Democratic Party, the party of fiscal responsibility

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Mystikalilusion, Jun 29, 2005.

Page 6 of 8
  1. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    No, debt isn't always bad. But unbridled borrowing can get out of control. At some point you have to start paying it down. I think it has reached that point. It makes sense not to spend more than your income as a general rule.

    As always, I think the answer is proper balance between responsible debt and out-of-control debt.
     
    red55, Jul 4, 2005
    #51
  2. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    no you dont, you can just borrow more, and roll the debt over. there is nothing wrong with staying in debt indefinitely. rolling over debt is a perfectly sound and normal thing. well-run private companies do it like crazy.
     
    martin, Jul 4, 2005
    #52
  3. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    It's funny how spending gets under the Democrats skin when it's the Republicans doing the spending. If all of this money was going to shiftless drug abusers and baby making machines, there would be no problem.
     
    SabanFan, Jul 4, 2005
    #53
  4. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Well, duhhh! It's the neo-con republicans doing the spending! When the dems are in office, I'll criticise their failed policies. As far as federal budgets it is Clinton=surpluses, Bush=deficits.

    And despite the flag-waving, Bush is not spending his budget increases on the military! The Iraq war expenses are a national debt over and beyond Bush's government budget increases. Bush has increased spending immensely while cutting taxes. When Clinton introduced his FY2000 budget, he proposed that non-defense discretionary spending for FY2004 should be $335 billion. Bush's budget rose to $429 billion in FY2004, or almost $100 billion greater than Clinton's original plan.

    Cute phrase about shiftless drug abusers and baby-making machines. What relevance does it have to the budget? Bush is paying welfare recipients just as much as Clinton did. And there are more of them since unemployment is up.

    Republicans used to cry about "tax-and-spend" democrats, but they have now become the "cut-tax-and-spend-more" republicans.

    This is not Ronald Reagans Republican party.
     
    red55, Jul 5, 2005
    #54
  5. Contained Chaos

    Contained Chaos Don't we all?

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    9,467
    Likes Received:
    2,124
    Quite true. Fact is, if our economy was in stellar shape right now, the same people who are currently excusing Bush's mismanagement of it would be the first ones to give him all the credit.
     
    Contained Chaos, Jul 5, 2005
    #55
  6. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    And you would be crediting Clinton. So, what's your point?
     
    SabanFan, Jul 5, 2005
    #56
  7. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934

    a surplus is awful, you never want the government to have a surplus. that means the people have paid more than they should have, which should never happen, because it limits growth, which is the whole point. we are far better off when the government is borrowing, because instead of paying taxes, people have voluntarily loaned money to the government. and people love to loan money to the government, because it is more reliable than any bank.

    the economy is the responsibility of private citizens and industry. the president's responsibility is only to see that they are not overly burdened by government. that mans not creating a surplus of our money.
     
    martin, Jul 5, 2005
    #57
  8. Contained Chaos

    Contained Chaos Don't we all?

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    9,467
    Likes Received:
    2,124
    I'm sorry you missed that rather lucid point. Even if I were the Clinton-jocker that you think/wish I am/was, I would still be crediting a president for having influence over the economy. All the W fans that want to shift economic despair completely off the presidents shoulders would be the first ones to canonize him for it if things were different. Get it? I'm not going over it again.
     
    Contained Chaos, Jul 5, 2005
    #58
  9. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    My point in asking what's your point was to point out that the point you were making was a point that had been clearly made throughout this thread, thus rendering your point redundant, thus my sarcastic inquiry as to your point. Get it?
     
    SabanFan, Jul 5, 2005
    #59
  10. Contained Chaos

    Contained Chaos Don't we all?

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    9,467
    Likes Received:
    2,124
    No, it was more like just another lame attempt on your part to take a shot at me by insinuating that I was a double-standardizing Clintonite. Just bear in mind that I didn't request further insight.
     
    Contained Chaos, Jul 5, 2005
    #60
Page 6 of 8

Share This Page