- Location
- Wasatch Range
Winners?
Loser?
No contest?
Discuss..........
Loser?
No contest?
Discuss..........
2012 Presidential Candidate debates
- Thread starter XJEEPER
- Start date
tbburg
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Scottsdale AZ
Interesting commentary on the interest in the primary candidate debates:
"Watching the primary debates is like watching the auditions for American Idol."
I'm afraid I can't get too excited:
Ford was defeated by Carter, and the national debt and deficit went up.
Carter was defeated by Regan, and the national debt and deficit went up.
Regan was succeeded by Bush, and the national debt and deficit went up.
Bush was defeated by Clinton, and the national debt went up, and surprisingly, deficit spending went down slightly.(Spending never went down, the economy just managed to make more money then the government could spend for a few years.)
Clinton was followed by Bush, and the national debt and deficit went up.
Bush was followed by Obama , and the national debt and deficit went WAY up.
Meanwhile, over in Congress, control of one or both houses flipped to the opposite party of the current presidency roughly 2 year following each presidential election. Each year, spending, debt, and deficits went up(except during the Clinton years, see above)
Let's say the most fiscally conservative Republican candidate wins the nom., then the general election. Let's also assume the "house of representin' " swings heavily Republican, and the Senate flips at the same time. Would you like to bet on which way the national debt will move?(greater, less, or about the same,..)
"Watching the primary debates is like watching the auditions for American Idol."
I'm afraid I can't get too excited:
Ford was defeated by Carter, and the national debt and deficit went up.
Carter was defeated by Regan, and the national debt and deficit went up.
Regan was succeeded by Bush, and the national debt and deficit went up.
Bush was defeated by Clinton, and the national debt went up, and surprisingly, deficit spending went down slightly.(Spending never went down, the economy just managed to make more money then the government could spend for a few years.)
Clinton was followed by Bush, and the national debt and deficit went up.
Bush was followed by Obama , and the national debt and deficit went WAY up.
Meanwhile, over in Congress, control of one or both houses flipped to the opposite party of the current presidency roughly 2 year following each presidential election. Each year, spending, debt, and deficits went up(except during the Clinton years, see above)
Let's say the most fiscally conservative Republican candidate wins the nom., then the general election. Let's also assume the "house of representin' " swings heavily Republican, and the Senate flips at the same time. Would you like to bet on which way the national debt will move?(greater, less, or about the same,..)
420BlackXJ
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- St. Paul, MN
Last edited:
5spd_xj
<<the good ol days
- Location
- Dracut, MA
Yup. Nothing was Obama's fault.
:laugh:
:laugh:
I think the first few numbers in his username prove why he thinks that. :nono:
420BlackXJ
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- St. Paul, MN
Apparently, you two can't add either.:dunno:
420BlackXJ
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- St. Paul, MN
Ellen all the way:jester:
- Location
- Wasatch Range
I agree, Ellen would make a much better President than Obama.......
420BlackXJ
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- St. Paul, MN
Be careful what you wish for.
- Location
- Wasatch Range
I submit that electing Cain would make him the first black leader of America.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/11/hurt-is-us-ready-for-second-black-leader/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/11/hurt-is-us-ready-for-second-black-leader/
420BlackXJ
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- St. Paul, MN
I submit that (s)electing bush ll makes him the first chimp leader in America.
Boatwrench
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Petaluma, CA
Ellen.
Boatwrench
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Petaluma, CA
Save your finger tips from debating, ranting or raving. President Obama will be re-elected. There are no candiadtes currently in the field who can beat him.
Darky
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- 29 Palms, CA
Cain's got a shot if all the racists out there get confused and vote for the darker of the two in order to prove how much race doesn't matter to them...
tbburg
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Scottsdale AZ
That's your idea of "fixed"? Really?
What does it even mean?
The rise in the national debt during the eight years of the Bush administration was all due to a math error? If Pres. Bush had had better math skills, he would have had a ballanced budget?
The debt racked up by EVERY prior administration is included in the national debt. That's the way it works when you don't pay down accrued debt: Kind of like using a credit card continuously, and only making minimum payments,.. but on a national scale.
At the risk of you ignoring the rest of this post,.. We get it. You don't like former pres. Bush. You're not a supporter. But,..
He is out of office.
Dude,.. seriously,.. google: "Bush derangement syndrome".
Most of the hits you get are going to be from conservative writers, but take the time to read through some of it. Get on with your life. Really,.. we still don't like former Pres. Clinton, but we gave up the continuous hate when he left office. Calm down and take a good look in the mirror. Try to move on. That's not sarcasm.
As for my original post: It was poorly written. As posted, it appears I'm making the common error of assuming the sitting president is 100% wholly responsible for the federal budget.
What I should have done, was summarized the political control of Congress first, concentrating on the House of Representatives, then added the presidential administration information below. The reason for this is because budgetary decisions are made in Congress. The President may sign or veto budget bills, but the bills do not originate in the executive branch. All budget bills originate in the House of Representatives, pass to the Senate, then to the White House.(That's the short version)
What my point was: Regardless of the current Republican debates, regardless of the outcome of the next presidential election, the Govt. is going to continue to spend money it doesn't have, and that we, the citizens, can't afford.
I believe, in the mid- to long term, the biggest threat to this country is runaway spending, and the unchecked growth of government(not necessarily in that order,..). Neither party is doing anything to stop it.
420blackxj: The one coherent idea I got from you post, that government spending and national debt skyrocketed during the Bush administration: I believe is wrong. Here's why:
from my original post:
If you look at government budgets, not just federal, but state and local as well, government spending went crazy, across the board, during the "dot-com" bubble. Tax revenue was at unprecedented levels, and bureaucrats spent like there was no tomorrow, at all levels. When the "dot-com bust" came along various govt. programs had had seven years of 6-10% yearly growth. While deficits were smaller then in the past, spending was headed through the roof.
When you look at the Bush years, percentage growth went down. Because revenue was also lower(much lower) deficits and debt went higher. In theory, if I was to blame presidents wholly for debt, I would fault pres. Bush for not slashing federal spending the minute he got into office. I do blame Republicans in general for this, as they had control of congress too. They should have made an effort to cut spending,.. they didn't.
I made the comment, "Bush was followed by Obama , and the national debt and deficit went WAY up." I stand by that, but in this case, I have to admit to personal bias: I don't like Pres. Obama's policies, etc. That, however, wasnt' the point. While spending has gone "WAY" up during this administration, I don't blame Pres. Obama for the rise in the national debt during his term. There hasn't been a single real budget passed since he took office. While this is partially his fault, it is mainly the House of Representatives, and the Senate. While the House is a pretty unruly bunch, ANY Senator could have shut down the senate, and not allowed normal operation and simply demanded budget resolutions to be passed before he would allow further normal proceedings.
To clarify where I'm coming from:
I've always thought of myself as a conservative, and I've been a registered Republican until about 6 years ago. In the last couple years I've taken several on-line "test your political leaning" style test/questionnaires. They all came back with the same answer:
Slightly liberal leaning, strong libertarian.
Imagine my horror,.. :tear:
Last edited:
- Location
- Indiana-Missouri
Im voting for cain just to prove im not racist
Apparently, i was racist in the last election
Apparently, i was racist in the last election
Ha ha! :cheers:
Speaking of Cain, some in the media are now attempting to portray him as not "black" enough; that he's not legit because he didn't partake in the sit-ins and other protests during the civil rights movement.
Of course. The media doesn't know how to deal with a successful CONSERVATIVE black person.
Similar crap during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.