Bush and Republicans Grow Budget Deficit out of control

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by CottonBowl'66, Jan 26, 2004.

  1. CottonBowl'66

    CottonBowl'66 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Messages:
    636
    Likes Received:
    1
    A recent study shows that under Bush and a Republican dominated Congress, DISCRETIONARY SPENDING is up 8% a year.

    LBJ fought the Vietnam War and instituted Medicare and Medicaid and only increased discretionary spending 4% a year.

    If that is not a case of an incompetent juvenile in the White House acting like he found his Daddy's American Express card and decided to go on a 3 year binge, I don't know what is.
     
  2. CottonBowl'66

    CottonBowl'66 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Messages:
    636
    Likes Received:
    1
    Re: Re: Bush and Republicans Grow Budget Deficit out of control


    I usually refer to Bush as "Bush, that lying piece of shit who was a coward during the Vietnam War, went AWOL from the Air National Guard, stayed drunk for the first forty years of his life, and would be in jail for insider trading if his Daddy was not the President at the time," but I just get tired of typing all that each time.
     
  3. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,326
    Likes Received:
    575
    We don't all necessarily agree with everything that our president
    does now do we?

    We all vote for our candidates but that doesn't mean we totally agree with everything he says and does.

    Would you rather a Dem try and throw a patch on something?

    I'll tell you what Klinton would've done after 9-11.

    He would've launched a couple of missiles at Afganistan and warned Bin Ladin not to attack us again.

    It scares the hell out of me that we haven't had a successful Dem
    wage a war or be pro-military since I can remember.

    To sum up the last 2 Dem Presidents that tried a simple rescue mission and failed miserably was Carter in Iran, Klinton in Somolia.

    Why I say that is simple is that is a lot easier to run than an all
    out war.

    How in Gods name do you think a Dem could manage a war on terror?

    BTW, When I vote for Bush this coming year it isn't going to be for
    most of the issues in your quote.

    Its going to be for the most IMPORTANT reason, the war on terror.

    I would rather fight them in Iraq than in our own back yard!:D
     
  4. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Re: Re: Re: Bush and Republicans Grow Budget Deficit out of control

    Assuming you are older than 12, please enlighten us as to the extent of your military background.
     
  5. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,326
    Likes Received:
    575
    Now that you mention LBJ, the another president that couldn't wage a war......

    We were bombing trees and forests under his presidency.

    He sure knew how to save money but he also knew how to
    kill thousands of American Men.


    What a piss pour example of a president!

    He didn't have the balls to win in Vietnam, he should at least have called a truce and brought the troops home.

    The Dems want to talk about all the Americans that have now died in Iraq but thats not even close to

    LBJ's body bags in Vietnam!:cuss: :cuss:
     
  6. M.O.M

    M.O.M Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    Messages:
    264
    Likes Received:
    2
    I'd say that is a bit of speculation on what Gore would have done post 9-11?
    I'm no Gore fan, I think he's an imbecile when it comes to his environmental and global warming gibberish. That's more academia fluff that people seem to, no pun intended, warm to like gay rights.
    But, unlike yourself and some obvious Democrats on here, I don't play by a playbook.
    I don't care what Clinton or Gore may or may not have done with spending. I can only go by what I know Bush is doing with spending.
    And it doesn't match his conservative rhetoric.
    If your point is the lesser of too evils, point almost well made.
    But, on social issues, Bush has also been a disappointment.
    From Gonzales watering down the diversity brief.
    To Cheney watering down the response to the gay agenda.
    Those are not conservative positions.
    And when it comes to spending, Bush is out of control.
    Who isn't for tax decreases? Well, maybe some aren't, but I am. But it makes absolutely no sense to be giving tax breaks to unproductive wealthy trust funders while we are simultaneously fighting a very expensive war, expanding medical coverage to levels not seen since LBJ, going nuts with discretionary spending from AIDS to Americorps and more pork barrell projects than even Senator Byrd could have dreamt of.
    Show me the conservatism in that record?
    I stated some facts, you shifted to speculation on what some non-President like Gore would have maybe done or not done.



     
  7. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,326
    Likes Received:
    575
    I do have some of the same concerns you do and I wasn't just
    speculating.

    If you read my post over you'll see that I say we might vote for
    someone but that doesn't mean we totally agree on everything
    they do.

    Do you agree with everything the president you voted for has done?

    I thought I made that very clear.

    I will vote for Bush and the less of 2 evils unless a miracle happens and I can vote for someone else that I like.

    I don't see it happening and I won't speculate but please answer
    1 question.

    We currently have a war on terror, It is war time whether most people know it or not.

    The Dems haven't been able to run a war successfully ever that I
    know of.

    If a Dem is in the white house, what do you think will happen?



    LBJ was the worst president never elected.

    Cottonbowl66,

    At least read my post on the 1st page where I talk about LBJ.
     
  8. M.O.M

    M.O.M Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    Messages:
    264
    Likes Received:
    2
    What would a Democrat do in the White House today in terms of the war on terror? I honestly don't know. I could speculate, but I can't be sure.
    All I can be sure of is that we are fighting a war on terror, one that is expensive but that maybe or perhaps is worth the expense. For your edification, I don't quarrel with this war. I do quarrel with who is benefiting financially from this war, but overall I don't disagree that the terror war is one that must be fought.
    What I do know is that Bush, other than the terror spending, is spending like mad on domestic programs.
    That spending has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq or the terror war. Completely different story. And that, my conservative friend, is indefensible.

     
  9. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,326
    Likes Received:
    575
    I'm not defending Bush on that and I too think its unwise.

    I haven't been defending him on that front.

    The spending is out of control.

    But unfortunately I have to put the country's security over that.

    Its whats most important is our safety at this time and age.

    I think we agree in a lot of ways.

    I don't want to see another 9-11 at ALL COST!

    Who is benefitting from this war?

    If you say its Chaineys old company may I remind you that Clinton
    gave them work overseas without a bid when he was president.

    Its now also coming out that this story has now been overblown
    and 2 people have been fired from the company!
     
  10. CottonBowl'66

    CottonBowl'66 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Messages:
    636
    Likes Received:
    1


    Anyone who thinks that the reason we lost Vietnam is because we "were not allowed to win it" is so ignorant of the situation that they are not qualified to even comment on the subject.

    That means YOU Sourdoughman. You are as stupid on this as you are on most other things.

    In Vietnam we were up against a totalitarian govt led by psychopaths who cared not one iota how many people they lost, but only cared about winning. We could not have won the war THE WAY WE FOUGHT IT, period.

    They would have kept fighting no matter what and how long it took. North Vietnam was a highly populated country that could reproduce another army every year, and if anyone objected to the war, they would simply take them out and shoot them.

    How we might have won the Vietnam War has nothing to do with bombing in the north because North Vietnam was simply a conduit for supplies which were pouring in from China and Russia. Basically there was nothing to bomb in North Vietnam that could have had a decisive outcome on the war.

    How we might have won it has nothing to do with politicians or LBJ, but more to do with the Pentagon and the tactics they used to fight the war. LBJ basically gave the Pentagon everything they asked for in the Vietnam War. It is a right wing lie that LBJ hamstrung the Pentagon.

    In my opinion we could have probably gotten a stalemate in Vietnam if we HAD FOUGHT IT THE RIGHT WAY. That has nothing to do with invading North Vietnam, nuking them, or even bombing North Vietnam. If you want to know how we might have "won" the war, go look up the late Colonel Harry Summers's book on it.

    I know you won't do that, but reading educates. In the case of ignorant right wingers, they just listen to Rush, since that is "all" they need.

    Your comments on Vietnam are worthy of the average ignorant drunk on the average ignorant barstool. They are the comments of the average right wing, David Duke loving redneck, who thinks he knows it all, but knows nothing, and understands nothing.
     

Share This Page