@DCGoldPants Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Simple question. Why should anybody believe that they've changed their ways from this decade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I don't. That's why we need gridlock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I cant believe they will be any better than before. Now, I'd drastically change my opinion if I saw some true conservative blood that doesnt have a history of throwing away core principle for expediency or power's sake, get into some of the seats. heck, I'd vote Dem, Indy, Green, or even socialist, if they had my kind of candidates in place. the party makes no difference to me at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I voted for Barr. but again: would be happy to replace everyone over 11 years in Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 We can't, but given what the dems are trying to do and want to do, can they really be any worse?? And in the past they have proven to be more fiscally minded than under Bush II Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 No reason at all. Part of the reason that America needs more choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted October 7, 2009 Author Share Posted October 7, 2009 So, we're not a year into the Dems having the WH and the Hill, and we're still on what they are "trying to do". But some are willing to go back to the GOP even though we know what they DID do? That doesn't make any sense. I'm with you guys who want more choice. I want a real Centrist party. I'll go 3rd party from now on. That's an easy choice. But I still don't know how anybody who isn't preconditioned to hate one party or another, can think the GOP would do anything remotely fiscally conservative. Only difference would be there WOULDN'T be those tea parties. Those people all the sudden wouldn't care again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Only difference would be there WOULDN'T be those tea parties. Those people all the sudden wouldn't care again. They would be mad too about the US not getting the 2016 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 America shouldn't The GOP is worse then the Democrats because of the small government, less spending rhetoric used by the GOP but they go out and spend twice as much as Dems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No_Pressure Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 The Republicans aren't fiscally conservative. They are as irresponsible as many fiscal conservatives point fingers at the Democratic party for being. No matter who gets in office we're going to waste money. I will say for all the things I dislike about Bill Clinton, the man had a balanced budget and was running a surplus, which is more than I can say for most presidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 America shouldn'tThe GOP is worse then the Democrats because of the small government, less spending rhetoric used by the GOP but they go out and spend twice as much as Dems Talk about rhetoric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Talk about rhetoric. The last year of Bill Clinton, the federal budget was 1.7 trillion The last budget Bush proposed (prior to the TARP) was 3.4 trillion dollars In 8 years, George W managed to propose a budget twice as large as what was proposed 8 years earlier :doh: Conservatives, Republicans, whatever should realize what a disaster W was to our movement. He used the small gov't rhetoric to get elected, and then went out and did the complete opposite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 They shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 The last year of Bill Clinton, the federal budget was 1.7 trillionThe last budget Bush proposed (prior to the TARP) was 3.4 trillion dollars In 8 years, George W managed to propose a budget twice as large as what was proposed 8 years earlier :doh: Conservatives, Republicans, whatever should realize what a disaster W was to our movement. He used the small gov't rhetoric to get elected, and then went out and did the complete opposite And in 8 months Obama has tacked nearly 50% of the deficit Bush did in 8 years. The Republicans are bad, but let's not delude ourselves of who the champion spenders are.:doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 And in 8 months Obama has tacked nearly 50% of the deficit Bush did in 8 years. The Republicans are bad, but let's not delude ourselves of who the champion spenders are.:doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh: This isn't a conversation about Dems Look, I know how awful Dems are, were and are going to be. You don't need to sell me on that What you need to sell me on is why anyone should trust the right in this country after 8 years of runaway spending that we just had, to be any better then the Dems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Simple question.Why should anybody believe that they've changed their ways from this decade? This decade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aCalBearSkin Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 And in 8 months Obama has tacked nearly 50% of the deficit Bush did in 8 years. The Republicans are bad, but let's not delude ourselves of who the champion spenders are.:doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh: Yeah, that happened b/c of Obama. Everything's been peachy keen over the past year or so. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 The last year of Bill Clinton, the federal budget was 1.7 trillionThe last budget Bush proposed (prior to the TARP) was 3.4 trillion dollars In 8 years, George W managed to propose a budget twice as large as what was proposed 8 years earlier :doh: Conservatives, Republicans, whatever should realize what a disaster W was to our movement. He used the small gov't rhetoric to get elected, and then went out and did the complete opposite This is the exact reason why 9/11 was so successful. Say what you want but 9/11 is at the core of all of our problems. People were scared, politicians were scared about their jobs. Not only did we get involved in 2 conflicts, but we increased spending drastically as a direct result of 9/11. Government sigificantly increased. Both parties were to blame in this. Things would have been massively different had 9/11 not happend. Bin Ladin must be exceedingly happen to know that most of our problems have been casused by or magnified by 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I will say for all the things I dislike about Bill Clinton, the man had a balanced budget and was running a surplus, which is more than I can say for most presidents. Well, I'd credit Clinton and a GOP Congress who's political strategy was to make certain that Bill didn't have a single political accomplishment he could point to. But I agree, the results were peachy keen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Conservatives, Republicans, whatever should realize what a disaster W was to our movement. He used the small gov't rhetoric to get elected, and then went out and did the complete opposite :secret:Just like Reagan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted October 7, 2009 Author Share Posted October 7, 2009 This decade? I mean since Bush II, through the Dems taking control of Congress in 06, but the GOP still having the WH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 :secret:Just like Reagan. Apples and oranges Larry The big apple and orange being Tip O'Neill in charge of the House for 8 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Simple question.Why should anybody believe that they've changed their ways from this decade? The real question should be why should anybody believe ANY politician would be fiscally conservative with the tax payers money. History has proven otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Apples and oranges LarryThe big apple and orange being Tip O'Neill in charge of the House for 8 years You're right. The big difference between Reagan and Bush was that Reagan was able to lie about who vastly increased federal spending and the deficit. It was Reagan. Congress gave Reagan the budgets he asked for. (Pretty much. The actual budgets passed by Congress were larger than Reagan's requests. By 1%. Congress also spent an additional 2% over and above what Reagan requested, but did it by cutting spending elsewhere. They shifted 3% of his budgets, and made the totals 1% higher.) The difference between Reagan and W was that W couldn't dodge accountability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 You're right. The big difference between Reagan and Bush was that Reagan was able to lie about who vastly increased federal spending and the deficit. It was Reagan. Congress gave Reagan the budgets he asked for. (Pretty much. The actual budgets passed by Congress were larger than Reagan's requests. By 1%. Congress also spent an additional 2% over and above what Reagan requested, but did it by cutting spending elsewhere. They shifted 3% of his budgets, and made the totals 1% higher.) The difference between Reagan and W was that W couldn't dodge accountability. We have gone through this 1000s of times over the past 7 years. I am in no mood for it today You win Larry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.