User 273178

The White House vs. Rick Santelli

Media,

Not only do you spin, lie, and distort, but you put words in my mouth. Where did I EVER say I was for increased spending?

Fact is, you can have your opinions. You cannot have your facts though, and I have disproven yours and proven mine.

I will no longer respond to this or you. "A man convinced against his will, is of his same opinion still".

BTW, hell-bent on war?
Go do some research and look up 9/11/01. Something happened that day.

And yes, I will PROUDLY take capitalism over socialism or communism ANY day of the week.

One more point. Why did Clinton have a balanced budget?
CONTRACT WITH AMERICA! Hate to break it to you, but Gingrich and co. took over the house in 1994 and greatly weakened Clinton. Their initiatives went through, and a stagnate economy in 1994 took off in 1995.

www.house.gov/house/Co...

Man, talk about revisionist history. How you can give Clinton credit for that defies all logic. I can give him credit for signing the legislation. However, if he didn't, he would have likely paid the price in the next election.
<Shakes head at all of this>


On Feb 24 10:38 PM mediapro wrote:

> Revisionism is the child of desperation.
>
> If you truly believe that tax cuts, increased spending and unfettered
> capitalism are the answers to our economic woes, then you should
> feel comfortable with the past eight years that culminated the lunacy
> of the supply-side hypothesis.
>
> You and I are the only ones paying attention to this string, and
> you are a lost soul imprisoned in your blinder collar of loyalty
> to a man and ideas that have been not only proven false, but will
> perhaps bankrupt the country.
>
> More and more people are concerned about the disparity in wealth
> as not only immoral, but a dangerous precursor to revolt. It's hard
> to conceive of Americans finally realizing the tragedy of the past
> thirty years and radically changing this government, yet had we not
> taken a side step to give a more balanced view of history and economics
> a chance, you and I might be having quite a different discussion.
>
>
> Oh well, since you actually might read my retort to your poorly framed
> responses here goes:
>
> 1. Reagan compromised. With Tip O'Neil and the democrats in control,
> inserting their spending items, he knew that to get his broader proposals
> enacted, he had to give back. He was pragmatic in his approach. He
> wanted the line-item veto to help reduce the wasteful spending. He,
> and everyone else since, has been denied that. The truth remains.
> Cutting taxes ballooned gov't income and revenue, but it was outspent.
> That cannot be denied. We can pass the political football as to who
> was at fault, but Congress writes the legislation. If he vetos everything,
> then nothing he wants gets passed. He was NOT happy about the spending.
> Read his writings, you'll come to learn that.
>
> It's no political football at all. Reagan went on the same spending
> spree that you are now deriding Obama undertaking. His happened to
> be on wasteful and illogical defense projects (remember Star Wars?).
> If Reagan wrote about his disappointments in later years, he should
> have had the moral courage to corral his colleagues into a Senate
> fillibuster or veto the spending bills. The truth that you won't
> admit is that Reagan's compromise was over the margins of the budgets,
> not out of any concern for deficits or balanced budgets.
>
> 2. Budget deficits should always be measured as a % of GDP. That
> is widely agreed upon by economists. As an economy grows, a bigger
> current dollar number is not necessarily as big in percentage terms.
>
> The Federal gov't will always spend more as time goes on, especially
> in a strongly rising economy. If you are going to criticize Reagan
> for an increase in the size of the budget, then criticize every other
> president as well. And his defense spending made us safer. Communism
> and the wall fell without a single shot. Far more cheaper to do it
> by being strong, than be being weak and then being attacked. Read
> what the former leaders of the Soviet Union had to say, about how
> frustrated they were that Reagan out-maneuvered them.
> To say his budget deficit up to that point was by far the largest
> in history is simply untrue. In fact, I'll call it a lie.
>
> And your novel about "Republicans crying" leaves a lot to be desired.
> The deficit would have been gone, but see above. And I would say
> it was more important to revive an economy even if it meant compromise
> than to not compromise and continue in a malaise. Even you have to
> admit the markets and economy were in very good shape back then.
>
>
>
>
> Please take another stab at defending your guy's results. I spent
> a good paragraph showing your own analysis to be wrong based on historical
> fact:
>
> But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal