Slowest spending (growth) in decades

[PLC1]

Yes it is, but according to you we need more "Bi-Partisanship and Compromise" to fix the problem... Yet you seem to totally ignore the fact that it was bipartisanship and compromise that created this spending inferno in the first place and have further failed to explain how 'more of the same' is going to lead to efficacious results.

With Romney in the Executive and Republicans controlling the House and Senate, the Tea Party and fiscal conservatives can drag that group of losers to the finish line of fiscal sanity. Dems think higher taxes and more spending is the solution, their Keynesian philosophy is ruinous and must be defeated, compromising with them is insane.

I hope you're right, but I don't have the confidence you seem to have in the Republican Party, or the Tea Party. I foresee more business as usual.

Oh, Romney could ameliorate the situation a little with the financial experience he has had, but really, do you expect such a miracle from anyone?

 

[GenSeneca]

Oh, Romney could ameliorate the situation a little with the financial experience he has had, but really, do you expect such a miracle from anyone?

Miracle? No... But the alternative to balancing the budget is a total financial collapse of our government; think Greece times 1000 as the entire world economy will grind to a halt.

The only reason the US economy, US markets, and US dollar are fairing so well right now is the fact that so many other countries, especially those in the Eurozone, are complete financial basket cases. Comparing the US with countries who ARE bankrupt, we do look like a safe place to park money, for now... Perpetually running annual deficits of $1 trillion or more will eventually change that perception and lead to our ruin.

Romney is certainly more business friendly than Obama - who is only business friendly with his corporate and union cronies - and we desperately need to restrain the power of the federal government in order to unleash the growth potential of our private sector. While Romney is only offering limp-wristed policies (tax cuts, reductions in spending and regulation etc.), having less of the EPIC FAIL Obama has provided (and has promised to do more of should he be re-elected) is a good thing.

Keep in mind, I've not voted for a Republican since GW's first term (when he promised he wouldn't do all the retarded shat he actually did once elected), I've consistently voted for the Libertarian in every other election. If Romney picks a strong fiscal conservative for his VP, I'll vote for the Republican but I'll need to shower right away after doing so. If Romney Progs out and chooses some equally milquetoast, vanilla, country-club Republican for VP, I'll be forced to vote for the LP candidate again and hope that I have adequate time to prepare myself and my family for the collapse of our country.

 

[Gipper]

Correct. Neither Obama nor his predecessor did this, however. In fact, I don't remember any president doing so.



That the stereotype of the spendthrift Democratic/conservative Republican president is just wrong.



No, of course not.
In fact, I don't remember any president who was fiscally conservative, not in my lifetime at least.



No.

Partisan Republicans, of which there are several on this board (not including you in that) seem to want to blame all of the ills of the country on having a Democrat in the White House. You hear about the "Obama recession", the "Obama deficit", and so on. There is a lot of blame to go around, and simply replacing the POTUS is not going to fix anything.

For one thing, a lot of the problems really are the result of policies that were in place during the Bush Administration and before, and pointing that out is not "blaming Bush for Obama's failing". For another, there is a good reason why Congress' approval rating, according to the news I was just watching at noon at least, is currently 11%.
It had been 12% last I heard.

How they continue to fool that many people is a mystery.

It's not that I'm a huge Obama supporter. It's just that I don't expect to see any great improvement if and when Romney is elected. Our government is dysfunctional.

So to wrap up your opinion, it does not matter who we elect...both BO and Romney will pursue the same policies. To think this is further proof you are not informed.

Romney is a pro-American progressive. Can we agree on that?

BO is an anti-West socialist. Can we agree on that?

While I despise both ideologies, to think they are same is to not think.

 

[PLC1]

Miracle? No... But the alternative to balancing the budget is a total financial collapse of our government; think Greece times 1000 as the entire world economy will grind to a halt.

The only reason the US economy, US markets, and US dollar are fairing so well right now is the fact that so many other countries, especially those in the Eurozone, are complete financial basket cases. Comparing the US with countries who ARE bankrupt, we do look like a safe place to park money, for now... Perpetually running annual deficits of $1 trillion or more will eventually change that perception and lead to our ruin.

Romney is certainly more business friendly than Obama - who is only business friendly with his corporate and union cronies - and we desperately need to restrain the power of the federal government in order to unleash the growth potential of our private sector. While Romney is only offering limp-wristed policies (tax cuts, reductions in spending and regulation etc.), having less of the EPIC FAIL Obama has provided (and has promised to do more of should he be re-elected) is a good thing.

Keep in mind, I've not voted for a Republican since GW's first term (when he promised he wouldn't do all the retarded shat he actually did once elected), I've consistently voted for the Libertarian in every other election. If Romney picks a strong fiscal conservative for his VP, I'll vote for the Republican but I'll need to shower right away after doing so. If Romney Progs out and chooses some equally milquetoast, vanilla, country-club Republican for VP, I'll be forced to vote for the LP candidate again and hope that I have adequate time to prepare myself and my family for the collapse of our country.

Yes, I can agree with most of that. Now, do you live in a swing state? If not, then it really doesn't matter whether you vote for Obama or Romney, your state will choose for you. The best bet, then, is to register a protest vote for Gary Johnson, who, after all, has no chance of winning, but whose philosophy just might get a little boost from the votes he gets. That's what I plan to do, as I live in the bluest of blue states.

 

[PLC1]

So to wrap up your opinion, it does not matter who we elect...both BO and Romney will pursue the same policies. To think this is further proof you are not informed.

Romney is a pro-American progressive. Can we agree on that?

BO is an anti-West socialist. Can we agree on that?

While I despise both ideologies, to think they are same is to not think.

Romney is a pro-American progressive? yes, I think so. He certainly isn't a conservative, and "progressive" seems to be a synonym for liberal, whatever that means.

BO is an anti-West socialist? No, that's just the rant radio version.

But, the bottom line is that Romney has far more financial expertise than Obama, which makes him the better candidate. As for me, I'm not voting for either of them.

 

[Gipper]

Romney is a pro-American progressive? yes, I think so. He certainly isn't a conservative, and "progressive" seems to be a synonym for liberal, whatever that means.

BO is an anti-West socialist? No, that's just the rant radio version.

But, the bottom line is that Romney has far more financial expertise than Obama, which makes him the better candidate. As for me, I'm not voting for either of them.

Okay. Glad we can agree that Romney is a pro-American progressive. But, please tell me WHAT BO is if not an anti-western socialist?

 

[PLC1]

Okay. Glad we can agree that Romney is a pro-American progressive. But, please tell me WHAT BO is if not an anti-western socialist?

Obama is a liberal Democrat, not a lot different from his predecessor, the liberal Republican. The only thing he's supported that looks even remotely like socialism is the GM bailout/buyout. Didn't Bush also support t hat idea?

What great changes do you think Obama has brought about?

 

[Gipper]

Obama is a liberal Democrat, not a lot different from his predecessor, the liberal Republican. The only thing he's supported that looks even remotely like socialism is the GM bailout/buyout. Didn't Bush also support t hat idea?

What great changes do you think Obama has brought about?

Have you ever heard of Obamacare? That alone is a great change that BO's predecessor had no intention of implementing.

You might also try to research the unprecedented spending BO has done. Then you might learn about the unprecedented attack on American business, which W never did and Romney certainly won't.

Again you fail to understand what is going on. W was without question a disgusting progressive. BO is much worse and much further to the left.

 

[PLC1]

Have you ever heard of Obamacare? That alone is a great change that BO's predecessor had no intention of implementing.

You might also try to research the unprecedented spending BO has done. Then you might learn about the unprecedented attack on American business, which W never did and Romney certainly won't.

Again you fail to understand what is going on. W was without question a disgusting progressive. BO is much worse and much further to the left.

I'll see your Obamneycare, and raise you Medicare Part D.
It is the Congress that spends.
Spending has leveled off since the great increase during the last Bush year.
Unprecedented attack on American business? I guess I must have missed that one.

Bush, Obama, and Romney are all progressives.

 

[dogtowner]

Spending has leveled off since the great increase during the last Bush year.

its leveled off at around a trillion over what it was before BO got there. Thats nigh on 25% increase, all debt with no end in sight on going down or revenues going up. one fell swoop and gups or a major chug a year all works out the same. Pages 26-27.

 

[PLC1]

its leveled off at around a trillion over what it was before BO got there. Thats nigh on 25% increase, all debt with no end in sight on going down or revenues going up. one fell swoop and gups or a major chug a year all works out the same. Pages 26-27.

Since a year before he got there anyway.

It is still Congress that spends, so changing t he administration had no effect. Spending stayed the same from Bush to Obama.