4 ms·

"The toddlers in DC are used to getting their way and free spending like crazy (thus the trillion dollar deficits)" The great irony is that the party that was

by niggler 14y ago

"The toddlers in DC are used to getting their way and free spending like crazy (thus the trillion dollar deficits)" The great irony is that the party that was spending freely a decade ago is now talking about fiscal responsibility. "The things we're free spending money on right now are disgusting." I'm not partisan, but one party in particular is pushing for boosting the defense budget at the expense of the other priorities in this country.

twoodfin 14y ago
The great irony is that the party that was spending freely a decade ago is now talking about fiscal responsibility. And the other party was constantly complaining that too much was being spent? No, just the opposite: They were clamoring for more, whether it was "state and local aid", a more generous Medicare Part D and CHIP, extended unemployment benefits, special education costs... The list goes on. And, by the way, the budget deficit in 2007 was, with two wars in full swing and all the Bush tax cuts in effect, a mere $158B. I'll take a party that at least sometimes talks and walks fiscal restraint over one that still thinks we're not "investing" enough with $1T annual deficits any day.
- dreamdu5t 14y ago
  Same. Democrats talking about how we don't spend enough has become almost pure insanity.
  - rickhanlonii 14y ago
    It's really not insanity. They truly believe that more government spending in the form of tax-cuts and funding (remember that the 2009 stimulus included a good portion of tax cuts) will produce more jobs, which will grow the economy, and thus increase the revenues from taxes. That is, short term spending for long term gain. It may be a difference of opinion, but it's a justified opinion and thus not outright insanity. The conversation is never going to move until both sides try to understand each other in reasonable and non-extreme terms.
- niggler 14y ago
  Both parties are to blame for the current situation, but every time someone comes out and talks about fiscal restraint I am bothered by the hypocrisy. Why weren't these people talking about fiscal restraint during the bush years? "And, by the way, the budget deficit in 2007 was, with two wars in full swing and all the Bush tax cuts in effect, a mere $158B." The budget deficit is where it is now because of the collapse which, to a very large part, was due to deregulation and other effects of the early 2000s. Bush was riding on the effect of the Clinton-era reforms.
aaronbrethorst 14y ago
> The great irony is that the party that was spending freely a decade ago is now talking about fiscal responsibility. They control the House, which in turn controls the federal government's purse strings[1]. It's the only thing they have direct control over. Plus, the most vocal and influential wing of the party at present was elected in large part on an austerity platform. [1] http://budget.house.gov/budgetprocess/ http://budget.house.gov/budgetprocess/

by niggler 14y ago

twoodfin 14y ago

The great irony is that the party that was spending freely a decade ago is now talking about fiscal responsibility. And the other party was constantly complaining that too much was being spent? No, just the opposite: They were clamoring for more, whether it was "state and local aid", a more generous Medicare Part D and CHIP, extended unemployment benefits, special education costs... The list goes on. And, by the way, the budget deficit in 2007 was, with two wars in full swing and all the Bush tax cuts in effect, a mere $158B. I'll take a party that at least sometimes talks and walks fiscal restraint over one that still thinks we're not "investing" enough with $1T annual deficits any day.

dreamdu5t 14y ago
Same. Democrats talking about how we don't spend enough has become almost pure insanity.
- rickhanlonii 14y ago
  It's really not insanity. They truly believe that more government spending in the form of tax-cuts and funding (remember that the 2009 stimulus included a good portion of tax cuts) will produce more jobs, which will grow the economy, and thus increase the revenues from taxes. That is, short term spending for long term gain. It may be a difference of opinion, but it's a justified opinion and thus not outright insanity. The conversation is never going to move until both sides try to understand each other in reasonable and non-extreme terms.
niggler 14y ago
Both parties are to blame for the current situation, but every time someone comes out and talks about fiscal restraint I am bothered by the hypocrisy. Why weren't these people talking about fiscal restraint during the bush years? "And, by the way, the budget deficit in 2007 was, with two wars in full swing and all the Bush tax cuts in effect, a mere $158B." The budget deficit is where it is now because of the collapse which, to a very large part, was due to deregulation and other effects of the early 2000s. Bush was riding on the effect of the Clinton-era reforms.

aaronbrethorst 14y ago

> The great irony is that the party that was spending freely a decade ago is now talking about fiscal responsibility. They control the House, which in turn controls the federal government's purse strings[1]. It's the only thing they have direct control over. Plus, the most vocal and influential wing of the party at present was elected in large part on an austerity platform. [1] http://budget.house.gov/budgetprocess/ http://budget.house.gov/budgetprocess/