honeybunny date=1444397126 said:
I think they expect Trump to say such things but I think it catches them off guard when the soft spoken Carson does it.
)
Ben Carson
- Thread starter cptlo
- Start date
I think they expect Trump to say such things but I think it catches them off guard when the soft spoken Carson does it.
)
Waski_the_Squirrel
Resident of the least visited state in the nation.
I don't much care if a politician (of any party) is good at shutting down members of the media. Obama has done it, and I still don't like him. Bernie Sanders has been doing it and, though I have a soft spot for him, that doesn't make me want to vote for him.
I care about the policies they plan to implement and their general worldview.
Meanwhile, I was a little concerned in this clip that Ben Carson did not seem to know the difference between the debt ceiling and a balanced budget. What really got me was that the reporter tried several times to get Carson to correct his error and he didn't.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-debt-ceiling
By the way: the last Republican to have a balanced budget was Dwight Eisenhower. The last President to pull it off was Bill Clinton. That does not mean Democrats are better at balancing the budget, but it does mean that the Republican label doesn't mean anything about balancing the budget.
I care about the policies they plan to implement and their general worldview.
Meanwhile, I was a little concerned in this clip that Ben Carson did not seem to know the difference between the debt ceiling and a balanced budget. What really got me was that the reporter tried several times to get Carson to correct his error and he didn't.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-debt-ceiling
By the way: the last Republican to have a balanced budget was Dwight Eisenhower. The last President to pull it off was Bill Clinton. That does not mean Democrats are better at balancing the budget, but it does mean that the Republican label doesn't mean anything about balancing the budget.
Waski_the_Squirrel
Resident of the least visited state in the nation.
Boss 302 date=1444433422 said:
And yet a Republican President (Bush) and Republican majority Congress couldn't pull it off. Neither could Reagan and his Republican Senate.
Yet, Eisenhower did it with a Democratic congress. Clinton did it with a Republican congress. Obama may actually pull it off in 2017 (I was surprised by that).
If anything, this shows we need mixed control.
Republicans may be better at claiming they balance the budget, but the record is not on their side.
Boss 302
Pursuit Driver
You should read Dick Morris' book about his time as Clinton's advisor at the WH. He states Clinton made decisions based upon polls and Morris was having polls conducted daily on key issues. When Gingrich became Speaker, he pushed for the balanced budget and was very public about it and Morris' polls showed the majority of voters wanted a balanced budget. It had nothing to do with Clinton's "leadership, but everything to do with Gingrich's. Democrats during the 50's were far more conservative than they are today, thus the reason Eisenhower was able to get a balanced budget.Waski_the_Squirrel date=1444446668 said:
I think the House should bring Gingrich back as Speaker.
lotstodo
aka "The Jackal"
Clinton did not "balance the budget". He borrowed from Social Security. There was no year, fiscal or calendar, in which the TOTAL debt did not increase. If you don't believe me, input any dates you wish into this government website: http://treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search?startMonth=&startDay=&startYear=&endMonth=&endDay=&endYear=
Waski_the_Squirrel
Resident of the least visited state in the nation.
I'm a fan of actual evidence, and Lotstodo brought actual evidence to the table. But, it is worth noting that even if you take the Social Security shenanigans off the table, under the Clinton administration, the federal deficit came within $18 billion of being eliminated. (deficit, not debt) Whether even this tiny victory would have happened without the Republican congress is open to question, but history does not bear out that Republicans are better at fiscal management.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/41880?index=10871
Nevertheless, my main point stands: Republicans don't have a good record on fiscal restraint. Bush and Reagan couldn't manage it even with Republican control of the Senate (in Reagan's case), and Republican control of both houses (in Bush's case).
I actually assumed this happened because of the wars Bush was fighting. According to the US Department of the Treasury, though they were a big part of it, they were not the biggest part of it. This 2011 chart also includes the beginnings of the Obama Administration. (As a parenthetical, it also shows that CBO projections aren't that great.)
It is now 2015. Here is a simplified but telling article that compares recent presidents. Every one of them grew the debt. It also points out that, as GuardDad said, Clinton benefitted from a booming economy. But it also tells me that I shouldn't associate either party with fiscal restraint.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2013/02/20/why-a-bill-clinton-style-budget-miracle-wont-happen-again
I'm not going to take a candidate seriously who says they will reduce the debt or the federal deficit until they put all the sacred cows on the table with specifics: military spending, Social Security, and raising taxes. It's fun talking about cutting spending or sacrifices in general, but people don't like it when politicians get specific.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/41880?index=10871
Nevertheless, my main point stands: Republicans don't have a good record on fiscal restraint. Bush and Reagan couldn't manage it even with Republican control of the Senate (in Reagan's case), and Republican control of both houses (in Bush's case).
I actually assumed this happened because of the wars Bush was fighting. According to the US Department of the Treasury, though they were a big part of it, they were not the biggest part of it. This 2011 chart also includes the beginnings of the Obama Administration. (As a parenthetical, it also shows that CBO projections aren't that great.)
It is now 2015. Here is a simplified but telling article that compares recent presidents. Every one of them grew the debt. It also points out that, as GuardDad said, Clinton benefitted from a booming economy. But it also tells me that I shouldn't associate either party with fiscal restraint.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2013/02/20/why-a-bill-clinton-style-budget-miracle-wont-happen-again
I'm not going to take a candidate seriously who says they will reduce the debt or the federal deficit until they put all the sacred cows on the table with specifics: military spending, Social Security, and raising taxes. It's fun talking about cutting spending or sacrifices in general, but people don't like it when politicians get specific.
Winchester
When you need FIREPOWER!
Gee Squirrel, you actually believe anything that comes out of this administration? After all the lies they have been busted on?
I don't.
I don't.
Waski_the_Squirrel
Resident of the least visited state in the nation.
mei lan date=1444514312 said:
Good point. They made the choice not to.
Waski_the_Squirrel
Resident of the least visited state in the nation.
Winchester date=1444513703 said:
That's a genetic fallacy. Debunk what they claim with evidence. I showed you mine.
S
stradial
Guest
If we are playing the I showed you mine, you show me yours, game, I have to bow out.
S
stradial
Guest
ray
S
stradial
Guest
stradial date=1444526584 said:
I have no clue how I posted this.
It was a complete surprise to me when I saw it. :dunno :dunno
lotstodo
aka "The Jackal"
Rand Paul has been quite specific on what he would cut and is the only candidate with a consistent record of fiscal responsibility. But your point is well taken. Neither party has been willing to do anything but kick the can down the road.Waski_the_Squirrel date=1444512821 said:I'm a fan of actual evidence, and Lotstodo brought actual evidence to the table. But, it is worth noting that even if you take the Social Security shenanigans off the table, under the Clinton administration, the federal deficit came within $18 billion of being eliminated. (deficit, not debt) Whether even this tiny victory would have happened without the Republican congress is open to question, but history does not bear out that Republicans are better at fiscal management.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/41880?index=10871
Nevertheless, my main point stands: Republicans don't have a good record on fiscal restraint. Bush and Reagan couldn't manage it even with Republican control of the Senate (in Reagan's case), and Republican control of both houses (in Bush's case).
I actually assumed this happened because of the wars Bush was fighting. According to the US Department of the Treasury, though they were a big part of it, they were not the biggest part of it. This 2011 chart also includes the beginnings of the Obama Administration. (As a parenthetical, it also shows that CBO projections aren't that great.)
It is now 2015. Here is a simplified but telling article that compares recent presidents. Every one of them grew the debt. It also points out that, as GuardDad said, Clinton benefitted from a booming economy. But it also tells me that I shouldn't associate either party with fiscal restraint.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2013/02/20/why-a-bill-clinton-style-budget-miracle-wont-happen-again
I'm not going to take a candidate seriously who says they will reduce the debt or the federal deficit until they put all the sacred cows on the table with specifics: military spending, Social Security, and raising taxes. It's fun talking about cutting spending or sacrifices in general, but people don't like it when politicians get specific.
Waski_the_Squirrel
Resident of the least visited state in the nation.
lotstodo date=1444687014 said:Rand Paul has been quite specific on what he would cut and is the only candidate with a consistent record of fiscal responsibility. But your point is well taken. Neither party has been willing to do anything but kick the can down the road.Waski_the_Squirrel date=1444512821 said:I'm a fan of actual evidence, and Lotstodo brought actual evidence to the table. But, it is worth noting that even if you take the Social Security shenanigans off the table, under the Clinton administration, the federal deficit came within $18 billion of being eliminated. (deficit, not debt) Whether even this tiny victory would have happened without the Republican congress is open to question, but history does not bear out that Republicans are better at fiscal management.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/41880?index=10871
Nevertheless, my main point stands: Republicans don't have a good record on fiscal restraint. Bush and Reagan couldn't manage it even with Republican control of the Senate (in Reagan's case), and Republican control of both houses (in Bush's case).
I actually assumed this happened because of the wars Bush was fighting. According to the US Department of the Treasury, though they were a big part of it, they were not the biggest part of it. This 2011 chart also includes the beginnings of the Obama Administration. (As a parenthetical, it also shows that CBO projections aren't that great.)
It is now 2015. Here is a simplified but telling article that compares recent presidents. Every one of them grew the debt. It also points out that, as GuardDad said, Clinton benefitted from a booming economy. But it also tells me that I shouldn't associate either party with fiscal restraint.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2013/02/20/why-a-bill-clinton-style-budget-miracle-wont-happen-again
I'm not going to take a candidate seriously who says they will reduce the debt or the federal deficit until they put all the sacred cows on the table with specifics: military spending, Social Security, and raising taxes. It's fun talking about cutting spending or sacrifices in general, but people don't like it when politicians get specific.
I agree. Of the Republicans, Rand Paul is the one I trust the most on fiscal matters. Sadly, his views are not popular among Republicans. I'm curious how he would have done without Trump entering the race.