Do Democrats even know how to spell fiscal responsiblity
By gewcew23
@gewcew23 (8007)
United States
April 2, 2008 5:39pm CST
Here is how the Democrats believe that fiscal responsibility is spelled
$3 million for The First Tee;
$1,950,000 for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service;
$460,752 for hops research;
$211,509 for olive fruit fly research in Paris, France;
$196,000 for the renovation and transformation of the historic Post Office in Las Vegas;
$188,000 for the Lobster Institute in Maine; and
$148,950 for the Montana Sheep Institute.
$97,314 for maple research
$742,764 for olive fruit fly research
$172,782 for the National Wild Turkey federation
$47,000 for Grands as parents very important people
$446,500 for the Arkansas World Trade Center
$123,050 for the Mothers Day Shirne
$47,000 for a fathers day parade
There was 11,610 seperate pork barrel spending projects. A 337% increase in project verse the 07 fiscal budget. All together just the pork will cost the taxpayer $13.2 billion dollars, a 30 percent increase verse the 07 fiscal year.
Last time I check the Democrats control both the House and the Senate. The Democrat control the purse stings, not the Republicans.
1 person likes this
5 responses
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
3 Apr 08
No, they know nothing of fiscal responsibility.
The economy didn't start going bad until AFTER the democrats took Congress, and that should tell you everything you need to know about them.
Since they are wanting to increase taxes by about $3.5 trillion... that right there is going to have a major impact on everyone's bottom line.
Add to that all of the other spending they have in mind through their planned global warming legislation, the global antipoverty legislation, and the L.O.S.T. Treaty that they favor, we are about to get into some very serious financial trouble, not to mention that our sovereignty and well as individual rights and freedoms will be severely damaged.
McCain is not much better because he supports the Global Warming Legislation.
It looks like we are in some very perilous financial times, and it looks like it could be much worse very soon.
1 person likes this
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
3 Apr 08
Clinton left no surplus... in fact he left a recession.
He also dipped heavily into the Social Security Trust Fund in order to help his so called fiscally responsible economy.
Why would I care about pro-liberal blogs?
I suggest you worry about your own country once you get old enough to vote there.
1 person likes this
@HawaiiGopher (1009)
• Belgium
3 Apr 08
I'm sorry, but you seem to have been waaay too brainwashed by conservative propaganda.
Last I remember, Clinton had left the economy in a surplus and Bush in practically a recession. Wait, can Republicans spell that.. "s-u-r-p-l-u-s"? (I don't usually take cheap shots like that, but the way you guys are behaving is extremely immature, bordering the line of infantile. Every time I see a conservative make a remark on myLot it's always filled with insults directed at liberals and few valid arguments.)
Now being serious again, I suggest you take a look at these pages, they offer a very interesting outlook on things.
http://www.lolife.com/blog/archives/000002.html
http://thepoliticsofdebt.com/?p=177
@Rachel322 (115)
• United States
2 Apr 08
Democrat or Republican it doesn't matter. It's obvious that both parties easily lose sight as to where tax payers money really should be spent.
@HawaiiGopher (1009)
• Belgium
2 Apr 08
I completely agree with that statement. Both parties are equally incompetent in certain areas. That's no secret. It's all about which is the most competent.
@Rachel322 (115)
• United States
3 Apr 08
I really couldn't tell you. I'm a democrat but at this point I'm really doubting my own party.
@HawaiiGopher (1009)
• Belgium
3 Apr 08
I'm also Democrat. It's natural to have certain doubts in something you support. So that's why I say, it's all about who is most competent. For me, the Republican party has nothing interesting to offer so I lean more towards the Democratic party.
@irisheyes (4370)
• United States
3 Apr 08
The ONLY time in the last 150 years that the American budget was balanced was when Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin, his sec. of Treasury, balanced it. It is now, after 8 years of George Bush, the most in the red it has ever been.....You have to see the forrest for the trees here. The Secretary of the Treasury is now a Republican and it is he who oversees the budget and he who advices the president. Obviously somebody is asleep at the wheel but I don't think you can lay this on the Dems. History certainly won't.
@irisheyes (4370)
• United States
5 Apr 08
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
Don't know where your information comes from but according to the scrupulously non partisan Annenberg Political Fact Check at the University of Pennsylvania, the budget was most definitely balanced under Bill Clinton and even if you factor out the SSA funds , there was STILL a surplus. Furthermore, if you use corporate accrual accounting there was STILL a 69.2 Billion surplus in 1998, a 76.9 Billion surplus in 1999 and a 46 Billion surplus in 2000. What's the surplus today after 8 years of George Bush?
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
5 Apr 08
It was a hoax, nothing more than the usual smoke and mirrors that he was so famous for...
http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/201099PhonyBudget.pdf
No spending restrictions... balanced under tax and spend policies with a small military....
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5954
This one shows the numbers and explains the lie...
http://www.thelandofthefree.net/conservativepoliticalopinion/surplusfallacy.html
This is another debunking of the myth...
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
Yet another one...
http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws174.htm
As I said, it was nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
1 person likes this
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
5 Apr 08
The only reason that Clinton budget was balanced was because he SAID it was. It was NOT balanced. He also dipped HEAVILY into the SSA Trust Funds to help with cooking the books for his budget, which is something Bush has not done. Clinton also left us in a recession, so you have nothing to crow about.
The House is who appropriates the funding for the budget, and that is controlled by democrats in case you have forgotten that detail.
Yep, history WILL remember Clinton.... all of those investigations, renting out the White House, Filegate, Chinagate, the stained dress, and his Conviction For Perjury, and his Impeachment.
I just wish the republican special prosecutor hadn't felt pity for him and put his butt in prison instead of settling for those sanctions.
1 person likes this
@fightingistheonlyway (2658)
• Canada
3 Apr 08
lol.. they are fkn communists arent they?
but.. its not like the republicans can spell it either..
look at the debt..
look at how much the war costs..
@HawaiiGopher (1009)
• Belgium
3 Apr 08
Heh, fortunately Democrats are actually not commies. Don't worry. ;)
@jormins (1223)
• United States
3 Apr 08
As bad as the Democratic party has performed in congress the last 6+ years they are lucky they have W there to take the blame for the economy, most of which he deserves.
Here's 2 reasons I trust the Dem's more than the Rep's this election cycle when it comes to the economy (not even to mention the Clinton surplus):
"I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."
"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should. I've got Greenspan's book."
Maybe McCain should listen to Obama's speech on the economy to help educate himself.
@jormins (1223)
• United States
3 Apr 08
Umm Rodney please read my posts thoroughly I just showed you the top 3 pork producers. All Republican. Check the pork list yourself I'm not making this up:
http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11350
Yes it is a problem on both sides of the aisle but this subject poster thinks its the Dem's only. He/she very smartly leaves out anything in this article referring to the Rep's. The facts are the Rep's have more "pork" per capita and its a fact, not opinion.
Have you listened to Obama's speech on the economy? I love how Obama attackers just spout the same propoganda over and over without doing any research. Do you seriously think John McCain has a better understanding of the economy than Barack Obama? I really have no fear of higher taxes from the Dem's, the same was said about Bill Clinton and I think most of us were fine. Its the people making 200k+ a year that should be worrying about taxes as the Bush tax cuts will be gone unless McCain is elected.
@jormins (1223)
• United States
3 Apr 08
More food for thought:
For the first time, the names of members of Congress were added to the projects. The top three porkers were members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, beginning with Ranking Member Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) with $892 million; Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) with $469 million; and Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) with $465 million.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the R stand for Republican?
I now understand why you provide no links, so you can take all your information you provide out of context.
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
3 Apr 08
Yes, Jormins, there is pork on both sides of the issue, republicans and democrats, no one is denying that! The problem the democrats have in my opinion is that their number is ALWAYS higher than the republicans! You can spout a few names and numbers that are high but when it comes to the bottom line the democrats have always and always will have more pork than the republicans!
As far as McCain listening to Obama's speech on the economy, answer me this; just what in the he11 does Obama know about the economy? I know he knows how to get a million dollars for a university that gave his wife a 300 thousand dollar a year raise just after he was elected! Man, is that fiscal responsibility or what? I haven't seen anything this man has done that adds up to fiscal responsibility but on the contrary I do see where he has consistantly put a greater burden of the backs of the taxpayers for his whims and benefit!
1 person likes this
