Republican attempt to effect an election

[KCFlyer]

Howdy howdy......

what does the term
"tax and spend liberal" get when they control the houses?

duh....huge federal deficit???

WRONG...see...liberals understand that it's important to HAVE something to spend. The republicans are "just spend" republicans...'

Funny thing about the right...they don't seem to believe in social spending. Don't let the irresponsible youths who become pregnant have the option of an abortion...let them become irresponsible parents instead...THEN cut the funding to support the child because it's a "social program". Keep them babies safe...just as long as they're in mama's belly.

 

[Garfield1966]

The republicans have had control of both senate and house since 1994. They have had control of the presidency since 2000. During that time the federal deficit has increased by 3 trillion dollars.

Democrats are portrayed as fiscally irresponsible. Republicans party them selves as fiscally responsible yet in the last 6 years the deficit has increased by ... let me say it again ... 3 trillion dollars.

Republicans are no more responsible for our money than democrats are. Republicans do not want 'smaller' government' like they always say in their talking points. They just want different government. Where Dems will put money into social programs, republicans will put it into military and the like.

Dell, do you have anything to support your thesis? Do you have any explanation as to why, in the last 12 years of republican leadership (I use that term in the loosest sense) of congress we have seen an increase of over 3 trillion dollars to the US deficit?

 

[Ch. 12]

Republicans are fiscally responsible when it comes to bolstering the finances of the ultra-wealthy and expanding the wage disparity...all the while giving tax breaks to the richest. Yes...they are fiscally responsible when it comse to letting the rich get richer. When it comes to public funds...nowhere near responsible. Reagan and Bush (the one called "satan" by some rulers) ran up record deficits. Bush continues to add to it while looking for more ways to allow executives to get more money. Meanwhile, Clinton was the biggest success story in the past 100 years as far as balancing a budget and...actually garnering a surplus. I do believe Clinton was a Republican. Oh wait...you say he wasn't? Hmmmm.... I'd say that it sounds like another GOP tactic...beat a talking point to death hoping to fool the public into thinking it's true ("Reps are thrifty, Dems are fiscal nightmares") but when it comes down to it, it's an utter lie. It is disturbing to me that a group that touts morals as their foundation is so morally corrupt that their main strategy is to deceive the American public. Look at the facts and it's easy to see who can handle a budget. Just b/c somebody says it's true doesn't make it so...especially when a little thing like "facts" gets in the way.

 

[delldude]

Dell, do you have anything to support your thesis? Do you have any explanation as to why, in the last 12 years of republican leadership (I use that term in the loosest sense) of congress we have seen an increase of over 3 trillion dollars to the US deficit?

Oil wars l & ll don't count
9/11 NY/DC expenses don't count
Paying for war in Afgan/Iraq don't count
Rebuilding Fla/La/Miss/etc don't count

You guys triple teaming tonite,eh?

 

[Garfield1966]

Oil wars l & ll don't count
9/11 NY/DC expenses don't count
Paying for war in Afgan/Iraq don't count
Rebuilding Fla/La/Miss/etc don't count

You guys triple teaming tonite,eh?

Sorry, everything counts. Natural disasters happen every year. Iraq was a war of his choosing with no exit strat, no basis in fact and no way to pay it.

Had he not wasted money on Iraq to the tune of 2 trillion dollars with no end in sight we might have ad to worry about a 3 trillion dollar hike in the national debt. His watch, his congress, his debt. Part of the job of a CEO is to plan for the unexpected. He failed 2 times as a 'CEO' prior to becoming pres and now he failed a third time as CEO of the US.

 

[delldude]

Sorry, everything counts. Natural disasters happen every year. Iraq was a war of his choosing with no exit strat, no basis in fact and no way to pay it.

Had he not wasted money on Iraq to the tune of 2 trillion dollars with no end in sight we might have ad to worry about a 3 trillion dollar hike in the national debt. His watch, his congress, his debt. Part of the job of a CEO is to plan for the unexpected. He failed 2 times as a 'CEO' prior to becoming pres and now he failed a third time as CEO of the US.

On September 29, 1998, the United States Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which states that the U.S. intends to remove Saddam Hussein from office and replace the government with a democratic institution. The Iraq Liberation Act was signed by President Clinton on October 31, 1998. On the same day, Iraq announced it would no longer cooperate with United Nations weapons inspectors.

As far as Iraqi war being a war of his choosing...I beg to differ.It was US gov't official policy to have saddam removed- initiated and signed for by bill clinton.Bush just did what our policy dictated.So then,bill clintons legacy has forced Bush to spend all this money and you attempt to lay blame at his feet?

Bill Clinton started this IRAQ war...no ifs,ands or buts

 

[TWAnr]

Bill Clinton started this IRAQ war...no ifs,ands or buts

You have a profound misunderstanding of the Iraq Liberation Act:

The Iraq Liberation Act
October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participatory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998.

Cornell University - Middle East & Islamic Studies Collection

 

[UAL_TECH]

As far as Iraqi war being a war of his choosing...I beg to differ.It was US gov't official policy to have saddam removed- initiated and signed for by bill clinton.Bush just did what our policy dictated.So then,bill clintons legacy has forced Bush to spend all this money and you attempt to lay blame at his feet?

Bill Clinton started this IRAQ war...no ifs,ands or buts

And this crap would have been over long ago if the rupubs didn’t accuse him of waging the dog. Our divisiveness has hurt us more than it has helped us. WE need to cut the baby, become independent thinkers, and better citizens. The aristocratic oligarchy mechanism that is our politics is broken.

B) UT

 

[delldude]

You have a profound misunderstanding of the Iraq Liberation Act:

I stand by my statement.....he started it all

 

[Garfield1966]

I stand by my statement.....he started it all

Good boy. Don't let evidence get in the way. lol

 

[MrAeroMan]

Republicans are fiscally responsible when it comes to bolstering the finances of the ultra-wealthy and expanding the wage disparity...all the while giving tax breaks to the richest. Yes...they are fiscally responsible when it comse to letting the rich get richer. When it comes to public funds...nowhere near responsible. Reagan and Bush (the one called "satan" by some rulers) ran up record deficits. Bush continues to add to it while looking for more ways to allow executives to get more money. Meanwhile, Clinton was the biggest success story in the past 100 years as far as balancing a budget and...actually garnering a surplus. I do believe Clinton was a Republican. Oh wait...you say he wasn't? Hmmmm.... I'd say that it sounds like another GOP tactic...beat a talking point to death hoping to fool the public into thinking it's true ("Reps are thrifty, Dems are fiscal nightmares") but when it comes down to it, it's an utter lie. It is disturbing to me that a group that touts morals as their foundation is so morally corrupt that their main strategy is to deceive the American public. Look at the facts and it's easy to see who can handle a budget. Just b/c somebody says it's true doesn't make it so...especially when a little thing like "facts" gets in the way.

So Reagan was at fault for record deficits huh? Maybe you need to do a little more research before you make statments like that. See, during Reagans Presidency it was the democrats that were in charge of both Houses of Congress and each bill that came through the appropriation committee got lined to the max with pork and golden fleece. The reason democrats are labeled as fiscal nightmares is because.....well, they're fiscal nightmares. Clinton benefited from having the House and Senate in control of true republicans who kept his spending in check.
Seems those "facts" just happens to cause those in BOTH parties to trip and fall dont' they??

 

[delldude]

So Reagan was at fault for record deficits huh? Maybe you need to do a little more research before you make statments like that. See, during Reagans Presidency it was the democrats that were in charge of both Houses of Congress and each bill that came through the appropriation committee got lined to the max with pork and golden fleece. The reason democrats are labeled as fiscal nightmares is because.....well, they're fiscal nightmares. Clinton benefited from having the House and Senate in control of true republicans who kept his spending in check.
Seems those "facts" just happens to cause those in BOTH parties to trip and fall dont' they??

Hallelujah Brother!!

 

[Garfield1966]

As far as Reagan and dem congress is concerned I believe technically you are correct. The dems should have had the balls to tell Reagan where to stuff his military budget requests. As I recall, the would have been political suicide for the dems given Reagans popularity and his ability to tell people that the sky was purple and have them believe it. But as you stated the dems held the purse strings and they had the final say.

Ah yes, the fiscally responsible republicans. I assume that Don Young from Alaska is not a republican? Oops, congress web site says he is. I know you are not implying that the only pork added to the bills were from dems, right?

It would seem that given the 3 trillion dollar increase in the national debt over the last 6 years that there are no fiscally responsible republicans in office any more.

I seem to recall that republicans were trusted in times of conflict (recent events may change that) and dems were the ones who were trusted to work on the economy. The last 6 years seemed to have shown that the reps can’t do either.

 

[MrAeroMan]

Ronald Reagan was one of the greatest Presidents this country has ever seen. He won the cold war on his belief of the "shining city on a hill" as well as calling out Gorby when he was in Berlin to "tear down this wall". His vision was what saved this country from Jimmy Carters vision of....well, what exactly was his vision?? Seems even he doesn't remember what is was lately. Reagan did put up fiscally responsible budgets but the democratic Congress filled it with pork for their special interests.
Seems what you're saying is it was Reagan's fault the dems put the pork in his budgets but how can that be when he was the one SCREAMING for a line item veto that none of the dems would give him because they knew he'd cut the sh@t out of the pork they had stuffed into the appropriation bills.
Now here we are almost 30 years later and the republican party isn't anywhere near where it was when President Reagan was in charge. There are a lot of "Republicans" that would have been called "Liberal Democrats" if they were in office when Reagan was. Don Young is a complete A$$ and building that bridge like he wants to is the stupidest thing since Teddy Kennedy pushed through the funding for the Big Dig in Boston. (You know the one that is falling apart and killing people that travel on it?)
You're right the truly fiscally republicans are few and far between these days. My only hope is for a return to the grass roots of the party.

 

[Garfield1966]

Ronald Reagan was one of the greatest Presidents this country has ever seen. He won the cold war on his belief of the "shining city on a hill" as well as calling out Gorby when he was in Berlin to "tear down this wall". His vision was what saved this country from Jimmy Carters vision of....well, what exactly was his vision?

That is one of the things I love about this country. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone is entitled to disagree.

My version is that Reagan just happened to be present when someone was in charge of Russia who was a reasonable man and realized that spending his nation into the dust was not worth it. In my version, were it not for Gorbachev the cold war would have continued.

Seems what you're saying is it was Reagan's fault the dems put the pork in his budgets but how can that be when he was the one SCREAMING for a line item veto that none of the dems would give him because they knew he'd cut the sh@t out of the pork they had stuffed into the appropriation bills.

Never meant to imply that. The dems did it all by them selves just as the rep do it by them selves now. They are all self serving egotistical morons. He did not get the LIV because he would have gutted social programs to fund his military juggernaut. As far as I am concerned, no president should have that. That would severely hamper the checks and ballances.

My only hope is for a return to the grass roots of the party.

If you want that, you need to kick 700 and all like him to the curb. That might be a good start. They have far to much say in your party.