wrote in message
...


LOL, the Republicans who when they had control of Congress for most of
the
past decade managed to double the national debt? Those Republicans?
That's
funny,

No, it's not funny, it's a national crisis. Your answer is that
because the Republicans lost their way yeas ago and allowed spending
to go out of control, it's now OK for the Dems to just accelerate
spending and refuse any attempt by the Republicans to
reduce spending?

You mistake my meaning, what is funny is the comparative silence on this
issue from the right while Republicans are doing the spending, followed by
howls of outrage when Democrats are in power.

Which he knew at the time, there was press coverage of it as it happened.
Boehner denied it, so either he's less than fully honest, or he's not too
bright.

Whether he knew it or didn't know it isn't the issue.

What? *You* just said he was snookered, meaning deceived, now you say it
doesn't matter if he knew it all along. If he's playing politics and
pretending to cut spending without really doing so, why would you give him a
pass on that?

The issue is
are you OK with the recent performance of the Dems when they
screamed bloody murder and refused to cut 2%, or even 1%
from the budget? Is spending out of control and does it need
to be reduced, yes or no?

Of course govt. spending has to be cut, but not on the basis of the
ideological slant of members of Congress. In other words, whether or not
some small fraction of the budget of Planned Parenthood is related to
abortion should not be the deciding factor in whether to cut that group's
funding especially when Republicans are defending tax breaks for the oil
companies. Cut funding for Planned Parenthood and PBS and the Securities
and Exchange Commission (which is supposed to police Wall St.) but leave tax
breaks for the oil companies alone--and you wonder why people question the
motives of elected Republicans?

On May 3, 8:16*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
wrote in ...

LOL, the Republicans who when they had control of Congress for most of
the
past decade managed to double the national debt? *Those Republicans?
That's
funny,
No, it's not funny, it's a national crisis. * Your answer is that
because the Republicans lost their way yeas ago and allowed spending
to go out of control, it's now OK for the Dems to just accelerate
spending and refuse any attempt by the Republicans to
reduce spending?

You mistake my meaning, what is funny is the comparative silence on this
issue from the right while Republicans are doing the spending, followed by
howls of outrage when Democrats are in power.

Which he knew at the time, there was press coverage of it as it happened.
Boehner denied it, so either he's less than fully honest, or he's not too
bright.
Whether he knew it or didn't know it isn't the issue.

What? **You* just said he was snookered, meaning deceived, now you say it
doesn't matter if he knew it all along. *If he's playing politics and
pretending to cut spending without really doing so, why would you give him a
pass on that?

*The issue is
are you OK with the recent performance of the Dems when they
screamed bloody murder and refused to cut 2%, or even 1%
from the budget? *Is spending out of control and does it need
to be reduced, yes or no?

Of course govt. spending has to be cut, but not on the basis of the
ideological slant of members of Congress. *In other words, whether or not
some small fraction of the budget of Planned Parenthood is related to
abortion should not be the deciding factor in whether to cut that group's
funding *especially when Republicans are defending tax breaks for the oil
companies. *Cut funding for Planned Parenthood and PBS and the Securities
and Exchange Commission (which is supposed to police Wall St.) but leave tax
breaks for the oil companies alone--and you wonder why people question the
motives of elected Republicans?

No, I'm waiting for your outrage at the Dems refusal to cut ANYTHING.
Did they come up with their plan to cut a mere 2% from the $3.8tril
budget?
Or 1%? Or anything at all in response to the Republican plan
prior to passage of the latest budget?
No, they just screamed bloody murder over any and all cuts the
Republicans proposed without ever offering a plan of their own.
They just stuck with and defended the $3.8 tril budget
Obama submitted back in Fed that included a deficit of $1.6tril.
By contrast, Bush's last budget was a mere $2.7 tril, which
pales in comparison to Obama's $3.8tril. Where's your outrage
with that?

You bitch about how the national debt nearly doubled during the
Bush years, while giving a free pass to what the Dems are doing'
now which is WORSE. It took 8 years for the national debt to
double under Bush. It's up 40% in just 2 years of Obama and
his own budget shows it increasing by an average of $1tril per
year over the next decaded. At the rate he and the Dems are
actually going, he'll double the debt in far less time than Bush.
Where's your outrage about that?

The biggest problem the
Republicans have is they are incapable of hammering home
the above simple message based on facts. No such
problem here. But enough of the people understand what's
going on, as witnessed by the last election. And in time
hopefully the Republicans will learn before the next election.

wrote:

The biggest problem the
Republicans have is they are incapable of hammering home
the above simple message based on facts. No such
problem here. But enough of the people understand what's
going on, as witnessed by the last election. And in time
hopefully the Republicans will learn before the next election.

Not only, the trend is infectious. Look at Germany, France, Italy, and, just
this past week, Canada.

In Canada the Conservative Party won an outright majority in the House of
Commons and the Liberal Party went from 77 seats to 34, making them the
third most popular party. The Quebec Separatist party went from 47 seats to
4.