Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Zod

Romney now supports FEMA

85 posts in this topic

lol

Ron, (I hope you don't mind me calling you that) I know you are like 100 years old now, but you seem to know your way around a keyboard pretty well for a dead guy.

With all due respect, if you want those questions you asked earlier answered, go look them up yourself.

This may come as a suprise to you, but I am not here to cater to your whims, even if you really are a dead president.

It can't be all that difficult, I'm sure you have the Fox "fair and balanced" web site saved to your favorites.

So if you have a point to make, get your index cards out and make it.

While you are generating your response, here is an op-ed from your former Budget Director, David Stockman.

Apparently, he doesn't think much at all of the Romney/Ryan budget proposal.

Thirty years of Republican apostasy — a once grand party’s embrace of the welfare state, the warfare state and the Wall Street-coddling bailout state — have crippled the engines of capitalism and buried us in debt. Mr. Ryan’s sonorous campaign rhetoric about shrinking Big Government and giving tax cuts to “job creators” (read: the top 2 percent) will do nothing to reverse the nation’s economic decline and arrest its fiscal collapse.

Mr. Ryan professes to be a defense hawk, though the true conservatives of modern times — Calvin Coolidge, Herbert C. Hoover, Robert A. Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower, even Gerald R. Ford — would have had no use for the neoconconservative imperialism that the G.O.P. cobbled from policy salons run by Irving Kristol’s ex-Trotskyites three decades ago. These doctrines now saddle our bankrupt nation with a roughly $775 billion “defense” budget in a world where we have no advanced industrial state enemies and have been fired (appropriately) as the global policeman.

Indeed, adjusted for inflation, today’s national security budget is nearly double Eisenhower’s when he left office in 1961 (about $400 billion in today’s dollars) — a level Ike deemed sufficient to contain the very real Soviet nuclear threat in the era just after Sputnik. By contrast, the Romney-Ryan version of shrinking Big Government is to increase our already outlandish warfare-state budget and risk even more spending by saber-rattling at a benighted but irrelevant Iran.

In short, Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices. And it couldn’t pass even if Republicans were to take the presidency and both houses of Congress. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have no plan to take on Wall Street, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, social insurance or the nation’s fiscal calamity and no plan to revive capitalist prosperity — just empty sermons.

David A. Stockman, who was the director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981 to 1985, is the author of the forthcoming book “The Great Deformation: How Crony Capitalism Corrupts Free Markets and Democracy.”

to see more follow the link:

http://www.nytimes.c...udget-plan.html

Oh by the way, your old buddy Richard Cheney says hello and wanted to remind you, "deficits don't matter".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A short history of the deficit issue since the time of Ronald Reagan for anyone that does not routinely answer to the name Dick Cheney:

"Reagan," Vice President Dick Cheney famously declared in 2002, "proved deficits don't matter." Unless, that is, a Democrat is in the White House. After all, while Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt and George W. Bush doubled it again, each Republican was rewarded with a second term in office. But as the Gallup polling data show, concern over the federal deficit hasn't been this high since Democratic budget balancer Bill Clinton was in office. All of which suggest the Republicans' born-again disdain for deficits ranks among the greatest - and most successful - political double-standards in recent memory.

The triumph of the GOP messaging machine is reflected in a new Washington Post/Pew Research poll. In just the four months since the Republican majority took control of the House, the percentage of Americans believing the budget deficit is a major problem which must be addressed now catapulted from 70% to 81%. But even more revealing is an April Gallup survey which showed the deficit (17%) rivaling the unemployment (19%) and the overall state of the economy (26%). And as it turns out, those cyclical swings in budget angst reflect the complete victory of the conservative deficit narrative.

As predicted at the time, Reagan's massive $749 billion supply-side tax cuts in 1981 quickly produced even more massive annual budget deficits. Combined with his rapid increase in defense spending, Reagan delivered not the balanced budgets he promised, but record-settings deficits. Ultimately, Reagan was forced to repeatedly raised taxes to avert financial catastrophe, including the last major bipartisan tax code overhaul in 1986. By the time he left office in 1989, Ronald Reagan nonetheless more than equaled the entire debt burden produced by the previous 200 years of American history. It's no wonder the Gipper cited the skyrocketing deficits he bequeathed to America as perhaps his greatest regret.

Of course, President George H.W. Bush would come to lament them even more. Despite his legendary 1988 campaign pledge of "read my lips - no new taxes," Bush the Elder just two years later was forced to break his promise. As PBS recounted:

This "could mean a one term Presidency," he confided to his diary, "but it's that important for the country."

Bush 41 was right on both counts.

For his part, Bill Clinton faced a double-whammy on the deficit issue. He was, after all, a Democrat. And in 1992 and again in 1996, Clinton was confronted with the third party candidacy -and the pie charts - of Ross Perot. But when President Clinton proposed boosting the top tax rate to 39.6% to help close the yawning Reagan/Bush budget gaps, every single Republican in the House and Senate voted no. While then Rep. John Kasich (R-OH) told Clinton and the Democrats, "your economic program is a job killer," Dick Armey looked into his crystal ball to claim:

"Clearly this is a job killer in the short run. The revenues forecast for this budget will not materialize; the costs of this budget will be greater than what is forecast. The deficit will be worse, and it is not a good omen for the American economy."

Most dramatic of all was Texas Senator Phil Gramm. The same man who led the 1990's crusade to gut regulation of Wall Street and the IRS and later called America a "nation of whiners," boldly - and wrongly - predicted:

"I believe hundreds of thousands of people are going to lose their jobs...I believe Bill Clinton will be one of those people."

As it turned out, not so much. In 1996, Bill Clinton buried Bob Dole. Then in his second term, he buried the budget deficit as well.

Then came George W. Bush, who promised in his 2001 message to Congress:

At the end of those 10 years, we will have paid down all the debt that is available to retire. That is more debt repaid more quickly than has ever been repaid by any nation at any time in history.

Instead, President Bush produced red ink as far as the eye can see. After inheriting a federal budget in the black and CBO forecast of a $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years, President George W. Bush quickly set about dismantling the progress made under Bill Clinton. Even with two unfunded wars and the similarly unpaid Medicare prescription drug benefit, Bush's $1.4 trillion tax cut in 2001, followed by a $550 billion second round in 2003, accounted for half of the yawning budget deficits he produced. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explained, if made permanent those Bush tax cuts if made permanent, would add more to the national debt over the next decade than the impact of Iraq, Afghanistan, the recession, the stimulus and TARP - combined.

During his presidency, Republicans in Congress voted seven times to raise the debt ceiling, the last to $11.3 trillion. By the time George W. Bush ambled out of the White House, he left his successor a $1.2 trillion budget deficit for 2009.

Barack Obama inherited two wars, a doubled national debt, and that $1.2 trillion deficit from George W. Bush. (As Orrin Hatch described the Bush years, "it was standard practice not to pay for things.")

But one thing was new: Republican concern about the budget deficit.

http://crooksandliar...its-dont-matter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on topic:

362-1oouw5.AuSt.91.jpeg>

Kevin Siers / The Charlotte Observer (November 2, 2012)) MCCLATCHY

Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2012/10/29/2675432/cartoons-for-the-week-1028.html#storylink=cpy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole Sandy mess is indicative of the Obama presidency.

Nothing good happens, people are hurting, yet he and his "team" work out front for the media spots rather than actually getting in a room, closing the door and actually getting something done for the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so tired of liberals bringing up the past every time someone calls out the savior.

Talk about this Presidents awful financial records, and leave the rest in the dust.

I am so far right on fiscal that the previous administration pisses me off to no end as well, but for gods sake, please let it go. This President has been an outright failure, as was Bush 2. We get it, please stop sucking his dick, while giving GWB the finger.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so tired of liberals bringing up the past every time someone calls out the savior.

Talk about this Presidents awful financial records, and leave the rest in the dust.

I am so far right on fiscal that the previous administration pisses me off to no end as well, but for gods sake, please let it go. This President has been an outright failure, as was Bush 2. We get it, please stop sucking his dick, while giving GWB the finger.

That would be fine except Romney's advisors are largely composed of GWBs old advisors, many of them are being considered for key financial positions within the adminstration. So if you think your are tired of hearing about GWBs failed policies, wait until the people responsible for them come back to run the country into the ground for a second time. If they do, it will be much worse than in 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be fine except Romney's advisors are largely composed of GWBs old advisors, many of them are being considered for key financial positions within the adminstration. So if you think your are tired of hearing about GWBs failed policies, wait until the people responsible for them come back to run the country into the ground for a second time. If they do, it will be much worse than in 2008.

I am not disagreeing with you here, but I would love to see some proof of this.

Maybe they will make things worse, or maybe they won't, but we do know that the sitting President is not making things better.

He had a majority in both the House and Senate, and worried more about advancing his agenda on healthcare reform and green jobs than he did about getting the country working again.

This President along with the last will most likely be in the very bottom of the rankings when all is said and done.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I am dense on this, but why would anyone turn down their own funds that was confiscated from them to aid in their recovery? Essentially the federal government has held said taxes ransom to dole out as they see fit.

If those monies stayed in state to begin with, fiscally responsible states have that much more due to less overhead. What say does Nebraska have for the use of taxes taken from them for disasters that have befallen themselves? State agencies have executive decisions to be made closer to home. If they screw up, they are held responsible for their actions or lack thereof when voting time comes.

Yeah... it's easy to be charitable with other people's money... of course, DC will get their cut for their wonderful oversight of their ever-so-wise spending practices.

Then again, the states' National Guard isn't really for the states anymore is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole Sandy mess is indicative of the Obama presidency.

Nothing good happens, people are hurting, yet he and his "team" work out front for the media spots rather than actually getting in a room, closing the door and actually getting something done for the people.

He told the entire government to cut the red tape and do whatever it takes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole Sandy mess is indicative of the Obama presidency.

Nothing good happens, people are hurting, yet he and his "team" work out front for the media spots rather than actually getting in a room, closing the door and actually getting something done for the people.

It's funny that you and g5 are like the only people I'm seeing call it a mess. The people actually there, like Christie, have done nothing but praise the fantastic job Obama has done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites