Thread: Bush's Presidency

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

Only if the deficit is larger than the amount of money spent on the unconstitutional and hence illegal items.

If a home has $1000 income and the family spends $995 dollars on rent, energy, food and water, transportation, and clothing, and $605 on entertainment, it cannot be reasonably said that the home is too expensive for the family. No, the family is wasting money on non-essentials, and it's the non-essentials that have to be cut.

But the family is still spending too much on rent when they should look for a cheaper place to live, simillar to how Reagan shouldn't have cut taxes as much.

You touch on a great point that the root cause of the debt under Reagan (or any president) inherently has always been from unconstitutional spending. I just think that one of the only things worse then useless spending is not financing it with anything.

Odviously, it would be prefferable for there to be cuts to ballance the budget, but Reagan still should have understood that he increased the debt to GDP level by way too much.
Unlike in your senario, the "essential" cost that you are associating with lower taxes does not exist, because taxes can always be increased.

Reagan had alot of things going against him, from a weaker military position and the democratic controlled congress, so he will continue to be praised by history despite his defecit.

But we still can't let him off the hook so easily, the national debt is too big a problem for that, we need to aknowedge that a ballanced budget should be one of the highest priorities, and allowing more debt is always a grace problem.

Originally Posted by stekim

Flawed argument. Because it IS Constitutional for them to spend money where they do. I'm not saying it's smart or needed, but it's clearly not illegal. If it was actually unconstitutional they couldn't do it. Your ignorance of Constutional law is leading you to invalid arguments. You are stating something as a fact when the exact is opposite is clearly true.

Something being constitutional or not is separate from it being allowed. The government commonly violates the Constitution.

Just admit that those programs are unconstitutional, and support them anyway (like me). :P :P

The 10th amendment is pretty specific about how Congress can only carry out then enumerated powers. If you have any questions with that, I can try to explain them.

Originally Posted by nerv14

But the family is still spending too much on rent when they should look for a cheaper place to live, simillar to how Reagan shouldn't have cut taxes as much.

Not relevant. They'd be able to afford the rent if they weren't wasting their money on non-essentials.

We wouldn't have a deficit if the government wasn't wasting our money on unconstitutional non-essentials.

this point has already been discussed and debated and your side lost.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

this point has already been discussed and debated and your side lost.

Keep telling yourself that. I bet believing that helps you sleep better at night. It's not true, but go ahead and believe it anyway.

Originally Posted by Redress

Keep telling yourself that.

Don't need to.

I've already told you that.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

Don't need to.

I've already told you that.

And as with every thing else you have told me, you where both wrong, and amusing.