love to ignore and denigrate facts, since facts almost always prove them wrong. As David Byrne observed, "Facts don't come with points of view/Facts don't do what I want them to."

SB, you are once again simply nickpicking since you know I'm right. Of COURSE I was talking about the House... I even mentioned Newt Gingrich by name (which state was he a senator from again?). Of COURSE I was talking about the House... because the Dems controlled the house for 40 years... like I mentioned. Of COURSE I was talking about the House... since I'm sure you know that only the House can introduce spending bills. Of COURSE I misspoke, thanks for ignoring what I was talking about, to nickpick my vocabulary.

No, I know you're wrong. You were not talking about the House, and you didn't mention Gingrich until after that post, in a reply to somebody else. And your cut-and-paste job only shows that you either didn't read what you pasted or didn't understand it. The House introduces spending bills, both the House and Senate vote on them, and the president signs them. That means that for 3/4 of Reagan's term, the Democratic House introduced the bills, but a Republican Senate passed them and a Republican president signed them. Moreover, the House doesn't ever come up with the budget out of thin air. They usually work from a budget the president (in that case, a Republican president) submitted. It took all three groups to drive up the national debt to record levels, and two of the three groups were Republican. Just one of those darn facts you so dislike dealing with.And I don't believe for one minute that you "misspoke." "But Democrats controlled Congress" has been a conservative canard for decades in an attempt to absolve Reagan for blame for the national debt he created. It's been echoed around the right-wing chamber for years, and you echoed it here. I don't doubt that you believed it, but it happens not to be true. Here's a good concise couple of paragraphs from _In the Agora_, originally posted in 2005:

The two major parties in the American political system have gained their followers primarily by selling them on a myth (read: lie). In the case of the Democrats, they've sold their followers on the notion that they are the party of the "common man" or the "little guy", bravely defending the average Joe from those horrible rich people whose only goal is to exploit them so they can add a few more zeros to their net worth. This lie has succeeded despite the fact that there are more rich Democrats in the Congress than rich Republicans and the fact that continually raising taxes is hardly a good way of helping out your average family in Peoria. The Republicans, on the other hand, have sold their followers on an equally absurd lie, namely that they are the party of "smaller government". This lie has succeeded despite the fact that when Republicans are in charge of our government, the government has grown just as fast, and sometimes faster, than when Democrats are in control. This lie goes back at least to Ronald Reagan, who continually used rhetoric about wanting "smaller government" but failed to deliver anything approaching that. In the 8 years he was in office, the Federal budget nearly doubled in size and the Federal debt skyrocketed, from about $40 billion 1981 to $155 billion in 1988, nearly 4 times higher. Republicans tried to blame that on the Democrats, who controlled the House for the first 6 years of his administration. Congress controls the purse strings, the argument goes, and Reagan could only sign the budget they sent him. But the facts don't support this contention for two reasons. First, because the President still holds veto power and enormous influence over what Congress does. Second, and most importantly, because for 7 of the 8 years Reagan was in office, the budget he submitted to Congress was actually larger than the budget Congress sent back to him for his signature. The myth continues today with President Bush, who has something Reagan did not - his party in full control of both houses of Congress. Surely if there has ever been a time when the Republicans could make good on their promise of smaller government, it would be when their party has sole control of the budget process and both the executive and legislative branches. The result? Not even close. In his first 4 years in office, the Federal budget grew by more than half a trillion dollars, and we've gone from a surplus of $128 billion in 2001 to a deficit of $426 billion. That means in 4 years we have taken a $1.2 trillion swing from bad to much worse in terms of the federal budget.

Since you might need this all explained in pictures, here's a chart. I doubt it will help. One reason I only participate in the political boards intermittently is because debate rarely changes anyone's mind (have Lois and Nimue ever changed each other's mind?!). To paraphrase Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his ideology depends on his not understanding it."By the way, you cite the Cold War and everybody cites Iraq as a war and conservatives seem to be under the impression that Reagan and W were wartime presidents. Not so. If we had been at war, the president would have asked Congress for a declaration of war and Congress would have significant leadership over the way the war was conducted. Reagan's national debt, and Bush's, are both considered peacetime debts, because you can't sidestep the act of declaring war and then claim the benefit of being a wartime president. We haven't been at war since August 1945, and look at how much debt Franklin Roosevelt racked up in winning WWII, a far bigger enterprise than either the Cold War or Iraq.

[85suited 0]

It's pretty useless to debate 85Suited since he's a troll with an agenda and won't believe or will ignore any facts to the contrary of his established prejudices.

Nimue...Seriously... GO F yourself....I don't believe in global warming, But as someone said earlier... you cant argue with religion...