OT - Moving to Japan
 

Per Edward Dolan:

Under Carter/Clinton the federal deficit was reduced by 13%.
Under Reagan/Bush it was increased by 62%.

Clinton was only able to reduce the deficit because of pressure coming from
a Republican Congress. But Bush was a big spender and did not even have
brains enough to defend our borders from illegal aliens. But no one in the
world can spend like liberal Dems. Obama is bankrupting the country.
[...]

That's what a lot of Republican damage-control types say, but
observe (in the link above) that after Clinton, G.W. Bush had a
Republican congress for six of his eight years in office, yet
they managed do add 15.1% to the national debt.

And that's not to mention Reagan with his Republican congress for
what? 8 years? that managed to run up the credit card by an
additional 20.6 percent.

All the while managing to convince their base that they were
champions of fiscal responsibility and the Dems were not.

I can't argue with the old sages that said that sex was the
original sin, but I'd say that stupidity and ignorance are
contenders for a close second place.

Lest you think I'm on one side or another, I would say that both
parties are very, very guilty of pandering to the fantasy that
our country is going to get out of the mess that it is in without
the voters experiencing some significant pain. The Republicans
may draw a little more ire bco the blatant hypocrisy of dumping
on Dems as big spenders while they add so much to the debt... but
in the end they're both lacking in integrity.

The Dems talk about "investing" when they're really just handing
out money.

The Repubs talk about "fiscal responsibility, "no new taxes" and
"cutting the budget" - when every non-partisan source I've heard
says balancing the budget cannot be done on cuts along and
they've increased the debt hugely while saying those words.

Neither one wants to talk about raising the retirement age for
social security, raising the social security contribution, or
cutting back on Medicare.

And I can't blame them. It's us, the electorate, that's behind
all this. Let a politician from any party even mention raising
taxes or cutting entitlements and see what happens - the others
are all over him like flies on dung.

Simpson/Bowles said it all in their report. The Repubs
pretended to be outraged over it and Obama sort of patted the
deficit reduction committee on the head and moved on.
--
PeteCresswell

OT - Moving to Japan
 

On 3/17/2011 4:23 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Edward Dolan:

Under Carter/Clinton the federal deficit was reduced by 13%.
Under Reagan/Bush it was increased by 62%.

Clinton was only able to reduce the deficit because of pressure coming from
a Republican Congress. But Bush was a big spender and did not even have
brains enough to defend our borders from illegal aliens. But no one in the
world can spend like liberal Dems. Obama is bankrupting the country.
[...]

That's what a lot of Republican damage-control types say, but
observe (in the link above) that after Clinton, G.W. Bush had a
Republican congress for six of his eight years in office, yet
they managed do add 15.1% to the national debt.

And that's not to mention Reagan with his Republican congress for
what? 8 years? that managed to run up the credit card by an
additional 20.6 percent.

All the while managing to convince their base that they were
champions of fiscal responsibility and the Dems were not.

Something that they still seem able to do.

OT - Moving to Japan
 

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...
Per Edward Dolan:

Under Carter/Clinton the federal deficit was reduced by 13%.
Under Reagan/Bush it was increased by 62%.

Clinton was only able to reduce the deficit because of pressure coming
from
a Republican Congress. But Bush was a big spender and did not even have
brains enough to defend our borders from illegal aliens. But no one in the
world can spend like liberal Dems. Obama is bankrupting the country.
[...]

That's what a lot of Republican damage-control types say, but
observe (in the link above) that after Clinton, G.W. Bush had a
Republican congress for six of his eight years in office, yet
they managed do add 15.1% to the national debt.

And that's not to mention Reagan with his Republican congress for
what? 8 years? that managed to run up the credit card by an
additional 20.6 percent.

All the while managing to convince their base that they were
champions of fiscal responsibility and the Dems were not.

Both Reagan and Bush were big spenders, but they can't compare to liberal
Dems and Obama. Clinton wanted to be a big spender too, but was constrained
by Congressional Repubs.

I can't argue with the old sages that said that sex was the
original sin, but I'd say that stupidity and ignorance are
contenders for a close second place.

Lest you think I'm on one side or another, I would say that both
parties are very, very guilty of pandering to the fantasy that
our country is going to get out of the mess that it is in without
the voters experiencing some significant pain. The Republicans
may draw a little more ire bco the blatant hypocrisy of dumping
on Dems as big spenders while they add so much to the debt... but
in the end they're both lacking in integrity.

The Dems talk about "investing" when they're really just handing
out money.

The Repubs talk about "fiscal responsibility, "no new taxes" and
"cutting the budget" - when every non-partisan source I've heard
says balancing the budget cannot be done on cuts along and
they've increased the debt hugely while saying those words.

Neither one wants to talk about raising the retirement age for
social security, raising the social security contribution, or
cutting back on Medicare.

Those are precisely what I DO want to talk about. There is no other way for
this nation to avoid going down the tubes.

And I can't blame them. It's us, the electorate, that's behind
all this. Let a politician from any party even mention raising
taxes or cutting entitlements and see what happens - the others
are all over him like flies on dung.

I think that is going to change very shortly when some chickens come home to
roost. Americans will not like being permanently poor like most in the rest
of the world.

Simpson/Bowles said it all in their report. The Repubs
pretended to be outraged over it and Obama sort of patted the
deficit reduction committee on the head and moved on.

Ony the Tea Party types are up to speed on this issue.

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

OT - Moving to Japan
 

On Mar 17, 4:23*pm, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
Per Edward Dolan:



Under Carter/Clinton the federal deficit was reduced by 13%.
Under Reagan/Bush it was increased by 62%.

Clinton was only able to reduce the deficit because of pressure coming from
a Republican Congress. But Bush was a big spender and did not even have
brains enough to defend our borders from illegal aliens. But no one in the
world can spend like liberal Dems. Obama is bankrupting the country.
[...]

That's what a lot of Republican damage-control types say, but
observe (in the link above) that after Clinton, G.W. Bush had a
Republican congress for six of his eight years in office, yet
they managed do add 15.1% *to the national debt. *

And that's not to mention Reagan with his Republican congress for
what? 8 years? that managed to run up the credit card by an
additional 20.6 percent.

All the while managing to convince their base that they were
champions of fiscal responsibility and the Dems were not.

I can't argue with the old sages that said that sex was the
original sin, but I'd say that stupidity and ignorance are
contenders for a close second place.

Lest you think I'm on one side or another, I would say that both
parties are very, very guilty of pandering to the fantasy that
our country is going to get out of the mess that it is in without
the voters experiencing some significant pain. * The Republicans
may draw a little more ire bco the blatant hypocrisy of dumping
on Dems as big spenders while they add so much to the debt... but
in the end they're both lacking in integrity.

The Dems talk about "investing" when they're really just handing
out money.

The Repubs talk about "fiscal responsibility, *"no new taxes" and
"cutting the budget" - when every non-partisan source I've heard
says balancing the budget cannot be done on cuts along and
they've increased the debt hugely while saying those words.

Neither one wants to talk about raising the retirement age for
social security, raising the social security contribution, or
cutting back on Medicare.

And I can't blame them. * It's us, the electorate, that's behind
all this. * Let a politician from any party even mention raising
taxes or cutting entitlements and see what happens - the others
are all over him like flies on dung.

Simpson/Bowles said it all in their report. * The Repubs
pretended to be outraged over it and Obama sort of patted the
deficit reduction committee on the head and moved on.

I don't disagree with much that you've said, but I notice you didn't
mention "defense" spending at all. I think it's quite pertinent to any
budget discussion.

- Frank Krygowski

OT - Moving to Japan
 

Per Edward Dolan:
Both Reagan and Bush were big spenders, but they can't compare to liberal
Dems and Obama. Clinton wanted to be a big spender too, but was constrained
by Congressional Repubs.

Assuming it was congress and not the president, why was Bush not
similarly constrained?
--
PeteCresswell

OT - Moving to Japan
 

Per Frank Krygowski:
I don't disagree with much that you've said, but I notice you didn't
mention "defense" spending at all. I think it's quite pertinent to any
budget discussion.

Seems to me like beeeeg money in various legislators' districts.

Witness how hard it was to kill that extra fighter jet engine
-that the military even explicitly said they did not want - from
Boener's district, IIRC.
--
PeteCresswell

OT - Moving to Japan
 

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message
...
[...]
I don't disagree with much that you've said, but I notice you didn't
mention "defense" spending at all. I think it's quite pertinent to any
budget discussion.

Defense is one area of spending we never want to cut back on. That is what
defeated the Soviet Union under Reagan. It is only the ever cowardly liberal
Dems who want to cut defense spending.

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

OT - Moving to Japan
 

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...
Per Edward Dolan:
Both Reagan and Bush were big spenders, but they can't compare to liberal
Dems and Obama. Clinton wanted to be a big spender too, but was
constrained
by Congressional Repubs.

Assuming it was congress and not the president, why was Bush not
similarly constrained?

Has it ever occurred to you that only divided government works in this
country?

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

OT - Moving to Japan
 

Per Edward Dolan:
Defense is one area of spending we never want to cut back on. That is what
defeated the Soviet Union under Reagan.

There are those who would say the plunge in global oil prices,
the rise of the internet, and loss of control over the media
under glasnost had something to do with it too.

--
PeteCresswell

OT - Moving to Japan
 

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...
Per Edward Dolan:
Defense is one area of spending we never want to cut back on. That is what
defeated the Soviet Union under Reagan.

There are those who would say the plunge in global oil prices,
the rise of the internet, and loss of control over the media
under glasnost had something to do with it too.

Nope, it was only how the US under Reagan was able to out spend them on
defense that ultimately defeated them. The Soviets, like all totalitarian
regimes, never had any regard for what anyone ever thought of them. Without
Reagan, there would still be a Soviet Union today.

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota