• 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!

Bush's Presidency

How do You rate George W. Bush's Presidency?

  • He's The Best President We've Ever Had

    Votes: 3 3.7%

  • He Was One Of The Best

    Votes: 6 7.3%

  • He Was Pretty Good

    Votes: 8 9.8%

  • He's Alright

    Votes: 6 7.3%

  • He Was Kind Of Bad

    Votes: 13 15.9%

  • He Was One Of The Worst

    Votes: 35 42.7%

  • He Was The Worst

    Votes: 11 13.4%
  • Total voters
    82
stekim said:
Well, that's all well and good except for one small thing: I never said anything about empowering any Democrats! So I'm not sure your response is really to my post. It was very passionate and all, but it had nothing to do with my post. I clearly said, in fact, that the Democrats were bad. But when it comes to the area of spending they are not raging hypocrites. The GOP is. Sorry. It's not my fault. Pointing out the obvious is hardly an indictment of me.

.
Click to expand...

Maybe you didn't mention it; but my comments did. Did you vote for any of the Democrats who now infest the Senate or House? Then you empower them.

Did you vote for Obama? Then you empower them.

Did you vote for a third party candidate? Then you empower them.

There is only ONE good way to ensure politicians do not bury us in a vast sea of debt and societal decline, and that is by either ensuring that we never empower ONE particular party or that we vote FOR those candidates who espouse conservative values. I don't worry that sometimes they might go back on their word; after all, they are mostly LAWYERS and are POLITICIANS.

But to deliberately VOTE for a candidate that promises to increase Government control, that they want to turn you into a ward of the State and increases taxes as their ONLY solution to every problem; that is just plain dumb. Defending them is asinine.
 
stekim said:
Which he signed! Exactly my point. And whose idea was all military spending that bloated the budget? Tip O'Neill's? Nope. Despite the symbolism, Reagan got his budgets. Just like they all do. He submitted bloated budgets to Congress, they passed them, he signed them. End of story.
Click to expand...
If you look deeper, you'll find that Congress significantly modified Reagan's budget proposals to cut his proposed military spending and hike his proposed domestic spending.
 
stekim said:
No kidding. But he DOES present a budget, right? Thanks. And those budgets are pretty much stuck to. So again, he sure as hell as does have input. So let's not try and pass the buck because your party does things you don't like. I would suggest you elect better people, but I know that's a long shot.
Click to expand...

I would like you to post/cite ONE credible instance where this has ever happened: And those budgets are pretty much stuck to.

I think you are living on planet denial how the REAL political world works.
 
Truth Detector said:
Maybe you didn't mention it; but my comments did. Did you vote for any of the Democrats who now infest the Senate or House? Then you empower them.
Click to expand...

When did I ever say I voted for ANYONE in office right now?

But to deliberately VOTE for a candidate that promises to increase Government control, that they want to turn you into a ward of the State and increases taxes as their ONLY solution to every problem; that is just plain dumb. Defending them is asinine.
Click to expand...

No more so than defending the GOP. They pretty much the same thing.
 
Goobieman said:
If you look deeper, you'll find that Congress significantly modified Reagan's budget proposals to cut his proposed military spending and hike his proposed domestic spending.
Click to expand...

In some programs sure. But here's the bottom line. Reagan NEVER sent anything even resembling a balanced budget to Congress. Not once. Not ever. He sent bloated budgets, they passed bloated budgets, he signed bloated budgets. And those are facts no one can spin or dispute.
 
stekim said:
Which he signed! Exactly my point. And whose idea was all military spending that bloated the budget? Tip O'Neill's? Nope. Despite the symbolism, Reagan got his budgets. Just like they all do. He submitted bloated budgets to Congress, they passed them, he signed them. End of story.
Click to expand...

What ****ing idiots think it was the military spending that bloated the budget?

By definition the bloat would be in the form of the unconstitutional spending, not the required national defense spending.

The bloat in the budgets The Great President simply had to sign was the domestic spending on useless welfare parasites, entitlements, and all the other unconstitutional spending, not in the defense spending that forced the Soviet Union into dissolution.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
What ****ing idiots think it was the military spending that bloated the budget?
Click to expand...

All spending that exceeds receipts bloats the budget. Military or otherwise. You can bankrupt a country via military spending just like you can with any other kind. Reagan wanted and got a huge increase in military spending, but he had no way to pay for it. Hence, the record deficits (at the time) under his "small government" watch. If he wanted to increase military spending he should have cut elsewhere. But he didn't. And his legacy will be the start of our fiscal armageddon. He was a leader in the GOP's now infamous "borrow and spend" plan.
 
Last edited:
stekim said:
Reagan wanted and got a huge increase in military spending, but he had no way to pay for it. Hence, the record deficits (at the time) under his "small government" watch. If he wanted to increase military spending he should have cut elsewhere. But he didn't. And his legacy will be the start of our fiscal armageddon. He was a leader in the GOP's now infamous "borrow and spend" plan.
Click to expand...
FY1982-1989:
-DOD spending went from $185.9B to $304.0B (+63%), total $2028B
-Entitlements went from $370.8B to $549.8B (+48%), total $3626B
-Revenue went from $617.8B to $991.2B (+60%), total $6143B

Entitlement spending exceeded defense spending by 78% and consumed 59% of all available revenue -- and yet it was Reagan's defense spending that created the deficits?
:roll:
 
Goobieman said:
FY1982-1989:
-DOD spending went from $185.9B to $304.0B (+63%), total $2028B
-Entitlements went from $370.8B to $549.8B (+48%), total $3626B
-Revenue went from $617.8B to $991.2B (+60%), total $6143B

Entitlement spending exceeded defense spending by 78% and consumed 59% of all available revenue -- and yet it was Reagan's defense spending that created the deficits?
:roll:
Click to expand...


I didn't say it was his defense spending that caused anything! Not in and of itself. ALL spending caused the deficits. That includes defense, of course, but I never said defense was the only reason. Like I said, if you want to increase defense spending, you need to cut elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
stekim said:
I didn't say it was his defense spending that caused anything! I said ALL spending caused the deficits. That includes defense, of course, but I never said defense was the only reason.
Click to expand...
This quote of yours, included in my previous post...

Reagan wanted and got a huge increase in military spending, but he had no way to pay for it. Hence, the record deficits (at the time) under his "small government" watch. If he wanted to increase military spending he should have cut elsewhere. But he didn't
Click to expand...

...makes it pretty clear in that you're laying the blame on defense spending rather than any other partucular spending/spending increases.

Obviously it just ain't so.
 
Goobieman said:
This quote of yours, included in my previous post...



...makes it pretty clear in that you're laying the blame on defense spending rather than any other partucular spending/spending increases.

Obviously it just ain't so.
Click to expand...

I think I cleared that up for you. You read it wrong or I wasn't clear enough. Now I am. Defense was a big part of it. Not the ONLY part. But he did, in fact, increase spending across the board, including on defense, with no way to pay for it.
 
Last edited:
stekim said:
I think I cleared that up for you. You read it wrong or I wasn't clear enough. Now I am. Defense was a big part of it. Not the ONLY part.
Click to expand...
Or the biggest part.
But it IS the ONLY part you cared to mention.

But he did, in fact, increase spending across the board, including on defense, with no way to pay for it.
Click to expand...
Tell me about the increases in entitlement spending, and how those increases came with no way to pay for them.
 
Goobieman said:
Or the biggest part.
But it IS the ONLY part you cared to mention.


Tell me about the increases in entitlement spending, and how those increases came with no way to pay for them.
Click to expand...

OK. Done. That was easy. The major point doesn't change. He lead us down the unsustainable "borrow and spend" path we are on.
 
Last edited:
stekim said:
All spending that exceeds receipts bloats the budget.
Click to expand...

No, the military spending was the meat and potatoes, the socialist nanny state spending was the fifty pound platter of churros.

If you're not able to see the distinction between necessary and constitutionally authorized spending and unnecessary unconstitutional spending, you're not able to form a valid opinion on the budget problems facing this country.

You are aware that federal spending on education is completely unconstitutional, right?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, the military spending was the meat and potatoes, the socialist nanny state spending was the fifty pound platter of churros.

If you're not able to see the distinction between necessary and constitutionally authorized spending and unnecessary unconstitutional spending, you're not able to form a valid opinion on the budget problems facing this country.

You are aware that federal spending on education is completely unconstitutional, right?
Click to expand...

Actually, it doesn't matter a hill of beans WHAT the spending is if it's too much! You can bankrupt the country on "necessary and constitutionally authorized spending". There is no distinction when it comes to spending more than you take in. There may indeed be distinctions in regard to other debates about spending, but not this one. You cannot spend more than you take in forever, regardless of whether you think the spending is "good".
 
stekim said:
OK. Done. That was easy. The major point doesn't change. He lead us down the unsustainable "borrow and spend" path we are on.
Click to expand...

Wrong. According to the evidence presented on this thread, Carter pre-dates Reagan in the use of deficit spending.

Therefore your statement that Reagan led us down that path is incorrect, he was not only following the path already set, he was not able to turn it around or stop it because the Democrat dominated House is the real party that sets the spending agenda.

Read the Constitution some time. Spending bills originate in the House. A president's budget is only a suggestion.

Also, the House was supposed to be cutting the unconstitutional domestic spending budget while granting the necessary increases in defense spending.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Wrong. According to the evidence presented on this thread, Carter pre-dates Reagan in the use of deficit spending.
Click to expand...

Actually, most Presidents had deficit spending. Reagan simply took it to a whole new level. See? Numbers don't lie.

U.S. National Debt Clock FAQ

Therefore your statement that Reagan led us down that path is incorrect, he was not only following the path already set, he was not able to turn it around or stop it because the Democrat dominated House is the real party that sets the spending agenda.
Click to expand...

See link above. Sorry. Again, numbers don't lie.

I love how you protect the writers of bloated budgets when they are "your" guys. It's pathetic, but cute in its own way.
 
Last edited:
stekim said:
Actually, it doesn't matter a hill of beans WHAT the spending is if it's too much!
Click to expand...

Really?

What's your commentary on the family that has a $1000 budget, and spends $400 on rent, $300 on food, $200 on transportation, $250 on cable TV, internet and telephone, $200 on clothes, $200 to keep a boat in the marina, $500 a month on recreational drugs, and spends no money on health care or dental needs?, and never has to stop their spending because they're borrowing from their kid's future wages, and he's only two.

Do you think what they spend doesn't matter?

Well, it does matter, and in the real world, according to the Constitution, national defense is the first priority, and most of the budget outside of that is not even allowed to the federal government, but we're still borrowing from our kid's future earnings to have fun now.

stekim said:
You can bankrupt the country on "necessary and constitutionally authorized spending".
Click to expand...

Sure, one could. But in the real world, if only necessary and Constitutionally authorized spending had occurred, the country wouldn't have a deficit or a national debt. It would also have a sound economy and banking industry.

Those are the fact, ma'am.
 
Redress said:
The thing is, and the point I am making, is when it came to balancing the budget, the presidents, none of them got it done, though Clinton got closest. I don't care about the excuses, it did not get done. Republicans accuse democrats of ignoring all these factors, but forget far too many themselves. Then we get into a hyper-partisan argument with namecalling. Scarecrow will be along before long to prove my point on that.
Click to expand...

Don't worry the name calling has already begun. I agree. Both sides tend to disregard midigating circumstances when talking about the other side. Republicans and Democrats alike. Clinton may have gotten closest, but he did so by weakening our military significantly. Personnally, I think the cuts should have come more equally from a large number of federal programs, not just the armed forces.
 
stekim said:
Actually, most Presidents had deficit spending. Reagan simply took it to a whole new level. See? Numbers don't lie.

U.S. National Debt Clock FAQ



See link above. Sorry. Again, numbers don't lie.

I love how you protect the writers of bloated budgets when they are "your" guys. It's pathetic, but cute in its own way.
Click to expand...

It was FDR who started deficit spending actually.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Well, it does matter, and in the real world, according to the Constitution, national defense is the first priority, and most of the budget outside of that is not even allowed to the federal government, but we're still borrowing from our kid's future earnings to have fun now.
Click to expand...

Where does it say defense is "first"? My copy must be missing a page. Mine does not have the list of spending priorities in it. And if the other spending is not allowed I suggest you sue. When you win (and you will not) you will have solved the entire problem! And I'm with you. I hope you win. I know there would be a 0% chance of you winning, but I would still be on your side.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, the military spending was the meat and potatoes, the socialist nanny state spending was the fifty pound platter of churros.

If you're not able to see the distinction between necessary and constitutionally authorized spending and unnecessary unconstitutional spending, you're not able to form a valid opinion on the budget problems facing this country.

You are aware that federal spending on education is completely unconstitutional, right?
Click to expand...

The Constitution allows Congress to pass laws to "promote the general welfare." This is a rather obscure phrase, but it can be very easily interpreted to grant powers to oversee our Country's educational programs to the National government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom