Are the Republicans stupid?

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
They say idiotic stuff like "The Washington governor? Gary Locke? Who the hell cares what he has to say? He has nothing to do with the government."

A couple parts I liked from Locke's speech.

Osama bin Laden is still at large. As we rise to the many challenges around the globe, let us never lose sight of who attacked our people here at home.

We need allies today in 2003, just as much as we needed them in Desert Storm and just as we needed them on D-Day in 1944, when American soldiers, including my father, fought to vanquish the Nazi threat. We must convince the world that Saddam Hussein is not America's problem alone -- he's the world's problem. We urge President Bush to stay this course, for we are far stronger when we stand with other nations than when we stand alone.


 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,116
1
0
Originally posted by: flavio
They say idiotic stuff like "The Washington governor? Gary Locke? Who the hell cares what he has to say? He has nothing to do with the government."

A couple parts I liked from Locke's speech.

Osama bin Laden is still at large. As we rise to the many challenges around the globe, let us never lose sight of who attacked our people here at home.

We need allies today in 2003, just as much as we needed them in Desert Storm and just as we needed them on D-Day in 1944, when American soldiers, including my father, fought to vanquish the Nazi threat. We must convince the world that Saddam Hussein is not America's problem alone -- he's the world's problem. We urge President Bush to stay this course, for we are far stronger when we stand with other nations than when we stand alone.
You know what I heard? Blah....blah....we wish we were in power...blah...blah....the President is wrong, we have no plan but his is wrong...blah...blah....my Grandfather.....blah...blah...blah....my father.....blah....blah...blah......

 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: shinerburke
You know what I heard? Blah....blah....we wish we were in power...blah...blah....the President is wrong, we have no plan but his is wrong...blah...blah....my Grandfather.....blah...blah...blah....my father.....blah....blah...blah......

I think that's only because you shut your mind off long ago.

Here's another nice bit.

Two years ago, the federal budget was in surplus. Now, this administration's policies will produce massive deficits of over a trillion dollars over the next decade.

 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Democrates are liars and Republicans are stupid.. Hard to choose which is worse but they are all against those making less than 250K which is 95% of us.
 

exp

Platinum Member
May 9, 2001
2,150
0
0
I don't know, guys. I'm not a republican but I don't know how *anybody* (even democrats) can say that speech by Locke was anything but HORRENDOUS. I kept wondering when they were going to put the 800 number onscreen so I could call and buy one of their vacuum cleaners. ;)

Sure, he had a few good "flowery" lines but there was precious little of substance. I liked his point about securing the borders (since Bush doesn't appear to be doing squat about that and it's a pet peeve of mine), but other than that Locke was just a talking head.

Honestly, I don't know why opposition parties insist on writing up their SOTU response ahead of time...it's a recipe for disaster. In fact I don't recall ever hearing a single one that didn't suck bigtime.
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,651
100
91
Personally I'm looking forward to the greatest fiscal deficit in the history of the United States.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: jjsole
Personally I'm looking forward to the greatest fiscal deficit in the history of the United States.

Yep, that will be cool.

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: jjsole
Personally I'm looking forward to the greatest fiscal deficit in the history of the United States.

Yep, that will be cool.

Time for the democrats to step in and filibuster these large budgets rather than add more spending bills.

It works both ways.
 

308nato

Platinum Member
Feb 10, 2002
2,674
0
0
Why didn't they have Hitlery or one of their fine presidential hopefuls out there?

The State of the Union should return to what it originally was supposed to be. A written statement delivered to Congress. All it is for the media these days. Pre game show, play by play, post game show. 90% of the commentary is based on delivery and appearance of whoever happens to be in charge any given year.

I really frickin hate some talking head telling me what I just heard isn't really what I just heard.
 

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,513
49
91
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: shinerburke
You know what I heard? Blah....blah....we wish we were in power...blah...blah....the President is wrong, we have no plan but his is wrong...blah...blah....my Grandfather.....blah...blah...blah....my father.....blah....blah...blah......

I think that's only because you shut your mind off long ago.

Here's another nice bit.

Two years ago, the federal budget was in surplus. Now, this administration's policies will produce massive deficits of over a trillion dollars over the next decade.

The fact that the federal budget was in surplus meant that the government was taking too damn much money from the American people! And you call that a GOOD thing?

 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
I know that talking head that was on before Locke seemed to go on and on.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: X-Man
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: shinerburke
You know what I heard? Blah....blah....we wish we were in power...blah...blah....the President is wrong, we have no plan but his is wrong...blah...blah....my Grandfather.....blah...blah...blah....my father.....blah....blah...blah......

I think that's only because you shut your mind off long ago.

Here's another nice bit.

Two years ago, the federal budget was in surplus. Now, this administration's policies will produce massive deficits of over a trillion dollars over the next decade.

The fact that the federal budget was in surplus meant that the government was taking too damn much money from the American people! And you call that a GOOD thing?

Even with a surplus, the debt still went higher. I guess we know where enron learned those accounting tricks.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: X-Man
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: shinerburke
You know what I heard? Blah....blah....we wish we were in power...blah...blah....the President is wrong, we have no plan but his is wrong...blah...blah....my Grandfather.....blah...blah...blah....my father.....blah....blah...blah......

I think that's only because you shut your mind off long ago.

Here's another nice bit.

Two years ago, the federal budget was in surplus. Now, this administration's policies will produce massive deficits of over a trillion dollars over the next decade.

The fact that the federal budget was in surplus meant that the government was taking too damn much money from the American people! And you call that a GOOD thing?

I see you're a fan of massive deficits?

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: X-Man
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: shinerburke
You know what I heard? Blah....blah....we wish we were in power...blah...blah....the President is wrong, we have no plan but his is wrong...blah...blah....my Grandfather.....blah...blah...blah....my father.....blah....blah...blah......

I think that's only because you shut your mind off long ago.

Here's another nice bit.

Two years ago, the federal budget was in surplus. Now, this administration's policies will produce massive deficits of over a trillion dollars over the next decade.

The fact that the federal budget was in surplus meant that the government was taking too damn much money from the American people! And you call that a GOOD thing?

I see you're a fan of massive deficits?


So how are the democrats going to balance the budget by adding more spending? I am waiting for an answer.
 

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,513
49
91
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: X-Man
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: shinerburke
You know what I heard? Blah....blah....we wish we were in power...blah...blah....the President is wrong, we have no plan but his is wrong...blah...blah....my Grandfather.....blah...blah...blah....my father.....blah....blah...blah......

I think that's only because you shut your mind off long ago.

Here's another nice bit.

Two years ago, the federal budget was in surplus. Now, this administration's policies will produce massive deficits of over a trillion dollars over the next decade.

The fact that the federal budget was in surplus meant that the government was taking too damn much money from the American people! And you call that a GOOD thing?

I see you're a fan of massive deficits?

In an economic downturn, government deficits are crucial.

 

WileCoyote

Senior member
Aug 4, 2000
694
0
0
Originally posted by: X-Man
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: shinerburke
You know what I heard? Blah....blah....we wish we were in power...blah...blah....the President is wrong, we have no plan but his is wrong...blah...blah....my Grandfather.....blah...blah...blah....my father.....blah....blah...blah......

I think that's only because you shut your mind off long ago.

Here's another nice bit.

Two years ago, the federal budget was in surplus. Now, this administration's policies will produce massive deficits of over a trillion dollars over the next decade.

The fact that the federal budget was in surplus meant that the government was taking too damn much money from the American people! And you call that a GOOD thing?


this statement is wrong in so many ways.

1. would you rather have a huge deficit?
2. have you picked up a history book and read what happened last time the government increased spending and cut taxes at the same time? do you remember the last massive deficit caused by Reagan? Do you not know how BAD the economy was as a result?
3. save for a rainy day. do you spend every penny as soon as you get it? the government is growing to meet a growing economy/population/global market: that means more money needed in the FUTURE. Bush wants to expand, but then takes away all the money necessary to do so. Perhaps he has never held a savings account in his life.

 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: WileCoyote
Originally posted by: X-Man
The fact that the federal budget was in surplus meant that the government was taking too damn much money from the American people! And you call that a GOOD thing?


this statement is wrong in so many ways.

1. would you rather have a huge deficite?
2. have you picked up a history book and read what happened last time the government increased spending and cut taxes at the same time? do you remember the last massive deficit caused by Reagan? Do you not know how BAD the economy was as a result?
3. save for a rainy day. do you spend every penny as soon as you get it? the government is growing to meet a growing economy/population/global market: that means more money needed in the FUTURE. Bush wants to expand, but then takes away all the money necessary to do so. Perhaps he has never held a savings account in his life.

Well, Bush was pretty good running the finances of a baseball team and a couple companies right? ...or wait...maybe not.

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: WileCoyote
Originally posted by: X-Man
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: shinerburke
You know what I heard? Blah....blah....we wish we were in power...blah...blah....the President is wrong, we have no plan but his is wrong...blah...blah....my Grandfather.....blah...blah...blah....my father.....blah....blah...blah......

I think that's only because you shut your mind off long ago.

Here's another nice bit.

Two years ago, the federal budget was in surplus. Now, this administration's policies will produce massive deficits of over a trillion dollars over the next decade.

The fact that the federal budget was in surplus meant that the government was taking too damn much money from the American people! And you call that a GOOD thing?


this statement is wrong in so many ways.

1. would you rather have a huge deficite?
2. have you picked up a history book and read what happened last time the government increased spending and cut taxes at the same time? do you remember the last massive deficit caused by Reagan? Do you not know how BAD the economy was as a result?
3. save for a rainy day. do you spend every penny as soon as you get it? the government is growing to meet a growing economy/population/global market: that means more money needed in the FUTURE. Bush wants to expand, but then takes away all the money necessary to do so. Perhaps he has never held a savings account in his life.


1. I would rather have a surplus returned to the tax payers, rather than have that surplus+ more spent.
2. You need to pick up a history book. Reagan term started with a bad economy and started really improving during his 2nd year in office.
3. there has not been a truely balance budget in at least 20 years. This is largely the fault of the congress and senate not being responsable.
 

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,513
49
91

this statement is wrong in so many ways.

1. would you rather have a huge deficite?


As I said, during times of economic downturns, deficits are necessary. During the time you're talking about, the economy was tanking, with double digit inflation - ever hear of "the misery index"?

2. have you picked up a history book and read what happened last time the government increased spending and cut taxes at the same time? do you remember the last massive deficit caused by Reagan? Do you not know how BAD the economy was as a result?

Why don't you pick up a history book, idiot? Reagan's fiscal policies led the greatest economic boom in this nations history.

3. save for a rainy day. do you spend every penny as soon as you get it? the government is growing to meet a growing economy/population/global market: that means more money needed in the FUTURE. Bush wants to expand, but then takes away all the money necessary to do so. Perhaps he has never held a savings account in his life.

Are you sure you're a Democrat? Because their answer is to give a one-time tax refund (shown to have little or no effect on the economy) and increase government spending. Tax cuts spur economic growth, which results in more taxes being collected.

EDIT - since some of you don't understand why deficit spending is necessary during economic downturns, read:

In the eyes of most economists, one of the great strengths of our macroeconomic system is that, in periods of recession, federal spending automatically increases and tax revenues fall. As the economy enters a recession, incomes fall and unemployment rises, making more and more people eligible for federal entitlement programs such as Food Stamps, Medicaid, and welfare. At the same time, federal income, payroll, and excise tax payments fall. This simultaneous rise in spending and fall in revenues results in a larger federal deficit. Deficits during a recession act as automatic stabilizers, stimulating economic growth. Similarly, during periods of rapid economic expansion, revenues rise while spending on entitlements falls. The resulting surplus, or smaller deficit, serves to restrain economic growth.
 

WileCoyote

Senior member
Aug 4, 2000
694
0
0
Why don't you pick up a history book, idiot? Reagan's fiscal policies led the greatest economic boom in this nations history.

that's it, i'm not posting any more responses. that statement is so ridiculous and outlandish - i won't waste any more time with a Reagan fanatic.

Are you sure you're a Democrat? Because their answer is to give a one-time tax refund (shown to have little or no effect on the economy) and increase government spending. Tax cuts spur economic growth, which results in more taxes being collected.

you are so clueless about politics i'm making this my last comment. the democrat's are accepting a one-time tax refund as a compromise to the HUGE refunds that the Republicans want. i don't necessarily agree with their decision... but i guess it's necessary to lose a little ground rather than risk it all

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: WileCoyote
Why don't you pick up a history book, idiot? Reagan's fiscal policies led the greatest economic boom in this nations history.

that's it, i'm not posting any more responses. that statement is so ridiculous and outlandish - i won't waste any more time with a Reagan fanatic.

Are you sure you're a Democrat? Because their answer is to give a one-time tax refund (shown to have little or no effect on the economy) and increase government spending. Tax cuts spur economic growth, which results in more taxes being collected.

Well the after a one time tax cut of $300 and a marginal rate cut, where is our economy now? The $300 probably kept the recession from being deeper, but it has to provide strong growth sustained growth with jobs.

you are so clueless about politics i'm making this my last comment. the democrat's are accepting a one-time tax refund as a compromise to the HUGE refunds that the Republicans want. i don't necessarily agree with their decision... but i guess it's necessary to lose a little ground rather than risk it all

The one time tax refund was the democrats idea.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: X-Man
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: shinerburke
You know what I heard? Blah....blah....we wish we were in power...blah...blah....the President is wrong, we have no plan but his is wrong...blah...blah....my Grandfather.....blah...blah...blah....my father.....blah....blah...blah......

I think that's only because you shut your mind off long ago.

Here's another nice bit.

Two years ago, the federal budget was in surplus. Now, this administration's policies will produce massive deficits of over a trillion dollars over the next decade.

The fact that the federal budget was in surplus meant that the government was taking too damn much money from the American people! And you call that a GOOD thing?

I see you're a fan of massive deficits?


So how are the democrats going to balance the budget by adding more spending? I am waiting for an answer.


Looks like i am going to keep waiting....