Who will tell the people?

[Tigermike 3,055]

Agreed. It just seems a little strange, or disingenuous, that the dems seem to want to paint the picture black ONLY because of Iraq. Both parties have been spending like there was not end to the money (but that seems to be normal for politicians.) The problem is that no one wants to take responsibility.

How many discussions have we had on this forum about earmarks? The dims always say that earmarks are good and earmarks are not the problem.

Gotta say, to try and lay the crazy ass spending of the last eight years at the Dems feet doesn't hold water. We had a Republican controlled Congress and a Republican president for most of that time. The GOP Congress sent spending bills that were way out of whack and Bush seemed to have lost his veto stamp every time one came through. He's the one that pushed hard for the Medicare Rx plan.

Just because the Dems went along with some of it doesn't mean you can equally assign blame this time.

So how was that statement "trying to lay the crazy ass spending of the last eitht years at the the dims feet"?

Both of you need to get a grip. No where did I blame all the spending on the dims.

You get a grip. I was reading this:

Both parties have been spending like there was not end to the money...

...and was pointing out that even if every Dem in Congress had opposed the bills they still would have passed and Bush would have (and did) signed them, the blame falls primarily on the GOP. In fact, I hardly fault the Dems at all because they did not have control of the White House nor Congress nor any of the Congressional committees for 6 years, yet we spent money like horny sailors on shore leave. Assigning more than passing blame to the Dems is not looking at the problem realistically.

And I was pointing out that the dims were part of the problem. It goes without saying that Bush could have and damn should have used the veto long before he ever did. Just as Otter said in the post I was replying to:

"The sad, lamentable truth of the matter is that, with just the slightest amount of fiscal discipline on the part of the Republican congress and the Bush administration (By that, I mean just having government non-military spending increase at the same rate as inflation), this country could have afforded its occupation in Iraq and actually had an enormous budget surplus."

My first word was Agreed.

Have both parties in congress not been spending like crazy? Or was it limited to Republicans? Have the dims not been painting the picture black ONLY because of Iraq? Yes they have. And as Otter has pointed out more than once on this board IF domestic spending had been controlled the problem would not be what it is.

[RunInRed 16,492]

, he does not constitute any ideological break with the Democrats of old.

How do you know that?

[otterinbham 0]

, he does not constitute any ideological break with the Democrats of old.

How do you know that?

It walks like a duck and talks like a duck.

I mean seriously. Show me anything he's said, anywhere, that repudiates the Keynsian economic approach espoused by Democrats. Here he is talking about jacking up capital gains tax rates, upscaling the already bloated federal medical care bureaucracy, etc. etc. Are you seeing anywhere, anyhow, where the guy is really talking about stopping the growth of government?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

TM, the point is, the Dems at best just went along with the spending. We had control. We could have enforced fiscal discipline even if every Dem for 6 years had wanted to go completely socialist. So it just rings hollow to blame them or to really even say they share the blame.

We did this. Our president and our so-called conservative representatives. Trying to spread the blame around just smacks of not taking responsibility to me.

[Tigermike 3,055]

TM, the point is, the Dems at best just went along with the spending. We had control. We could have enforced fiscal discipline even if every Dem for 6 years had wanted to go completely socialist. So it just rings hollow to blame them or to really even say they share the blame.

We did this. Our president and our so-called conservative representatives. Trying to spread the blame around just smacks of not taking responsibility to me.

No one has said the Republicians are blameless. Nor am I trying to shift blame to the dims. What I said is plain and to the point.

",,,,,the dems seem to want to paint the picture black ONLY because of Iraq."

The economic mess is not ONLY because of Iraq. Otter has pointed that out repeatedly, as have others. That was my point.

[otterinbham 0]

TM, the point is, the Dems at best just went along with the spending. We had control. We could have enforced fiscal discipline even if every Dem for 6 years had wanted to go completely socialist. So it just rings hollow to blame them or to really even say they share the blame.

We did this. Our president and our so-called conservative representatives. Trying to spread the blame around just smacks of not taking responsibility to me.

No one has said the Republicians are blameless. Nor am I trying to shift blame to the dims. What I said is plain and to the point.

",,,,,the dems seem to want to paint the picture black ONLY because of Iraq."

The economic mess is not ONLY because of Iraq. Otter has pointed that out repeatedly, as have others. That was my point.

That, by the way, is not an endorsement on my part of Iraq, which I regard as a strategic mistake. My point is that the cause of the deficit was not lowered taxes but runaway spending that far, far exceeded the rate of inflation. You would have to go back to the Johnson administration to find another presidency that presided over a greater expansion of federal spending.

[Tigermike 3,055]

TM, the point is, the Dems at best just went along with the spending. We had control. We could have enforced fiscal discipline even if every Dem for 6 years had wanted to go completely socialist. So it just rings hollow to blame them or to really even say they share the blame.

We did this. Our president and our so-called conservative representatives. Trying to spread the blame around just smacks of not taking responsibility to me.

No one has said the Republicians are blameless. Nor am I trying to shift blame to the dims. What I said is plain and to the point.

",,,,,the dems seem to want to paint the picture black ONLY because of Iraq."

The economic mess is not ONLY because of Iraq. Otter has pointed that out repeatedly, as have others. That was my point.

That, by the way, is not an endorsement on my part of Iraq, which I regard as a strategic mistake. My point is that the cause of the deficit was not lowered taxes but runaway spending that far, far exceeded the rate of inflation. You would have to go back to the Johnson administration to find another presidency that presided over a greater expansion of federal spending.

I do understand that and was not making that stretch. My point was that the dims have been making the stretch that IRAQ was the main cause if not the only casue of the economic turn down. They have been saying that because they are for the most part pushed by the far left.

[aumd03 2]

My $.02 worth

I tend to agree with otter and tigermike as far as the economics.

A couple of lines in the article scare me a little. Talking about hope and people ready to be enlisted. Enlisted to follow whom? I guess I'm a little skeptical of blind faith in someone I see as a poor leader. Hitler was a charismatic leader without the right aim. Obama is in no way a Hitler, but I also I don't see Obama with the judgement and experience to lead us in the right direction. He can enlist all he wants in teach for america. Most people that enroll are because other career options fell through and they fall back on teaching. If they could get a better job with their history or communications degree they would. But people ultimately make decisions based on greed and their pocketbook. I'm not sure someone who lacks fiscal discernment is the man to lead the masses. The peace corps and teach for america signing up armies of people aren't going to fix america. Leadership that leads us to responsible spending, saving, loss of a sense of entitlement, and correcting social ills and the growing family crisis that is widening the educations and financial gaps will. No army of teachers will fix a child that doesn't care about education. A wise parent, or importantly parentS will do what millions of dollars cannot. But we don't want to place the blame on ourselves and our laziness and attitudes. It must be a politicians fault and throwing more money at it is the solution. I don't see McCain or Clinton as the solution either. I feel such frustration that we have no leaders and just politicians.