Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » George "Worst than LBJ" Bush (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: George "Worst than LBJ" Bush
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.reason.com/links/links092105.shtml

quote:
George W. Bush has boosted total inflation-adjusted discretionary spending in his first term by 35.1 percent. To put that in context, chew on this: LBJ — the Texas legend who created the Great Society and, for all intents and purposes, the Vietnam War — only boosted discretionary spending 33.4 percent. What's more, the gap between Bush and LBJ will only grow. De Rugy notes that the final outlays for fiscal year 2005 (the last budget signed in Bush's first term) aren't in yet.
George W. Bush has expanded discretionary federal pork and total discretionary federal spending more than even the infamous LBJ.

The sad thing is that the numbers will be getting even worse in the second term as Bush has promised even more gigantic spending in the second term than he even delivered in his first term.

Isn't there some point that so-called "conservatives" will call him out on his worst-ever fiscal track record? Or is the party line still that the Bush/Delay Republican Party has eliminated all the fat that there is in the federal budget already?

P.S. Calling Bush out on his worst-ever fiscal track record does not consist of saying "I do not approve of his spending, but I hated the other guy more." Calling Bush out on his worst-ever fiscal track record is admitting that you would have never voted for the guy if you knew that he was going to spend more taxpayer money on pork than even LBJ did.

[ September 23, 2005, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adjudicator
Member
Member # 724

 - posted      Profile for Adjudicator   Email Adjudicator   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As I believe Daruma has pointed out, there are in fact a number of Conservative commentators calling him out. The man has never vetoed a bill, for the love of Pete. And this recent absurdity with spending up to 200 billion on rebuilding New Orleans (so it can no doubt be ravaged again by the next big storm) is a mighty expensive way of avoiding the tag of racist and hater of the poor that so many members of the media are itching to pin on to somebody.
Posts: 1172 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" And this recent absurdity with spending up to 200 billion on rebuilding New Orleans (so it can no doubt be ravaged again by the next big storm) is a mighty expensive way of avoiding the tag of racist and hater of the poor that so many members of the media are itching to pin on to somebody."

there's also the fact that wealthjy property owqners of the Gulf Coast don't relish seeing their investments go south because the area is officially acknowledged as a Bad Place to Live.

Either way, the illusion of Dubya the Leader will have about completely been erased come the '08 elections.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adjudicator
Member
Member # 724

 - posted      Profile for Adjudicator   Email Adjudicator   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kl- true enough. No doubt it is at least part of the reason for the rebuilding effort. Trent Lott gets a new house. Huzzah!
Posts: 1172 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IrishTD
Member
Member # 2216

 - posted      Profile for IrishTD   Email IrishTD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
David,

On the DeLay thread that javelin started, there was no shortage of us disturbed. I'd say that a large majority of folks on this board would love to see the fed budget cut down significantly -- the difference is what gets cut.

Intentional thread derailment: Rather than continuing to whine about all politicians spending money like drunken sailors (because most of all 'em are doing so), let's get some solutions on here for limiting Congressional spending -- methods for getting them implemented get you bonus points [Big Grin] (things like line item veto, balanced budget amendment, etc.)

Edit: typo fix

[ September 23, 2005, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: IrishTD ]

Posts: 825 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Calling Bush out on his worst-ever fiscal track record does not consist of saying "I do not approve of his spending, but I hated the other guy more." Calling Bush out on his worst-ever fiscal track record is admitting that you would have never voted for the guy if you knew that he was going to spend more taxpayer money on pork than even LBJ did.
Why are you so obsessed with getting people to say they wouldn't have voted for President Bush if only they'd known X, Y, or Z exactly? I don't approve of his fiscal irresponsibility, but that wasn't the big issue last election. And yes, the other guy was at least as bad vis a vis fiscal responsibility, so that wasn't the basis upon which I made my decision.

This last election was about our strategy in Iraq and in the broader War on Terror for me. Given that, please explain why someone like me, who agrees with the strategy this administration has put into place, wouldn't vote for him because I disagree with him strongly on what are, in my estimation, peripheral issues.

Why do you persist in this opinion that one can't strongly disagree with a politician on some issues but still vote for him because of agreement on more pressing issues or the lack of a better alternative? You're a smart guy from what I've seen, which is why the repetition of this simplistic rubbish is a bit confusing to me. What am I missing here?

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Paladine said:
quote:
Why do you persist in this opinion that one can't strongly disagree with a politician on some issues but still vote for him because of agreement on more pressing issues or the lack of a better alternative? You're a smart guy from what I've seen, which is why the repetition of this simplistic rubbish is a bit confusing to me. What am I missing here?
I agree.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Given that, please explain why someone like me, who agrees with the strategy this administration has put into place, wouldn't vote for him because I disagree with him strongly on what are, in my estimation, peripheral issues.

Ah. The operation of our country is a peripheral issue, whereas the operation of Iraq is a vital matter to be overseen by the president of the United States. Of course. [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The point is that the Bush/Delay Republican Party is a mirror image of the 1960s LBJ liberals, yet they claim to be "conservatives."

Those who voted for the George "Worse than LBJ" Bush/Tom "There Is No Fat Left in the Budget" Delay Republican Party should own up to the fact that they voted for bankrupting their kids' and grandkids' futures.

Until then, I don't want to hear any of those who voted for LBJ liberals...ahem, I mean Bush liberals...to call themselves conservatives anymore.

[ September 23, 2005, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In addition, those who voted for Bush for his foreign policy abroad also do not deserve to be considered conservatives either.

In fact, they are LBJ liberals too, because they are the same kind of people who caused us to lose miserably in Vietnam and are now causing us to lose miserably in Iraq.

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
David Ricardo -

I did not vote for Bush. However, your constant attitude that those who do should repent is annoying. I was not convinced then, and am not convinced now that John Kerry would have been a better (or worse) candidate than Bush in any given area.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Who would you have had "true conservatives" vote for, Mr. Ricardo?
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bah.

FDR>LBJ>GWB

The progression of socialism in US Domestic Fiscal politics.

David, the true-blue Bush kool aid drinkers ("Bush can do no wrong") crowd are NOT conservatives.

They're compassionate conservatives.

There is a difference.

Oh, and you won't ever get me to repent for voting for Bush, because I voted in the "Kerry can do no right" crowd.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
David-

You didn't answer my points. I agree with you that Bush is fiscally irresponsible. Both parties are fiscally irresponsible; I disagree with them both there. I agree with one party on most social issues and foreign policy matters. Given a choice between the two, I chose the party with which I most agreed.

quote:
Ah. The operation of our country is a peripheral issue, whereas the operation of Iraq is a vital matter to be overseen by the president of the United States. Of course.
You're right, TomD. The only issue that matters is the budget, Iraq really isn't a major issue at all. See? I can be snarky and sarcastic too. [Wink]
Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wars cost money, huge ammounts of it. Being pro-war means being in favor of massive spending.
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Peleguis -

True. However, Federal spending on war is specifically authorized in the Constitution. There is no such specification for health care or most of the other Democrat pet programs.

I (personally) think the war in Iraq was a mistake. However, sticking it out seems like the best idea at this point. While I would not hold Bush's leadership up as something worthwhile, I do feel that he is doing a better job than Kerry would have.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Constitution allows for just about anything, if it promotes general welfare. It is often much more abstract than people like Mr Roberts and Mr Bush would like us to think.
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

The only issue that matters is the budget, Iraq really isn't a major issue at all.

I'm inclined to agree.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Iraq could become a VERY big issue if the current chaos we're fomenting there spreads elsewhere, particularly Saudi Arabia:

Saudi Foreign Minister Speaks

" Washington, Sep 23 (PTI) Warning that Iraq is hurtling towards disintegration, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal has said this could drag the region into war and questioned Bush administration's efforts in the country will yield a stable, unified nation.

"There is no dynamic now pulling the nation together," he said, adding "all the dynamics are pulling the country apart." He said he is so concerned that he is carrying this message to "everyone who will listen" in the Bush Administration.

"The prince told reporters here that he served on a council of Iraq's neighbours--Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iran and Kuwait as well as Saudi Arabia, and "the main worry of all the neighbours" was that the potential disintegration of Iraq into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish states would bring other countries in the region in the conflict.

"Turkey, he noted, has long threatened to send troops into northern Iraq if the Kurds there declare independence.

"Iran, he asserted, is already sending money and weapons into the Shiite-controlled south of Iraq (Saudi Arabia is ruled by a Sunni theocracy and Iran by a Shiite theocracy) and would probably step up its relationship, should the south become independent.

"This is a very dangerous situation, a very threatening situation," he said." PTI

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The biggest chunk of the budget is veterans. How exactly can that be cut?

Cutting welfare generally is what I'm in favor of. We've got too many people watching daytime tv in this country.

As far as the Gulf War II costs go, the Saudis should pay that just as they paid for Gulf War I. I suppose it's too much to ask Europe to pay their fair share. Their euro is in such big trouble that they're planning to cut legalized vacations from 6 wks to 4, poor things.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The "both parties are equally fiscally irresponsible" is very disingenuous because Bush has increased fiscal discretionary spending more than ANY Democrat or Republican president in recent memory.

The fact is that the current Bush/Delay Republican Party is MORE fiscally irresponsible than the current battered husk of a Democratic Party simply because the current Republicans have increased fiscal discretionary spending more than even the "Lord of Pork" LBJ ever did.

So when any of you so-called "conservatives" try to say that the alternative was just as bad on the fiscal level or that both parties are equally fiscally irreponsible, you are just lying to other and/or yourselves.

The Republican Congress and Republican Adminstration has increased fiscal discretionary spending more than even the legendary LBJ Democratic Congress and Democratic Administration. So, simply by the facts, the current Republican Administration and Congress has no equal in pork barrel spending.

Also, it is also child's play to remember that a President Kerry and a Republican Congress would have automatically meant much more fiscal discipline because the Republicans would have blocked President Kerry's proposals, and President Kerry would have vetoed Republican pork-barrel bills.

To argue that voting for Kerry would have resulted in the same fiscal mess that we are in now is ludicrous and plainly dishonest.

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mr. Ricardo, are you going to answer anyone's questions?
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, I'll answer your question, javelin. A "true conservative" like John Cole, Andrew Sullivan, Daniel Drezner, or myself would have voted for John Kerry., not because he was a good candidate (he was definitely not), but because Bush already has his chance and had already proved himself unworthy of the Oval Office after his horrendous first term.

Isn't that the answer to the question you were asking?

[ September 24, 2005, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Exactly.

Is that because you feel that John Kerry's substantially larger budget expenditures would be opposed by Congress, and thus never see the light of day?

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, because the Republican Congress would not have been so emboldened to keep building $230 million "Bridges to Nowhere" if the President of the United States was someone who would actually wield his veto pen toi strike down bills that were bad for the American public -- in contrast to Bush who has never seen a pork barrel bill that he didn't want to sign.

You voted for the party of $230 million bridges connecting a 50-population village to the Alaskan mainland -- just admit that you were sold a bridge by the Republican Party and stop making ridiculous comparisons to Kerry, who could not have possibly passed as much discretionary fiscal spending increases even if he tried.

[ September 24, 2005, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by David Ricardo:
No, because the Republican Congress would not have been so emboldened to keep building $230 million "Bridges to Nowhere" if the President of the United States was someone who would actually wield his veto pen toi strike down bills that were bad for the American public -- in contrast to Bush who has never seen a pork barrel bill that he didn't want to sign.

You voted for the party of $230 million bridges connecting a 50-population village to the Alaskan mainland -- just admit that you were sold a bridge by the Republican Party and stop making ridiculous comparisons to Kerry, who could not have possibly passed as much discretionary fiscal spending increases even if he tried.

If you don't believe that the Republican Congress would be stopping Kerry from spending, but instead the other way around, I've got a bridge to sell your angry, misguided self. Kerry's proposals were MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE then anything that Bush has passed.

I can buy the "Republican Congress stops Democrat Spending", but not the other way around. That's silly, at best.

Look it up!

[ September 24, 2005, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Javelin said:
quote:
If you don't believe that the Republican Congress would be stopping Kerry from spending, but instead the other way around, I've got a bridge to sell your angry, misguided self. Kerry's proposals were MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE then anything that Bush has passed.
I agree.

Although the 'bridge to nowhere' is pretty stupid.

I think that the best thing that could happen to this country at the moment would be a line item veto amendment.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kerry would likely have sp[ent as much or more as Bush, but he would also have funded it. And some of it might have been productive. Note I only said 'might'. Kerry wasn't my choice, just the only thing remotely viable in opposition to Georgie.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Answers:

a) 9/11

b) Afganistan War

c) Iraqi War

d) Education Bill

e) Transportation Bill

f) Agricultural Bill

g) Katrina/ New Orleans reconstruction

h) Rita reconstruction

Question: David Ricardo, which bit of discretionary spending did you want to cut from the budget?

Rebuttal: So, you are against (our kids, our troops, our farmers, our crumbling roads)? How heartless.

Welcome to Conservative world, where every answer is wrong. First Bush gets dinged for not caring about the poor, now he spends too much on them.

Unfortunately, Bush isn't the fiscal conservative I want. But, a) he didn't run on this platform, so there is a certain amount of betrayal in conservative circles; b) much of this "discretionary spending" really isn't his fault. He didn't ask for terrorists, hurricanes, or wars. This offsets a great deal of the betrayal; c) the ex post facto reasoning that Kerry was the "conservative candidate of choice" is hogwash, and Mr. "Real Prescription Bill for our Seniors" wasn't a fiscal tightwad.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How about if we stop pretending that all the money spent to cope with these issues was well spent?

How about if we just admit that 9/11 didn't justify Federal dollars buying an armored robot for Billings Montana?

How about if we adress the billions missing from Iraq reconstruction dollars?

Fiscal discipline isn't just about how much money you throw at a problem, it's also about making sure that money is well spent.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How about if we stop pretending that all the money spent to cope with these issues was well spent?
That is a different conversation. THIS conversation is about how many disasters this administration had to deal with. I'll admit the money hasn't all been well spent, if you'll agree that Bush has had a lot of messes to pay for. Or are you against Bush giving money to the poor? (Damn, I LUV taking liberal attacks and using them back at them!)


quote:
How about if we just admit that 9/11 didn't justify Federal dollars buying an armored robot for Billings Montana?
Unless you are on the bomb squad of Billings Montanna.

quote:
How about if we adress the billions missing from Iraq reconstruction dollars?
Show me some links, and not innuendo. How much "falls off the plate" on our end of the table, and how much on the Iraqi side? I'll take responsibility for our corruption, not Iraqi.

quote:
Fiscal discipline isn't just about how much money you throw at a problem, it's also about making sure that money is well spent.
This is funny coming from the party of midnight basketball, 100,000 new cops (financed for only three years), and universal healthcare. Born again fiscal conservatives? If you want to compare discretionary spending on rebuilding NY, NO, Alabama, and Texas with the Great Society, I'd be happy to.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
flydye45 said:
quote:
quote:
How about if we just admit that 9/11 didn't justify Federal dollars buying an armored robot for Billings Montana?
Unless you are on the bomb squad of Billings Montanna.
Just because it is good pork spending does not mean that it's not pork spending.

Edited to add:

Looking at Billings Montana twice, it appears that it is a good size place, as in need of first responder training (and a bomb squad) as any other city.

I (personally) think that the funding for things like that should come from the States, but given that they simply do not have the capital, the Federal government is probably the best place to mete out the resources needed to respond to a terrorist attack.

--Firedrake

[ September 24, 2005, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: FiredrakeRAGE ]

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
100,000 new cops....What's that lie about Bush not cutting a single program Clinton instituted that's being bandied about? Deep cuts on that one.

After all, midnight basketball has a much higher societal cost than unattended teens wandering the street in the middle of the night. I mean, what kind of an idiot thinks those kids would be better off in a supervised enviornment? Liburul idiocy.

Now, giving away vast sums of cash to people we know to be corrupt without suffecient oversite isn't the responsibility of the Administration handing out the cash? That's a bit of stretch.

Sure, having a new toy is fun if you're on the bomb squad of a small town. Doesn't mean that they are even close to being a likely target....even a remotely likely target...of a terrorist attack.

Just make it clear, you think the majority of Bushes spending has been about giving money to the poor?

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"c) Iraqi War...which bit of discretionary spending did you want to cut from the budget?"

Regarding the Iraqi War, it has been undermined while overfunded from the gitgo. It was undermanned, based on shoddy evidence, presented as a pay itself-affair...

Money is just the 'price'. Whether something's dollar price is high or low, you don't get what you paid for: you get what you get.

Before the first dollar was appropriated by Congress to fund that stupid war, the cost of it was raised to infinite price by misguided and dishonest attempts to a) sell it on fraud, b) fund it on moonshine, and c) not commit adequate resources to do the job right from the gitgo.

It's hard to imagine more wasteful spending than that... but wait! This was done just as a large budget surplus was being frittered in tax reductions that were far too largely giveaways to the most wealthy.

As for this:

"So, you are against (our kids, our troops, our farmers, our crumbling roads)? How heartless. Welcome to Conservative world, where every answer is wrong. First Bush gets dinged for not caring about the poor, now he spends too much on them."

I reply:

Yeah, but can you switch hands and not miss a stroke?

[ September 24, 2005, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"How about if we just admit that 9/11 didn't justify Federal dollars buying an armored robot for Billings Montana?"

Here in Spokane, our RoboCop development program got axed. So sad... the officers involved were getting so *good* at walking--jer--ki--ly... and talking in flat crisp monotones.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Kerry's proposals were MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE then anything that Bush has passed.

Hm. I dispute this, actually. Got proof?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First, a bit of Charlie Rangel

quote:
Mr. Rangel's metaphoric linkage of Mr. Bush to the late Theophilus "Bull" Connor--who in 1963 turned fire hoses and attack dogs on blacks, including Martin Luther King Jr., demonstrating in favor of equal rights--met with wild applause and cheering at a Congressional Black Caucus town hall meeting, part of the organization's 35th Annual Legislative Conference. . . .

Mr. Rangel, a Democrat who has represented Harlem for almost 35 years, spent his portion of yesterday's forum reminiscing about the civil rights struggles of the 1960s, and calling on his audience to undertake similar action today, inciting them to "revolution" after the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina and particularly its impact on indigent blacks in the Gulf Coast region.

The storm, he said, showed that "if you're black in this country, and you're poor in this country, it's not an inconvenience--it's a death sentence." Denouncing Mr. Bush for waging "a war that we cannot win under any stretch of our imagination" instead of providing for those devastated by the hurricane, Mr. Rangel left his audience with a parting thought.

"If there's one thing that George Bush has done that we should never forget, it's that for us and for our children, he has shattered the myth of white supremacy once and for all," the congressman said.


Well, with words like that. So, on the one hand, we have David Ricardo blasting "us" for being prolifigate with our funds. And on the other, NO MATTER THE PRICE TAG, we still get blasted for not caring.

Every one of you born again fiscal conservatives (I leave out those who were always tightwads) to fiscal discipline would be more then happy to once again ding Republicans if they spend one dollar less then you in the opposition* desires. So please excuse me if I take the critique with a few shakers of salt.

kenmeer, unless you have a "Way Back" machine, Iraq is reality. Do you advocate cutting and running now? Whine if you must, but do we keep spending for our troops or not? Do we abandon Iraq in front of the world stage or not? Don't like it? Win some elections. [Smile]

I am not happy with what he is spending, but at least I have the honesty to admit, which most of you are loathe to, that most of this high spending was from unforseen disasters. But that takes away the issue. [Roll Eyes]


*Opposition takes the place of those of you who quibble about what you exactly see yourselves as. So if you see yourself as a Neo Platonic Pseudo Marxist Kibbutznik with a modicum of JSMills, I still have you covered. [Smile]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I am not happy with what he is spending, but at least I have the honesty to admit, which most of you are loathe to, that most of this high spending was from unforseen disasters.
Our invasion of Iraq was hardly an unforeseen disaster.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"kenmeer, unless you have a "Way Back" machine, Iraq is reality. Do you advocate cutting and running now? Whine if you must, but do we keep spending for our troops or not? Do we abandon Iraq in front of the world stage or not? Don't like it? Win some elections."

'whine' is a particularly offensive, even cowardly, epithet to apply to my outrage against a decision that has killed so many people as our invasion of Iraq. I advocate getting the hell out of there now because it is a Lost Cause.

Short of Lincolnesque dictatorialism, there is no way now for us to put sufficent men and material in Iraq to do a proper job of it. I highly doubt this Congress will allow Bush to play Lincoln at this phase of the game.

Our war in Iraq is a quagmire. We'll end up leaving a Lost Cause just as we did that other quagmire so poorly invested in by this thread's title charlatan, LBJ.

It isn't ALL about preserving your faith in your political illusions, flydye. Some of it is about facing current reality.

[ September 25, 2005, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
flydye, George Bush is responsible for the largest increase in non-defense federal discretionary spending, even more so than LBJ. In addition, Katrina/New Orleans wasn't even included in the numbers when these facts were published.

That's why when you bring up red herrings like Afghanistan, Iraq, War on Terror, Katrina/New Orleans, you miss the point.

On entitlkement spending and pork-barrel projects (which means non even including Iraq, Afgahnistan, Katrina/New Orleans), Bush and the Republican Congress has increased federal non-defense discretionary spending even more than LBJ ever did.

Nice try, though, flydye. As usual, you distort the facts about the fiscal budget and pretend you're a fiscal conservative.

I have a $230 billion "Bridge to Nowhere" to sell you, but Tom "There is No Fat Left in the Budget" Delay already sold it off to you.

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1