So it was the Democrats who were behind the massive increase in defense spending during the 80’s? Huh. If that’s true, it makes one wonder why Republicans are always claiming the Dems are soft on defense. Seems to me if that were the case, it would be the opposite…
Fact is, although Congress has final say on the budget (giving both sides a chance to load it with bullshit pork barrel projects), the president proposes the budget initially, which probably most strongly influences what budget ends up passing. Reagan proposed and got massive deficit spending from Congress. Bush Jr. proposed and got massive deficit spending from Congress. Should Congress have stood up to them and shot it down in my opinion? Absolutely. But political reality (i.e. voting against a defense-heavy budget means you’re not getting re-elected) means that the president has the most control over the deficit of anyone.
Actually, Congress passes budgets and spending bills. The President either signs it or vetoes it. (Also you get the line-item veto) So while Clinton was in the White House, as of '94 Republicans controlled Congress and wrote the budget. Surplus? Way to go Republicans!
No. Reagan proposed large increases in military spending, which Congress mostly opposed. So in order to get those increases he was forced to agree to a lot of other spending. He didn’t have a line-item veto, either. People seem to think that it was military spending alone that caused the deficits, but that’s just not the case.
How cute. I don’t suppose you noticed how national debt is an indication of other countries having faith in our economy? Or that we could easily have massive surplusses by cutting off cash to impoverished countries? How about the fact that we’ve been in much deeper debt and we’ve survived that? Or should we keep in mind that the US economy is the strongest in the world? Ack! Maybe I should be demanding that Saudi Arabia send us a few trillion since they’re the only one’s that have a surplus that might help us out?
rjung, keep the defeatest, “America is bad” attitude close to your heart. It fits you well and seems to keep you happy.
You don’t honestly think a well thought out post is going to change minds, do you? Many here don’t want facts. Gets in the way of bashing Republicans for everything from nuclear holocaust to skin cancer.
Damn straight they should do that! And if you happen to get salmonella, listeriosis, E. coli, botulism, or mad cow disease as a result, it’s your own damn fault for being a stupid consumer.
unless in proportion to the Census, so it didn’t forbid a capitation tax, just a non-proportional one, and which, btw, only applied to the national government. The state governments were free to tax however they wanted. (and I’ll point out that the first direct tax was passed by Congress in 1798, by many of the same people who wrote the Constitution, on houses, slaves, and land)
And I don’t know how much that matters, anyway. Whether the goverment is taking a portion of your income directly, or making you pay a tax to distill or sell alcohol, or to purchase goods, or to buy imports, or to own land, or whatever, the government is still taking your money, which it will then spend.
You seem to think it’s only the USDA that is preventing massive outbreaks. How about public opinion? Don’t you think the networks would be all over sick children who all happened to eat at the same Jack in the Box? You don’t think Jack in the Box would be all over their meat supplier?
Well, you brought it up. You quoted the ancient scribbles as though I might give them any ethical weight merely because they existed. Frankly, I don’t believe that my rights come from the Constitution.
hands ivylass a copy of Fast Food Nation
Sure, FFN doesn’t paint a very rosy picture of the FDA, but it comes out smelling like that rose compared to the food industry if left to its own devices.
You are, of course, free to give the Constitution whatever ethical weight you choose to, and if you want to be the next Lysander Spooner, that’s fine with me.
Well, a lot of people think otherwise, including some of those who help to write it. Like US Congressman Mike Simpson who unabashedly declares, “I oppose treaties and other agreements that seek to usurp U.S. sovereignty or infringe upon the rights given to us by the Constitution.” I recall hearing Ruth Bader Ginsberg once use the same chilling phrase.
duffer, posts like these make you look like a retard. Say it with me now:
Being concerned about the fiscal management of the country is not the same as hating America or thinking everything we do is bad. In fact, it’s sort of the opposite.
When your party has a majority in both houses of Congress and a president in the White House, they sort of have to take some of the responsibility for what happens during that period. Crying that people are “bashing Republicans” when they express concern or disagreement with the ways things are going is pathetic.
Don’t claim other people are uninterested in well thought out posts while you yourself offer nothing but vacuous catchphrases and nonsensical attacks. It’s more traditional to be smug from a superior position, not an inferior one.
