Our party certainly grew the national debt, but not irresponsibly.

- 9/11
- Hurricane Katrina
- Afghanistan
- Iraq War
- Tax Cuts
- No Child Left Behind

None of the above was irresponsible. We can argue about the Iraq war till the cows come home, both parties voted for it, and make no mistake, it was a clear failure of intelligence and planning, but given what we knew and what Saddam had done, I'd do it again every time. It's easy to play revisionist history, I'm not going to.


You also keep mentioning this 2%, that was the worst of the worst, the complete and utter crap. This bill was THOUSANDS of pages long, not a single senator had a chance to read it through the entire way, there are a TON more spending projects, and a TON of money going to areas that won't maximize economic stimulation. I'll just name a few:

$90 Billion to Medicaid.
$20 Billion in additional incentives to Medicaid providers to use 'technology'
$41 Billion to Health Insurance
$20 Billion to Food stamps
$17 Billion to increased financial aid

Those are some with huge price tags, but I didn't mention the billions of small, non-stimulating projects. The list just goes on, and again, all of these things aren't BAD, they just don't belong in a stimulus bill. If you start breaking everything down, the bill is FILLED to the brim with democratic spending projects, projects they mascaraed as a stimulus. It's a lie, sure as hell isn't transparent, and it's no better than anything you are accusing the GOP of.

The simple truth is, I'm arguing economic policy with someone who simply only knows very little, but has the intelligence to be able to mount arguments on topics he knows little about. It's become clear that you don't have any in-depth knowledge in this area, I just find it funny that you continue to mindlessly argue despite that fact. Because of it, you continue to just dance, throwing jabs at the GOP, and talking about nothing of any substance.

You just don't get it. There's a reason that the plan Obama just announced yesterday is exactly what I proposed more than a week ago, and what you jumped down my throat about. I know what I'm talking about here, I pay attention to it, I enjoy it's nuances, you are grasping at straws.

Heh. The perennial dilemna of the internet!

No Child Left behind wasn't responsible it is a joke. It is a terrible system and a waste of our money. I like the stimulus. Here are the positives our transportation. You realize we are still in a system built in the 1950's, while Europe and China have built mass transit, including monorails, new subway systems, and high speed trains. Our highway system is horribly outdated and needs updating, and it creates millions of new jobs. Education, now this is the cornerstone for our future, founding fathers like Jefferson thought we should spend money educating the masses. We need money spent there to better educate the next generation or else we will become a third rate power. National Parks and Museums, I know this build gave almost 2 billion to the NPS. Some people scoffed saying it was more than their current budget well that was Bush's fault he has cut their budget the last 8 years. These places need more money for two reasons. It helps to establish pride for our nation and helps educate the public. It also creates more jobs for college grads. I want a job when I graduate in 2 years thank you. Energy construction this creates jobs and finds new sources of energy to get us off oil. Sure are there some things that shouldn't be there, sure but these things create jobs and helps to build a better future.

No Child Left Behind is a fantastic joke.

The tax cuts were irresponsible when not paired with spending cuts.

The Iraq war is a mismanaged boondoggle and a money pit. Literally tens of billions has simply disappeared. That's NOT waste?

Hurricane Katrina was not only mismanaged, but exposed the incompetence and irresponsible governance of the Bush administration to the American public in a way that nothing had before that.

What exactly was the spending on 9/11? Do you mean the expensive and invasive government erosion of civil liberties, like torture, wire-tapping without court oversight, and indefinite detentions?

We could argue individual points all day long. The point is your blatant and transparent hypocrisy on spending. To justify these craptacular missteps as "responsible" when the GOP doubled the national debt, and then pretending to suddenly care about the billions being foisted on the poor taxpayers is mind-boggling (or mindless, if you prefer that word).



Coming from the guy who says that Iraq was totally necessary and not a waste of money at all, that No Child Left Behind was effective and responsible, that touts Bush's reaction to Katrina as responsible, who says that Republican nationalization of the banking system is a demonstration of their "free market' principles, that doesn't really mean a whole lot.

The simple truth is that you treat Republican wastes of money differently than Obama's. You use that waste as an excuse to dismiss the whole thing as garbage, but you ignore waste on Republican projects completely.

You're a hypocrite.



Frankly, I'm glad that you and your party refuse to learn your lessons and are so completely tone deaf to the American public. It's why you are where you are right now.

Holy sucatash! Where to start!

First off, No Child Left Behind was responsible, and it was a move in the right direction. It has issues, and is in need of reform, but it has helped. The bill has increased Education funding, seen improved test scores across the board, increased accountability for schools, actually pays attention to minority districts and has raised the quality of education across the board.

All that said, it still has issues, it needs to be modified, and it will be. But it got the ball rolling, and it's done a passing job so far, even if it isn't perfect.

Secondly, you go off on some tangent about creating jobs, infastructure and education, none of which did I mention as things I would rip out of the bill. Reading comprehension, yay!

No, what you said was that the whole bill was "garbage" because of the waste. This is a standard that you have blatantly failed to apply to ANY of the so-called "responsible" trillions of dollars in Republican spending bills, including the billions in cash that vanished in Iraq.

And frankly, you puffing up the Republican record the past 8 years, including trumpeting the "responsible" awesomeness of Iraq and the "responsible" doubling of national debt, says all it needs to say.

Why do you keep trumpeting the fact that Republicans doubled the national debt, yet you seem to like present spending practices? Seems to me that this hypocrisy that you constantly harp on, just as aptly fits you.

Let me try and explain my reasoning, maybe you will better understand where I'm coming from.

First, lets look at Iraq. I've explained how and why I think going into Iraq was the right decision. I've also discussed the need to rebuild the infrastructure of the country, so I think the spending in Iraq was valid. Unfortunately, you're right, and a lot of money disappeared in the rebuilding process, literally billions of dollars. This infuriates me, it's upsetting, and it's a complete failure by Congress and Bush. However, there is a difference between this and the current stimulus bill. When the infrastructure spending was laid out, there was no hint that this money would disappear, no hint that buildings would never be finished, and no hint that billions of dollars would be wasted. The stimulus bill on the other hand, is not what it's been labeled, and has some glaring issues at it's inception, that's the difference here.

Again, we can't play revisionist history. Now that doesn't make it right, that's not an excuse for the failure that losing those billions obviously is, it's just that there was no possibility at that time for me to glaringly point out mis-spending. The Senate passed it unanimously, the House overwhelmingly, there were watchdog groups, checks, balances, and the money still vanished. It was a failure, but not one you could point to at the time.

Again, I don't remember any waste from Katrina (nothing this significant), but it goes to the same principle: There was no way to envision it at the bills inception, which isn't the case here.


I don't treat Republican waste any more than Democratic waste. Waste is waste. I hate that we lost billions in Iraq, I blame Bush entirely. I hate even more the inept planning after the war ended and the insurgency began, but I can't go back and change it. It's the failing of Bush and his administration, but that doesn't mean we should stop pointing out waste. The simple fact is, there is a ton of non economic spending in this bill, hundreds of billions of it, money that could have been better spent in other areas.

This line really got me thinking, and I wanted to make note of it separately. Personally, I think you have it backwards. Spending cuts should come first, then tax cuts once you have a surplus.

Clinton did a decent job at balancing the budget, and in turn, creating a surplus. Then, as I feel you should, Bush then gave that money back to the taxpayers. In my mind, you cut the budget first, create a surplus, and then once it's proved a reality, you give the surplus back.

The tricky part comes when faced with a situation like we are now: War, natural disaster, financial instability, recession. Typically you have to increase spending, cut taxes, and take drastic measures to weather the storm, these measures cost money, and when added to the price tag of war and cleaning up natural disasters, it creates a hefty bill.

When you again reach a point of stability and economic growth (rather than decline) you must again revisit balancing the budget. Spending is currently well over 20% of the GDP, and it needs to come back below that mark.

Anyways, food for thought.

First, I DON'T like the present spending practices and never said I did.

Second, I don't parade myself around as a "fiscally responsible advocate of small government and free markets" like Republicans do, while turning around and spending like a drunken Paris Hilton at Sax and nationalizing the banking system. I don't dismiss those things when Republicans do it and then turn around and call it "generational theft" when Democrats do it, the way the GOP is doing now.

Um, they put $12 billion in CASH on an airplane and sent it into a war zone where it was promptly lost. And you find THAT more acceptable than $17 billion being spent on financial aid?

Clearly this is a difference in philosophies that is simply not going to be reconciled.

And to clarify, you're saying that in NONE of those Republican spending bills was any waste actually written into the bill, and THAT'S the reason you have a problem with the stimulus?



The problem is that you didn't START to point out the waste until Obama took office. You want to talk about clairvoyance, many of us saw this coming from a mile away. The same people who stood idly by during the fiscal insanity of the Bush years would suddenly re-discover their aversion to spending the day Obama took office. And that's exactly what happened.



Again, I don't dispute this. I'd simply be more charitable to your critique had you made it about any of the Republican spending over the past 8 years instead of defending it.

Except that at no time did Republicans ever cut spending and almost immediately returned to deficits after the Clinton surplus years, not during peace, not during war, not during the boom, not during the recession, not before or after Katrina.

There are always mitigating circumstances in any presidency, but the Iraq war was a war of choice. Bush could have done the right thing by paying for it instead of cutting taxes. He did the opposite.



You do not cut taxes during war time. It robs the treasury of much-needed funds when there is no need for counter-cyclical cuts as there are during a recession. We were not in a recession at the time. But that doesn't matter to Republicans, because "cut taxes" is always the right answer, no matter the question, the time, or the circumstances.

The problem with the way Republicans ran things it that their huge increases in spending and their tax cuts when neither of those were needed is that they made dealing with the current crisis that much more difficult.

I'm not sure who's blaming the tax cuts exclusively. Myself and others have been equally if not more critical of the rampant Republican spending spree. I believe my comment above that they touted smaller government and then "turned around and spent like a drunken Paris Hilton at Sax" summed that up.

The only aspect of spending that increased under the Bush administration is defense spending. Everything else stayed even, plateaued, or decreased.

So this spending spree is grossly misrepresented. In fact, almost all of the increase in spending can be attributed to the creation of a new sector of government: The Department of Homeland Security.

A NY Times Article from the election on the myth of runaway government spending under Bush.

You JUST posted a quote about the "historic spending increases." Then you claim that the spending was only on defense, while posting an editorial about increased spending in defense and Medicare and Medicaid, two huge entitlement programs.

But more interesting is how much you're trying to have it both ways. See, Republicans didn't really cut taxes all that much and most of their deficits came from increased spending. But you're trying to argue at the same time that the spending wasn't all that much either. And besides...9/11!!

What's ironic is that while touting the fiscally responsible small government Republicans, you're purposely overlooking the creation of a huge new government department and the expansion of entitlement spending. Yeah, other than THAT, they're totally principled.

The reality is that in Bush's first term, non-military discretionary spending increased 36%. That this came from one or two programs seems to me a moot point for a party that touts itself as for smaller government. There's no asterisk in that claim that I'm aware of, like "We're for small government, unless we're ballooning the size of entitlements or defense spending or creating huge new departments or launching wars."

And hiding behind the GDP does not hide the doubling of the debt due to that spending and those tax cuts.

Again, the Republican denial of responsibility for the past 8 years is why you are where you are. Instead of dealing with it, you're going out of your way to make excuses for it.

The thing is I WANT a good, principled opposition. I want more Ron Pauls, who MEAN it when they talk about fiscal responsibility, even if I disagree with him on a lot of issues. The current GOP is not that. They're barely even a real party anymore. Just the gay-bashing, torture-loving, war-mongering hypocrites for rich, white southern Christians.

So you're going to look at a 1 year window, tout a 36% increase (based purely on $ not GDP), and blindly ignore the full 8 year term. That's just ignorant. Discretionary Spending DECREASED during Bush's term, so you can point to the 36% in one year all you want, but it's simply wrong.

Furthermore, there is no "hiding" behind the GDP. You can't look at numbers without a reference point, to do so is equivalent to flying an airplane VFR with no horizon, ask JFK JR how that works.

I'm denying nothing. The past 8 years have had their share of mistakes, I'd have no problem discussing them with someone who wanted an honest discussion, but that's not you. Moreso, that doesn't give us the right or an excuse to start these 4 off with more. And shame on you for continually telling me I have no right to question a bill that is so obviously filled to the brim with irrelevant spending. You point the blame at me for not operating my crystal ball correctly to find the upcoming fraud and theft that would accompany the Iraq reconstruction effort, and yet when a bill from your party hits the Presidents desk so blatantly filled with non-relevant spending, you give a one liner about not liking the spending practices and go right back to Republican bashing. Seriously, take a look in the mirror once in a while.

Is that so? I wonder if you'd apply that same standard to Dem...oh wait:



Guess what you failed to mention there. The reference to the GDP. So you simply CANNOT look at the numbers without a reference point*.

*as long as one is making excuses for the GOP doubling the national debt; but when it comes to Dem spending, it's perfectly okay to go without mentioning it.



I didn't say you have no right. I said you have no credibility. You're a hypocrite on waste and spending just like everyone else in the GOP.



Yeah, because predicting THAT required a crystal ball. Although, in your defense, no one could have predicted that Bush would do something as stupid as putting several tons of cash on an airplane and send it into a war zone. But that was worth every penny, right? So it's all good.

And your assertion that none of those Republican bills, including defense spending or the DHS funding or Iraq or Katrina funding, contained any waste as written (otherwise you would have totally objected to the entire thing) is utterly ridiculous. The Republicans passed over 30,000 earmarks in 2004 and 2005. I wonder how hard it would be to name a few associated with Homeland Security, for instance.

But then you are the one arguing that the Bush years were a model of fiscal responsibility and that the Iraq war was worth every penny. You're doing half of my work for me.

What in the hell are you babbling about now? You need a reference point for a trillion dollar bill? How does that at all make sense compared to what we were discussing: Comparing 8 years of government spending to previous years. Obviously you need a reference point when dealing with data OVER TIME. You do realize this stimulus bill represents a single point in time, right?

You're talking like a fool, I've tried to explain myself, I think I've made myself pretty clear. I don't see any reason to continue this discussion.

And yet again, you move the goal posts.



You can't look at numbers without a reference point. That's what YOU said, not me. My argument here is the doubling of the debt under the Bush administration (with no jobs to show for it). For reasons that defy reality, you make the argument that they actually cut spending and that the tax cuts didn't really amount to much.

It makes one wonder how the debt doubled under such GOP fiscal restraint.



You've done nothing but demonstrate your and the GOP's rank hypocrisy on spending, debt, and waste. You haven't explained yourself, you've simply made excuses for it when Republicans do it. That much IS clear.

You ask teachers most of them hate No Child Left behind, every teacher I have talked to said it is horrible. The democrats are to blame for that too, it needs to be blown up and start over. You said the bill is garbage in your previous post that I quoted, I don't have time to read every post in this thread.

Well, 'teachers don't like it' isn't a good enough reason to trash legislation. The bill has issues, major ones, but there were a ton of even MORE major issues before NCLB. Again, it needs re-worked (not blown up) and it will be in the coming years, but it has moved us in the right direction, shown tangible results, increased funding (still not enough), etc. Calling it a joke simply means you buy into what you hear without knowing anything more, which likely means you shouldn't be talking about it.

As for the bill, it's filled to the brim with garbage. It has some redeeming qualities, but many more non economic stimulating spending projects. I've always been a big proponent of Infrastructure spending, and I completely agree with you about the need for increased funding to education, but this bill doesn't address those areas as much as it should, there are too many spending projects taking the money.

To me teachers no more about the situation than anyone. Also here is the problem with No Child Left behind. The act sets a bar the school has to reach if you don't make it you lose funding, so this mean inner city schools will fall in an ever falling cycle. If they keep lose funding how can they ever pull themselves out? I also think it creates less critical thinking students. I don't think standardized tests are the way to go especially for high school. By then you need to look at things more analytically or else you will never be ready for college. I think it just dumbs down society. As for the bill, I am not going to keep arguing about it. I do think infrastructure needs more money but hopefully that will be addressed later. I think it was better than nothing and will at least create a couple million jobs in this poor economy.