Your sentences don’t match, Lib. The first one would seem to be an admonition of my argument against the Republicans’ deficits, but the second would seem to be a jab at the Republicans’ opinion of the Bill of Rights.
What’cho talkin’ 'bout, Lib?
When I said “they”, I meant all of them — the Demublicans and the Republicrats. They all are power-mad tyrants who will stop at nothing in their pursuit to control the lives and fortunes of others.
Preach it! 
Unlike** Metacom**, I think we could save a bundle by slashing the budgets and powers of most governmental regulatory agencies. Start with the USDA, which is grossly over-staffed, and work from there.
No, no they aren’t. Some are, many are not. Please try to get a grip.
Anyway, thanks Munch and Giraffe. Someday I hope to be at least as economical with words while still being articulate.
As opposed to this year’s Libertarian presidential candidate, who is just out and out mad.
I knew that would freak you out, Lib.
The fed gov’t is too big. Yes, we have to cut spending. I nominate eliminating the Dept of Energy and Education and turning that over to the states. At least then I would know my taxes are staying in my home state instead of some pork barrel project in Alaska or Utah.
Oh, come on. Is it that much worse than “promote the general welfare”?
So, if we ask for a fiscally responsible government the terrorist have already won. 
Yes.
“Promote” is different from “behalf.” One implies a fostering of an atmosphere where general welfare can be achieved, while the other implies a “We’ll do it for you because you won’t spend it right.”
I feel safe in asserting that, had that sentiment been worded as “promote the general welfare by taking things away from those whom we govern”, there would have arisen no Constitution for you to link.
So with all the possible, and much simpler, ways to get into the country, we’ve gotta worry about terrorists sailing all the way across the Pacific just so they can sneak in though Oregon? Then what?
Shit, if it’s that much of a concern, we oughta station armed troops every fifty yards along the Mexican and Canadian borders.
That link isn’t working for me, so I’ll take your word for it.
What I’d like to see is for the government to exercise a little fiscal responsibility. If your expenses are exceeding your income, you have three choices:
1.) Increase your income
2.) Decrease your expenses
3.) A little of #1 and a little of #2
Most people don’t like #1, because it means an increase in taxes. They also don’t like #2, because it means they’ll get less stuff (education, benefits, road repair, etc.). I assume that most people wouldn’t mind #3, but the Democrats are constantly pushing the first option while the Republicans are constantly pushing the second. However, the current administration seems to have invented a fourth option.
4.) Decrease your income and increase your expenses
I know that macroeconomics is a complicated subject, but I’d love for someone to squash my ignorance on how this is supposed to work.
Anyway, back to the OP, I think ivylass’s outrage stems from the fact that Senator Clinton isn’t even considering cutting spending. I would equate her to Peggy Bundy, sitting at home spending all of Al’s money and then when the credit card bill comes in saying, “You need to get a second job!”
Borrowing monney is not fiscally irresponsible per se.
Except, that’s what governments do, and what governments have always done, since the beginning of time. The writers of the Constitution would have known that.
No, this is not right. In theory, we elect our officials to do what the public has determined to be the “common good.” Elected officials, and especially legislators, are supposed to be beholden to their constituents. Doesn’t work that way in practice, and I doubt it ever has, but that was the intention.
That’s about right, except you forgot one vital caveat: you should have appended the words, “when the Republicans are in power. And vice versa.”
Wait, what? I said something coherent? Could you point it out, so I can try to do it again in the future?
Again, I’m not sure if I follow. Historically, you may be right - but I have a pathetically short period of time to draw experience from. When the Democrats were in office last under Clinton, they ran surpluses, and actually started paying the national debt off, no? Where does the “vice versa” come into play?
Absolutely not. In fact, it’s a good idea to have short-term borrowing when there’s a recession to smooth things out. (Bill Clinton agreed with this idea in an interview on NPR.) But, borrowing money while simultaneously cutting long-term income and increasing spending is incredibly fiscally irresponsible.
It’s like living in a two income family when one member loses their job. Putting groceries on credit while giving up movies and restaurants for a few months is responsible. Putting everything on credit while the other member cuts back their work hours (and paycheck) so they can go to Hawaii and then remodel the bathroom is irresponsible.
See, Munch, when Reagan took office we were in a pretty bad recession. Taxes were cut, but revenues actually increased with economic recovery. We got deficits because the Democrats in Congress spent it all faster thatn it came in.
Bush cut taxes, but revenues actually increased with economic recovery. We got deficits because the Republicans in Congress spent it all faster than it came in.
The Clinton administration was kind of anomalous. Revenues were at an unprecedented level due to a booming (but largely illusory) economy. We got surpluses because Republicans in Congree didn’t want to spend any money on anything Clinton wanted, like that Health Care plan.
First, the Democrats weren’t in office under Clinton. At least in the “offices” that matter. Congress has control of the purse strings. And Congress was controlled by Republicans in that era. Second, and more importantly, when do you think that deficit originated? The 40 years of Democratic control of Congress prior to the Republicans taking it from them during Clinton’s presidency. That’s where.
But the Congress critters are all aiding and abetting each other in the looting of the treasury, and the deficit is large enough that there’s plenty of blame go ‘round. There might be as many as a half-dozen among the 545 elected Congressfolk who can be held blameless. The members of each party, in their turn, love to make noises about fiscal responsibilty—it’s damned good press—but neither of them mean a damn thing by it. Other than “Vote for meeeeee!” of course. It’s always good to remember what P.J. O’Rourke once said: "Congress’ favorite activity is cutting taxes. And its second favorite thing to do is raise taxes." Applies equally to both of the two major parties.
To the **ExBeer ** conglomerate:
Thanks, got it. Good examples both of you.