• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Look who used to be in favor of universal health care.

AdamT said:
No, what I meant was that he faced the fact that Reagan left him a debt that could not be sustained by existing tax revenues, so he manned up and and agreed to raise taxes in exchange for spending cuts, in direct opposition to the lunatics in his own party who were scampering around Congress screaming their little heads off.
Click to expand...

Bush I was actually a fairly good president who did what was necessary for the country. It's really too bad he didn't get a second term.

He and his son proved that there is little relation between doing a decent job and getting reelected.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Bush I was actually a fairly good president who did what was necessary for the country. It's really too bad he didn't get a second term.

He and his son proved that there is little relation between doing a decent job and getting reelected.
Click to expand...

I think Bush I was a decent President. I voted for him both times but in retrospect I'm glad Clinton won.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Then you think he wouldn't have gone into Kuwait without the prompting of Thatcher? That one is new to me. It could be, I don't know.
Click to expand...

yeah. Colin Powell was still telling Bush to "give sanctions time to work". Thatcher had to keep H.W. from "going wobbly".

As for the opinion that not going into Baghdad was a policy failure, we only have to look at the events since the mission was accomplished to know that we should never have invaded Iraq.
Click to expand...

not at all. firstly, 1993 was very different geopolitically than 2003 (imagine a counterinsurgency where Sunni Arabs, Shiite Arabs, and Kurds had all started out on our side, and where there had been no outside Al-Qaeda umbrella organization capable of fomenting local resistance groups), and secondly, the book is not yet written on how the 2003 effort will eventually turn out.
 
AdamT said:
No, what I meant was that he faced the fact that Reagan left him a debt that could not be sustained by existing tax revenues, so he manned up and and agreed to raise taxes in exchange for spending cuts, in direct opposition to the lunatics in his own party who were scampering around Congress screaming their little heads off.
Click to expand...

and he he received no more in revenues from it - thereby demonstrating that those in his own party in Congress were actually correct. He and Reagan both tried to solve the deficit through the "I'll raise taxes if you cut spending" deal with the Democrats, and both of them were left standing at the altar by congressional Dems, who I imagine must have found it difficult to keep in the sniggering as they hammered out the deal.
 
cpwill said:
and he he received no more in revenues from it - thereby demonstrating that those in his own party in Congress were actually correct. He and Reagan both tried to solve the deficit through the "I'll raise taxes if you cut spending" deal with the Democrats, and both of them were left standing at the altar by congressional Dems, who I imagine must have found it difficult to keep in the sniggering as they hammered out the deal.
Click to expand...

He did what was necessary to keep the government running. Unfortunately that was the best he could hope for under the circumstances. Obviously the revenue hike was far too modest to arrest the disastrous change that Reagan brought about.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Frankly, it does not make one a "monstor in the GOP", and it is seen as a valid concern by many Independents as well, without whom no GOP can win.

Just as with Immigration, Gingrich knows that "tough ****" is not the answer. And while he has modified his positions at times, he's still got the biggest balls in the field.
Click to expand...

"tough ****" is the only answer to immigration, unless you want to be swamped by 4 billion people earning 50 cents an hour.
 
cpwill said:
and he he received no more in revenues from it - thereby demonstrating that those in his own party in Congress were actually correct. He and Reagan both tried to solve the deficit through the "I'll raise taxes if you cut spending" deal with the Democrats, and both of them were left standing at the altar by congressional Dems, who I imagine must have found it difficult to keep in the sniggering as they hammered out the deal.
Click to expand...

Starve The Beast is a fundamentally flawed theory, and most likely the opposite is reality.

Voters are more reluctant to raise spending if their taxes are raised to match revenue to expenditures. But with Starve The Beast voters don't care.

Lousy theory.
 
Matt Foley said:
"tough ****" is the only answer to immigration, unless you want to be swamped by 4 billion people earning 50 cents an hour.
Click to expand...

Free market at work.
 
Manc Skipper said:
The Flip-flopper!
Click to expand...

Who? Gingrich or Romney? Both of them have flipped on issues they once were for or against. I really don't see any difference between the two except Gingrinch has either been a career politician or a Washington insider all his life. He's as crony and misleading as the rest of them.
 
cpwill said:
and he he received no more in revenues from it - thereby demonstrating that those in his own party in Congress were actually correct. He and Reagan both tried to solve the deficit through the "I'll raise taxes if you cut spending" deal with the Democrats, and both of them were left standing at the altar by congressional Dems, who I imagine must have found it difficult to keep in the sniggering as they hammered out the deal.
Click to expand...

I keep hearing this argument and would really like to see the voting record on those spending bills that came out of Congress at the time. The literature I've read recently tells a completely different story.

References:
"Bad Money," by Kevin Phillips
"The Big Con," by Jonathan Chait
 
Objective Voice said:
I keep hearing this argument and would really like to see the voting record on those spending bills that came out of Congress at the time. The literature I've read recently tells a completely different story.

References:
"Bad Money," by Kevin Phillips
"The Big Con," by Jonathan Chait
Click to expand...

Right, that's because it's complete bull****. Republican rhetoric about decreasing the size of government never went beyond rhetoric. They had no appetite to cut spending and so they were forced to raise taxes. All the better if they could blame the Democrats, who were at least realistic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom