Republican Flips and Flops

[Sixpence]

I guess you can't read.

[lazs2]

I don't know what is the absolute truth in politics and maybe the republicans are every bit as bad as the democrats and maybe they are all imply scum so it doesn't matter but...

All this spending was being hashed over when Regan was in.  Pretty much the same situation.. maybe a lot of you are too young to recall just how scary the cold war was... Regan spent on defense and the Soviet Union fell... I believe if we would have had a Klinton in then the soviet union would still be alive and well...  

I believe the war on terror is pretty much the same thing.. if they run out of countries and backing then they will be no threat... a joke... a few arabs sitting around the dinnette set with AK's in some ****hole backwoods country...   I believe if we do nothing they, and their backers will get bolder and then they will be wearing suits, staying in the best hotels and carrying suitcase nukes or bio weapons.

Only problem I see is that Regan was such a good actor that he sold his plan and Bush is a terrible public speaker...

fortunately... the democrats have rounded up the usual abhorent clowns tho.

lazs

[Sixpence]

"One example was Bush’s early desire to pour money into the public-education system, which will only entrench its problems. Since 2001, education spending has surged by over 50 percent to $61 billion. And Bush kept squandering long after it became apparent to everyone outside the administration that deficits were going to deepen. As the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute points out, the $400 billion for Medicare prescription drugs is more than double the sum Bush first requested in his 2002 budget.

Looking at spending unrelated to defense and so-called mandatory outlays like Social Security and Medicare reveals Bush’s inherent need to splurge. This exercise also blows away the attempts of some on the Right to compare Bush’s deficits with Reagan’s. In inflation-adjusted dollars, Bush increased non-defense discretionary spending by 20.8 percent in his first three years, versus a 13.5 percent cut under Reagan’s first three years, according to Cato."

[lazs2]

splurge?   he is spending, or asking for less than social security and medicare take in.   The problem is that no funds are dedicated.   you pay 35 cents for gas at the pumps and 20 cents of it is spent on say welfare.   You pay 70 bucks a month on medicare and very little of it is used to pay medicares debts.   Schools... well he is wrong on that one.. we should privatize em.

lazs

[Sandman]

Oh... I get it. Republicans are liars.






























Don't get your panties in a wad. So are the Democrats.

Maybe it's a politician thing.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by lazs2
you pay 35 cents for gas at the pumps and 20 cents of it is spent on say welfare.  

lazs

 

[Toad]

While we're at it, somebody 'splain to me why I see Democratic Congressmen ranting about the "Bush Prescription Plan for Seniors".

I'm cornfused.

I thought just about everyone agreed we need to help our Seniors with prescriptions. Seems I heard it touted as a goal of the Dems for years, with them blaming the Reps for not getting it done.

Then the Reps try to get it done and the Dems opposed it. It finally passed but somehow that's a bad thing.

All agree that it isn't perfect but it has to be better than what the Seniors had before which is basically nothing.

So, 'splain this all please. I admit I didn't follow it too closely at the time. Just seems odd to see a Democratic Congressman on the tube railing against prescription coverage for Seniors.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Toad
While we're at it, somebody 'splain to me why I see Democratic Congressmen ranting about the "Bush Prescription Plan for Seniors".

I'm cornfused.

I thought just about everyone agreed we need to help our Seniors with prescriptions. Seems I heard it touted as a goal of the Dems for years, with them blaming the Reps for not getting it done.

Then the Reps try to get it done and the Dems opposed it. It finally passed but somehow that's a bad thing.

All agree that it isn't perfect but it has to be better than what the Seniors had before which is basically nothing.

So, 'splain this all please. I admit I didn't follow it too closely at the time. Just seems odd to see a Democratic Congressman on the tube railing against prescription coverage for Seniors.

"During the Clinton years a $400 billion per anum prescription drug dole for seniors would have been called wasteful spending, "creeping socialism" or a generally bad idea. Yet after President Bush's State of the Union address, it was welcomed as "a binding commitment of a caring society."

[lazs2]

toad.. if medicare were prigvatized then there would be plenty of money for perscriptions.

six... I meant 34 cents in "road taxes"  the money is suppossed to go for fixing the roads.

sandie... my point is that I don't worry about the soviet union anymore... I don't want to worry about terrorists.   If terrorists suddenly become a problem then I want my president to spend money to nullify that.   I don't care if he promised to reduce the deficit before...

lazs

[Saurdaukar]

Originally posted by Sandman
Oh... I get it. Republicans are liars.



Don't get your panties in a wad. So are the Democrats.

Maybe it's a politician thing.

NO T3H D3/\/\0CR4TZ ER T3H H0N35T!!!!



P\/\/NT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111

[Toad]

So six, all you've got to say is that the Dems are against it now because the Republicans did it? After the Dems crying about the lack of prescription benefits for Seniors for years?

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Toad
So six, all you've got to say is that the Dems are against it now because the Republicans did it? After the Dems crying about the lack of prescription benefits for Seniors for years?

Ahh, I think I was saying the same thing, it's a 2 way street.

[Toad]

Well, I don't think the new benefits are perfect or even real cost-effective. But they are something where we had about nothing before.

So....... it's a good thing, IMO.

[Sixpence]

Here is some more http://slate.msn.com/id/2095237/

Now mind you, almost every link I have posted have come from conservative sites or written by conservatives.

"Those conservatives who sincerely believe that government needs to spend less—a small but important Republican constituency—are furious at Bush right now because he's increasing domestic discretionary spending more rapidly than Bill Clinton did. During his two terms in office, Clinton increased domestic discretionary spending by 10 percent. Bush, in not quite one full presidential term, has already increased domestic discretionary spending by 25 percent. This according to the White House's own budget charts! (The numbers are adjusted for inflation.)

Knowing this, it's all the more extraordinary that when Bush got asked about his spending habit on Meet the Press, this was his answer:

If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed under my watch, in the last year of President Clinton, discretionary spending was up 15 percent, and ours have steadily declined.

That isn't even close to being true. Under Bush, overall discretionary spending (i.e., with defense spending included) has increased every single year. It's now 31 percent higher than it was when Bush arrived.

But perhaps Bush meant to say, "domestic discretionary spending." Well, that, too, has increased every single year of Bush's presidency, and, as previously noted, is now 25 percent higher than it was when Bush arrived.

It seems almost gratuitous to add that in the last year of President Clinton's term, discretionary spending was up not 15 percent, but 3 percent, and that domestic discretionary spending was up not 15 percent, but 5 percent.

It should be obvious how the Meet the Press lie about spending differs from the usual Bush lie. He's lying to a different audience. Bush isn't gaslighting Democrats; although Democrats worry about deficits, they don't lose sleep over large increases in government spending. (Indeed, the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has lately been complaining that the spending increases projected in Bush's proposed 2005 budget aren't large enough.) To most Democrats, Bush's transparently false claim that he's cut discretionary spending will provoke at best mild academic interest.

Bush is gaslighting small-government Republicans. He's lying to the Heritage Foundation's Brian Riedl, who has observed that federal spending has grown twice as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton. He's lying to Paul Gigot, who edits the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, which says runaway spending is evidence that "the Republican imperium is starting to show signs of ideological dry rot." He's lying to Rush Limbaugh, who recently told his listeners that Bush hopes to soften "people's view of conservatism by making Americans work more for government and less for themselves," and that this strategy won't work. He's lying to Andrew Sullivan, the hawkish conservative blogger who's in utter despair over Bush's spending spree. He's lying, in short, to people who believe in him. Or rather, believed; Sullivan is drifting rapidly leftward and has already struck out at Bush's dishonesty on Meet the Press. If others follow, Bush could see serious erosion in his political base."

[Eagler]

the oldies can't get free drugs or discounted drugs from canada so it is a bad thing

instead of looking at what they gained they cry that they did not get it all .. typical