Carter years, but worse???

[Mr. Shaman]

Only if Obama adheres to conservative capitalist ideals. If not, your pipe dream of a prosperous years will be a disaster.

Like I say.....we've heard that-one, before.

"The tax increase will…lead to a recession…and will actually increase the deficit." — Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)

As usual.....you're still wrong.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

We need a conservative president.....

You had your chance....in 2000 & 2004.

You blew it!

Get-over-it, and try-again........in 20016.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Correction. As stated before, what Clinton did to us, and Bush had to deal with.

Yeah....it must have been a real challenge, for Lil' Dumbya.....transitioning from being babysat by Mommy & Daddy, to being babysat by the Federal Government.

I'm sure his parents were quite heart-broken over seeing their assets goin'-into-The-Black, again.

 

[Pandora]

Actually he did spend far too much. Of course it's due to his failure that we have to deal with Iran.

What I don't get is why you blame Bush exclusively, and give a pass to all the liberals in government that write the bills. Why the double standard? Why do you blame one man exclusively, when there are 100 members of the Senate that are doing most of the spending?

Do you understand that as long as you willfully remain ignorant to who is doing the spending, the people doing it have no reason to stop?

I think its nice when conservataves or republicans admit when their guy did something wrong, You are right, Bush spent to much money. I would give anything to hear a dem or lib admit when their guy did something wrong. You just never see it.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

One of the major problems was that Carter allowed the whole thing to happen to begin with. He was well informed that the soviets were funding an overthrow of the Shaw of Iran, and he choose to not support the Shaw.

Yeah....the SHAH Of Iran was a regular Saint.

 

[Andy]

Like I say.....we've heard that-one, before.



As usual.....you're still wrong.

This link does not prove your claim. Do you need a course in basic logic?

 

[Andy]

Yeah....the SHAH Of Iran was a regular Saint.

Irrelevant. Maybe you should try responding to the points made? You know... debate?

 

[PLC1]

Actually he did spend far too much. Of course it's due to his failure that we have to deal with Iran.

What I don't get is why you blame Bush exclusively, and give a pass to all the liberals in government that write the bills. Why the double standard? Why do you blame one man exclusively, when there are 100 members of the Senate that are doing most of the spending?

Do you understand that as long as you willfully remain ignorant to who is doing the spending, the people doing it have no reason to stop?

Exclusively? Why, no, Bush isn't responsible exclusively.

He didn't veto one single spending bill sent to him by the Republican dominated Congress in six long years, but, they did send those bills to him.

And, he did send budgets to Congress, which they approved, so they are partly to blame also.

And, I'm not giving a pass to all of the liberals in Congress. Bush is one of those liberals who keep spending more than the government has, after all.

But, it's hard to put all of those Congresspeople's pictures on one card. There just isn't room.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I think its nice when conservataves or republicans admit when their guy did something wrong.

....Typically, after their guy gets BUSTED!!

 

[Andy]

I think its nice when conservataves or republicans admit when their guy did something wrong, You are right, Bush spent to much money. I would give anything to hear a dem or lib admit when their guy did something wrong. You just never see it.

Liberals are incapable of admitting to doing anything wrong, because they are generally moral relativists. In other words, anything they do is made right or wrong by their intentions, regardless of their actions.

For example, waterboarding was not wrong when Nancy Pelosi and the democrats went and viewed the equipment. Why? Because they were protecting America.

Now waterboarding is wrong, and stated so by the very people who previously viewed it. Why? Because they want to stop the evil republicans.

Their intentions are good, thus they are right in their actions even if their actions are opposed to each other. Liberalism truly is a mental illness.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

This link does not prove your claim. Do you need a course in basic logic?

Too many big words, for ya', huh?

 

[Andy]

....Typically, after their guy gets BUSTED!!

As opposed to you who defend them after they get busted? How's your former felon and chief these days?

Further, I disagreed with the over spending from the moment he was in office. So you can stop with the whine fest, ok?

 

[Andy]

Too many big words, for ya', huh?

Apparently I understood it better than you since I can see it clearly didn't make your point. Maybe you need some education? Try English 101 perhaps?

 

[Andy]

Exclusively? Why, no, Bush isn't responsible exclusively.

He didn't veto one single spending bill sent to him by the Republican dominated Congress in six long years, but, they did send those bills to him.

And, he did send budgets to Congress, which they approved, so they are partly to blame also.

And, I'm not giving a pass to all of the liberals in Congress. Bush is one of those liberals who keep spending more than the government has, after all.

But, it's hard to put all of those Congress people's pictures on one card. There just isn't room.

Does no one here understand how government works? Congress MAKES the budget bills. The president can recommend what he thinks the budget 'should be', but it is based on the spending that Congress passes. And ultimately, Congress can do anything they want, even if to completely ignore the budget, and spend as much much as they want.

I learned this in high school. Did no one else learn anything in high school but me? Or has socialized education under the NEA suffered so badly, that the basics of government have all been lost?

Clue: If Bush wakes up tomorrow and says 'gee I'd like an extra $500 billion for faith-based initiatives'... he goes out and..... what? Nothing, he can't do jack.

A senator, or a representative has to write the bill, the senate and house both have to pass the bill, before it ever gets to Bush. What can he do to force any of that? Nothing. Not a thing. Once it gets to Bush, he has 2 options. He can't change it, add to it, modify it, correct it, or anything else. He can sign... or veto. That's it!

Oh and by the way... you are totally wrong about Bush not trying to reduce spending.

Top 10 Examples of Government Waste

President George W. Bush has proposed terminating or strongly reducing the budgets of over 150 inefficient or ineffective programs.

The first place to trim runaway federal spending is in waste, fraud, and abuse. Congress, however, has largely abandoned its constitutional duty of overseeing the executive branch and has steadfastly refused to address the waste littered across government programs. In 2003, an attempt by House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (Republican–IA) to address wasteful spending was rejected by the House of Representatives, and sim*ilar calls in 2004 by then-Senate Budget Committee Chairman Don Nickles (Republican–OK) were rejected by the Senate.

Again, the main point remains the same. As long as you remain focussed on the one guy with the least real control over the budget, the 300 plus other guys that are writing all the bills, and blowing all the money, will keep doing what they are doing.

President Bush’s $24.3 billion request for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for fiscal year 2005 (FY ’05) is 4.5% more than was requested for 2004 but only 1.2% more than was approved by Congress last year.

Note: It was 4.5% more than what Bush requested, but only 1.2% more than what Congress spent! Why? Because they spent more than he requested! Who is over spending? Congress is, far more than Bush. Case and point, right there.

[Bush's] spending plan cuts sacrosanct aid-to-business programs by nearly $1 billion, drawing blood from Boeing, Ford, Intel, GE, and many others.

Says Stephen Slivinski, a fiscal-policy analyst for the libertarian Cato Institute: "I wasn't expecting such an aggressive attack on corporate welfare."

For example, to help pay for his proposed tax cut, Bush trims $22 million from the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, a fuel-efficient car program that benefits Detroit. And Bush would slash $251 million in funding for the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corp., which help big names like Boeing, Bechtel, and Halliburton compete overseas.

Bush cut corporate welfare for HALLIBURTON!?! Watch the looney left go nutz over that fact.

President George W. Bush said on Wednesday he was open to across-the-board spending cuts in the federal budget to help pay for hurricane assistance.

In a speech to the Economic Club of Washington, Bush also said he was working with congressional Republicans on a plan for pushing "significant reductions in mandatory and discretionary spending."

"Congress needs to make that cut real. I'm open to a further across-the-board spending cut as well," Bush said.

"I encourage Congress to push the envelope when it comes to cutting spending," Bush said.

Do you remember Clinton ever saying anything like that between his oval office orgies? Nope. So why did the budget get slimmed up? Republican and the contract with America. How quickly we forget.

It wasn't Clinton that got federal spending under control. It wasn't the white house that put a clamp on the budget. It was congress. When conservatives in the congress who have the ability to control spending do so, then it will be controlled. When liberals have control of the spending bills, it doesn't matter who is in office, the spending will go wild.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

As opposed to you who defend them after they get busted? How's your former felon and chief these days?

He's still working.........

How's your's doing?