<p>Because the Republicans are much more adept at spin. It’s pretty amazing when you look at National Debt as a % of GDP under various presidents. Since WWII, it’s risen rapidly when Republicans were in the Oval Office, and fallen pretty steadily when the Democrats were in. But they manage to get people believing the opposite.</p>
<p>It’s very hard to get some people to believe a bland truth over a Coulter-esque lie.</p>
<p>“1. criticizing Israel
2. supporting stem cell research
3. supporting equal treatment for gay couples
4. supporting a woman’s right to choose her life or her unborn child’s life”</p>
<p>Censorship? Where? I see, hear and read discussions of these issues every single day. Perhaps you just don’t like dissenting points of view.</p>
<p>"Show me a fiscally conservative, socially liberal candidate, of ANY party, and that person has my vote.</p>
<p>I’d love to see a fiscally conservative candidate. Of course, I’m not a social liberal, so . . .</p>
<p>“It’s very hard to get some people to believe a bland truth over a Coulter-esque lie.”</p>
<p>The difference is all in the taxation. THe current administration tax cuts and borrows to finance irresponsible spending, whereas liberals spend with no pretense of returning to the earners their money. Which goes back to fiscal responsibility. Would that any candidate understood who actually earns the money that they spend so freely and how hard most people work to earn it. I could put up with a lot if my taxes were cut and my money handled responsibly. Hmmmm. I guess this is one of the top issues on which I vote.</p>
<p>This administration’s tax cuts are being financed by borrowed money. It’s being returned to you at the expense of future generations.</p>
<p>The GAO has said that we’re on the verge of economic disaster unless this practice is stopped. Someone needs to be honest enough to tell the American people that we can’t afford to keep borrowing money to “return” to them. Economists are already predicting that in as little as 20 years, the interest payments alone on the debt will be higher than our entire tax revenue.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Same here. I find my self disagreeing with both the Democrats and the Republicans on various matters. But for the most part I end up casting my lot with the Democrats, because it’s a whole lot easier to teach economics to Democrats than it is to teach compassion to Republicans.</p>
<p>^^Whoa…and here we thought Rush Limbaugh was harsh. :)</p>
<p>"Someone needs to be honest enough to tell the American people that we can’t afford to keep borrowing money to “return” to them. "</p>
<p>My words “irresponsible spending” weren’t a clue?</p>
<p>“Democrats than it is to teach compassion to Republicans”</p>
<p>It all depends on how you define compassion.</p>
<p>Compassion? I’d be happy if the current Republican party leadership just learned ethics and common sense.</p>
<p>“Compassion? I’d be happy if the current Republican party leadership just learned ethics and common sense.”</p>
<p>Totally separate issues, and one could say the same about the current Democratic party leadership. In fact, I do. That said, when you made the original statement I took you to mean the actual citizen members of both parties, as opposed to the political leadership. Therefore, I apologize for the misunderstanding.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They claim that they follow Democrats who ride on the success of a former Republican administration, destroy it, and then they’re in office to suffer the results. i.e. prosperity in the Clinton era was because of Reagan, and the Bush administration is in the position it’s in because of Clinton. </p>
<p>I don’t really believe this but then again I’m not an economist, so my opinion is of little value. I don’t like Reagan fiscal policies because I’m “socially liberal” (although that’s a pretty broad term). My social views start to infringe on fiscal views because I don’t believe in cutting taxes to cut social programs. Cutting taxes across the board doesn’t benefit the poorest people because they don’t pay taxes and they benefit from social programs that are cut. </p>
<p>But then again, it’s true we’re in a terrible situation right now budget-wise. But the money goes somewhere. I see it as cutting social programs to spend indiscriminately on maintaining a large standing military even in peacetime. Which is a lovely goal I’m sure and big stick foreign policy isn’t likely to change. Still, I think in previous times we’ve struck a better balance. Hard to say though because economics is so controversial and it’s not like I actually know anything about it (seriously, I don’t). I find the FDR era interesting, obviously there was a huge economic improvement after social programs were aggressively implemented. But you could argue that it would have happened anyway, that we were bound to come out of the Depression.</p>
<p>“But the money goes somewhere. I see it as cutting social programs to spend indiscriminately on maintaining a large standing military even in peacetime.”</p>
<p>Just as indiscriminately spent on entitlements and, most egregiously, on pork. Both sides need to hand their heads in shame.</p>
<p>
Is this supposed to be a recognition that the Republican policy is basically a pretense? Because if that’s the message, I think we’re pretty much all on board with that.</p>
<p>“Is this supposed to be a recognition that the Republican policy is basically a pretense? Because if that’s the message, I think we’re pretty much all on board with that.”</p>
<p>Kluge, I usually don’t respond to your posts on political threads, as you know, but I would like to remind you that I have posted numerous times in numerous ways that I disagree with the Bush administration vehemently on spending issues. THe statement you quoted seemed pretty straightforward and in keeping with previous posts to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you’re mixing me up with someone else, maybe?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hardly. Not even the worst smears that have been attempted have stuck. The plane story? Bogus. The Syria mission? Cleared with the State Department, stayed on message and included Republicans. Troops or national security endangered by the timeline for withdrawal? Five retired generals say otherwise, and say it loudly by publicly endorsing the bill.</p>
<p>What we have in Washington right now is a crew cleaning up what six years of corruption and politicization of taxpayer-funded resources have done to our country, while the other side lies, “loses” evidence and otherwise obstructs. Hardly the same.</p>
<p>As for common sense…on the Republican side, you have people who insist that the same think-tankers who have been wrong about EVERYTHING in Iraq will magically be right if we all just wish hard enough. On the other hand you have people who actually listen to what the generals are saying and consider it when crafting policy. The two things are simply not equal.</p>
<p>“I think you’re mixing me up with someone else, maybe?” </p>
<p>You are 100% correct and I apologize again! However, I don’t think the current democrat leadership, i.e., Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy and Clinton are other than corrupt. (SPeaking of losing evience and obstructing.)</p>
<p>What’s your case for Pelosi being corrupt? I don’t remember her using her power as Speaker to fire Congressional investigators, cover for a child predator or any of the other things that passed for governance under Hastert.</p>
<p>“What’s your case for Pelosi being corrupt?”</p>
<p>Well, her support of Murtha, her connections with Del Monte, her insistence upon her own foreign policy, etc. My opinion, you don’t need to share.</p>
<p>zoosermom, it’s “Democratic” leadership. Not "democrat’. That’s what the Hee-Haw style rednecks down here say. They also say “bidness” for business. Makes a person sound real intelligent. You certainly don’t see Dem’s calling Republicans “Re-pubes” do you? Have some class.</p>