Increase the size of government, elect a Rupublican

[charrison]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
You get to vote for spending. Congress has shown is unwilling to even hold the line on spending.

Most of congress wants more spending, not less. It has been this way for quite some time.

You elect your state's reps, you elect the pres and then it's pretty much up to them what happens next. The direct influence we have as citizens on spending is about as incidental as it gets.

Well most of my reps have done a decent job voting against excessive spending.


While the republicans are spending too much, the democrats cant make up their mind if they want to slame them for not spending enough(this seems to happen more often), or spending too much.

edit:
The democrats have yet to filibuster a spending bill.

Bush has YET to veto a single spending increase by Congress. He has that ability, but has yet to use it. So don't pass it off on Congress like they're the only ones responsible. If Bush was concerned about spending, he'd be stopping bills left and right. He's clearly not concerned.

That still doesn't absolve Congress - which I believe was his point. The democrats seem to think that filibustering well qualified judges is warranted but yet they don't do the same with spending. So yes - they ALL suck. But then again if Bush did veto spending - holy shnikes would you hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth coming from the left about funding. Meh - it's politics so blame whoever you wish.

CkG

Dealmonkey obviously did not read the first sentence of my post

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
You get to vote for spending. Congress has shown is unwilling to even hold the line on spending.

Most of congress wants more spending, not less. It has been this way for quite some time.

You elect your state's reps, you elect the pres and then it's pretty much up to them what happens next. The direct influence we have as citizens on spending is about as incidental as it gets.

Well most of my reps have done a decent job voting against excessive spending.


While the republicans are spending too much, the democrats cant make up their mind if they want to slame them for not spending enough(this seems to happen more often), or spending too much.

edit:
The democrats have yet to filibuster a spending bill.

Bush has YET to veto a single spending increase by Congress. He has that ability, but has yet to use it. So don't pass it off on Congress like they're the only ones responsible. If Bush was concerned about spending, he'd be stopping bills left and right. He's clearly not concerned.

That still doesn't absolve Congress - which I believe was his point. The democrats seem to think that filibustering well qualified judges is warranted but yet they don't do the same with spending. So yes - they ALL suck. But then again if Bush did veto spending - holy shnikes would you hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth coming from the left about funding. Meh - it's politics so blame whoever you wish.

CkG

Dealmonkey obviously did not read the first sentence of my post

Please you guys -- can I make a point around here every once in a while? My point: there's enough blame to go around on spending, however the repubs control Congress and there's one sitting in the oval office and both have their hands on the money tap at the moment. And Cad is seriously advocating the dems fillibuster? Oh come on ...

 

[SuperTool]

"Increase size of government, vote single party ticket" would be more approprate thread title.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
You get to vote for spending. Congress has shown is unwilling to even hold the line on spending.

Most of congress wants more spending, not less. It has been this way for quite some time.

You elect your state's reps, you elect the pres and then it's pretty much up to them what happens next. The direct influence we have as citizens on spending is about as incidental as it gets.

Well most of my reps have done a decent job voting against excessive spending.


While the republicans are spending too much, the democrats cant make up their mind if they want to slame them for not spending enough(this seems to happen more often), or spending too much.

edit:
The democrats have yet to filibuster a spending bill.

Bush has YET to veto a single spending increase by Congress. He has that ability, but has yet to use it. So don't pass it off on Congress like they're the only ones responsible. If Bush was concerned about spending, he'd be stopping bills left and right. He's clearly not concerned.

That still doesn't absolve Congress - which I believe was his point. The democrats seem to think that filibustering well qualified judges is warranted but yet they don't do the same with spending. So yes - they ALL suck. But then again if Bush did veto spending - holy shnikes would you hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth coming from the left about funding. Meh - it's politics so blame whoever you wish.

CkG

Dealmonkey obviously did not read the first sentence of my post

Please you guys -- can I make a point around here every once in a while? My point: there's enough blame to go around on spending, however the repubs control Congress and there's one sitting in the oval office and both have their hands on the money tap at the moment. And Cad is seriously advocating the dems fillibuster? Oh come on ...

If the dems feel too much money is being spent, the filibuster should be used.

 

[DealMonkey]

Sure, but then Sir Cad would whine about it non-stop. We'd never hear the end of it. I recall an endless stream of pissyness last time they fillibustered some judge or whatnot.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Sure, but then Sir Cad would whine about it non-stop. We'd never hear the end of it. I recall an endless stream of pissyness last time they fillibustered some judge or whatnot.

I dont think would complain about any party in the senate that was keeping bad spending bill from being passed.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Sure, but then Sir Cad would whine about it non-stop. We'd never hear the end of it. I recall an endless stream of pissyness last time they fillibustered some judge or whatnot.

I dont think would complain about any party in the senate that was keeping bad spending bill from being passed.

True dat.

CkG

 

[wirelessenabled]

Bush can propose any size budget he wants. If he really is interested in slowing the growth of the budget he has a good opportunity to show that committment when he proposes a budget. Of course Congress can do/pass whatever it wants without regard to the President's proposal. We will see how committed Bush is to slowing the growth of government when he submits his next budget.

Any bets on what that document will be like?

I remember (the sainted) Reagan talking about cutting government and how it was the nasty Democrats who were making government larger but then submitted budget proposals which increased each year. Talking out of both sides of his mouth like we all couldn't hear or were stupid. Bush seems to be on the same track. Bush can't even make the excuse that Democrats control the Congress.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: BowfingerUnless you're acknowledging that the wealthy don't pay their fair share of taxes, I'd say the half not paying taxes mostly didn't vote for the "conservative" Republicans who keep increasing spending. The sterotype of "tax and spend" Democrats is as accurate as "borrow and spend" Republicans. I wouldn't brag about either party's spending habits, but at least the Democrats have shown a willingness to pay for their spending. The last three Republican administrations (at least) were not.

You have GOT to be kidding. What is the ratio, something like 90% of all taxes paid by 6% of the population and you say that the wealthy don't pay their fair share? The people who don't pay their fair share are the people who PAY NO TAXES and who, at the end of the year, get MORE MONEY BACK than they even paid in. The thing that ISN'T fair is that some people pay thousands in taxes and get an extra bill at the end of the year while others pay nothing and get a few thousand handed to them.

You've got a pretty twisted definition of what "Fair" means.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

See, voting "against" a presidential candidate is generally a bad idea because you end up picking someone you also might dislike solely because he has a chance of beating the other guy. You can really simplify this process:

1. Review the candidates

2. Find out what they stand for and what their records are.

3. Decide which candidate you believe, based on the evidence, will best represent YOUR interests.

4. Vote for that guy and go to bed. Don't worry about outcomes, just enjoy the fact that you voted your conscience based upon all the best evidence you could find. It doesn't get any better than that

Jason

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: BowfingerUnless you're acknowledging that the wealthy don't pay their fair share of taxes, I'd say the half not paying taxes mostly didn't vote for the "conservative" Republicans who keep increasing spending. The sterotype of "tax and spend" Democrats is as accurate as "borrow and spend" Republicans. I wouldn't brag about either party's spending habits, but at least the Democrats have shown a willingness to pay for their spending. The last three Republican administrations (at least) were not.

You have GOT to be kidding. What is the ratio, something like 90% of all taxes paid by 6% of the population and you say that the wealthy don't pay their fair share? The people who don't pay their fair share are the people who PAY NO TAXES and who, at the end of the year, get MORE MONEY BACK than they even paid in. The thing that ISN'T fair is that some people pay thousands in taxes and get an extra bill at the end of the year while others pay nothing and get a few thousand handed to them.

You've got a pretty twisted definition of what "Fair" means.

Jason

Please learn to read.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

I've been reading since I was 2 and a half, asswad.

Jason

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I've been reading since I was 2 and a half, asswad.

Jason

My mistake. I'm sure with a whole six months under your belt, you read like a real pro.

Let me amend my comment: Please learn to read accurately, you belligerent, cretinous ignoranus. (No, that's not a typo.)

Now, would you like to continue calling each other names all night, or would you rather go back and re-read my post in context to see that your interpretation of my comment was a total perversion of my actual point?

 

[mithrandir2001]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
"Increase size of government, vote single party ticket" would be more approprate thread title.

That's probably the truth. Political gridlock seems to keep the government budget in line.