Jump to content

republicans= dumb and dumber


Recommended Posts

The Republicans forced fiscal conservatism on Clinton in exchange for concessions on their part.


Clinton pledged to balance the budget in 5 years as one of his campaign pledges the first time he ran. I was willing to bet money he wouldn't do it, and that the 5 year time frame was so that he could get reelected and then forget the pledge. However, Clinton surprised a lot of us. As far as the republican involvement on that, sure, congress has that as part of their bailiwick per the constitution. Towards that end of course the dominant party gets plenty of credit.


As this forum is designed to be simplistic: here's a walk down memory lane of that process to remember and deepen the complexity and nuances of that time. http://tech.mit.edu/V119/N53/clinton_53.53w.html


The last paragraph reinforces my fear of having a single party control both of those branches of the Gov't. "The day’s events underscored how Washington’s divided government -- a Republican-run Congress and Democratic-controlled White House -- enables each party to thwart the other’s major initiatives. Earlier this year Clinton vetoed the GOP’s fiscal centerpiece, a 10-year, $792 billion tax-cut plan".



Reagan enjoyed a majority controlled Senate to back him up for part of his Presidency (6 years), and it didn't appear to help during budget time when it came time to increase revenue and decrease spending as the reverse happened: he cut revenue and increased spending. When Ronald Reagan entered office in 1981 he repeatedly called for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, yet he strangely never got around to submitting a balanced budget himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm just amazed at how out of touch Spray's right-wing is with the mainstream of the Republican Party. Talk about "fringe", whew!


What the GOP Really Wants: Obama's Autograph


Ever since he began his uphill battle for the Presidency two years ago, Barack Obama has been getting mobbed for photos and autographs, and that enthusiasm and passion has only grown since he entered the Oval Office. But even President Obama must be a little taken aback by the identity of some of his well-wishers on Capitol Hill of late. After his address to Congress last Tuesday, the same House Republicans who had decried his stimulus plan as the work of just another tax-and-spend liberal crowded around him like starstruck tween girls at a Jonas Brothers concert, all just to get his John Hancock on their copy of the speech.


Members of Congress have always gotten autographed photos of themselves with the President from bill signings and other events - keepsakes that are then prominently displayed in their offices. It is unusual, though, for representatives and senators to cross the aisle. None of the Democrats I spoke with had anything signed from President Bush - except for Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, who has five large framed photos of Bush in his office, which probably speaks more to his strained relationship with his own party than any Bush popularity. So why the crossover with Obama? "It reflects the fact that although their leadership is stuck in a negative mode, the Party of No, their membership is more open minded," says Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat who had her copy signed so she could frame it and hang it in her offices. "It shows that his attempts to reach across the aisle are having some effect." --more here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Palin... Jindal... I didn't think the GOP's daily soap opera could get any more hilarious -- until Michael Steele had to apologize to Rush Limbaugh after their pissing contest. This stuff goes far beyond satire! :lmao:


The cherry on top is the underlying fact that we ultimately have GWB to thank for the demise of what's left of the republican party. :fahq:



Link to comment
Share on other sites


What was that thing that Roosevelt had that is widely credited with vitalizing the economy and shortening the Depression? Oh yes, the New Deal.


Can you explain how the New Deal reduced unemployment? Specifically, how did FDR's plan bring unemployment numbers back to pre-1929 levels?


I have not heard the theory mentioned that FDR's plan was not large enough. That sounds like a fairly standard explanation from a Progressive, though.


An excellent book on this subject is 'The Forgotten Man', by Amity Shlaes. She is a financial columnist and takes a non-partisan view (I tried to figure out what "side" she was on, and it was tough).



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...