Dino Rossi wasn’t a very good legislator:
In 1997-98 – He sponsored 19 bills and he got 1 passed.
In 1999-2000 – He sponsored 14 bills and got 2 passed.
The 2 he got passed? Senate Resolution 8683 which “applauded the dedication and work of all SCORE (Service Corp of Retired Executives) members.”
And the other was Resolution 8720, which recognized the “We the People Program.”
In 2001-2002 – He was 2/18. Rossi introduced 18 bills got 1 passed. One of those bills was another recognition for the “We the People Program.”
In 2003-2004 – He was 5/32. But two of those bills that passed had to do with the operating budget… you know, when he was “Following The Governor’s Lead”? So really he was 3 for 32 that year.
So in total what is Rossi’s legislative success rate? What does he have to show for seven years in Olympia? What track record to we have to go on when he says he is going to shake things up? Eighty-three bills introduced and seven that passed.
That is an 8% success rate. Pretty good for the football coach at the “Secondary School for Hemophiliacs,” but not so great for a legislator.
This election cycle is simply just not going to be friendly for Republicans.
Dino Rossi has ZERO chance of winning the Govenor’s seat. It won’t even be close enough for a recount.
Blue, blue, and more blue. Better dead than red.
I predict there’s less than 8% chance we’ll hear from any of these right wing idiots the day after we take over the federal government with a super majority of Dems!
@2 And will you be returning the favor if for whatever reason the results of the election turn out the opposite?
ByeByeGOP says:
“I predict there’s less than 8% chance we’ll hear from any of these right wing idiots the day after we take over the federal government with a super majority of Dems!”
Some will be too busy hunkering down for the bad times to follow.
Others will be in deep the throws of Carter Deja Vu’
@ 4:
As if the Bush administration will be remembered as the “good times”?
Not likely.
What will happen is that we’ll get this country back on track. The People will clearly see what happens when Republicans, who claim government is bad and prove it every time they get in office vs. the sensible “pre-9/11” policies and principles of our liberal Founding Fathers.
“Reagan is dead. But his natinal debt lives on, and we’re doing something about that as well.”
Off Topic, but interesting:
It turns out Britain’s Prince Harry was with British troops in Afganistan, actually leading troops on patrols. But media reports forced the British Army to withdraw him, because he would be too high-value a target for the Taliban.
Now, here’s an idea. We draft the Bush twins, and send them to Iraq. Then we give every U.S. military person in Iraq an “official” name which matches one of the Bush twins. Then we have the media report that the Bush twins are in Iraq, serving on convoy duty. The Bush twins would have to be withdrawn, but so will every other U.S. military person, just to make sure we removed the right ones.
Anyway, just a thought…. ;)
Check out the BIAW juveniles calling Gregoire a power-hungry wolf who wuld eat her own young – what a bunch of Neaderthals – they make Mike tyson look sane.
This is why the republican party is bankrupt of ideas and can only resort to infantile name-calling in Washington state – the clueless idiots are calling the shots. Rossi’s main backers – the BIAW put out this third grade crap – and bring the elevel of discourse down to their level and we wonder why no one takes the republicans seriously in this state…
Link: http://jondevore.blogspot.com/.....-wolf.html
Oh – excuse me – a power-hungry SHE wolf – just make sure all women are suitably insulted…
GBS: Faux Pas: “Reagan is dead. But his natinal debt lives on, and we’re doing something about that as well.”
Hmmm… I thought congress made the budget.
Care to discuss the Omnibus Tax and Reconciliation Act of 1982?
How about 1986?
So far no takers.
That is a priceless reworking of Limbaugh’s
—
Puddybud.
Read the Constitution and get back to me. How the budget process works is covered there.
Fact check: Ronald Reagan took us form the largest lending nation on Earth to the largest debtor nation on Earth in less than 8 years.
Bush 41 added to that debt.
Clinton added to that debt a little during his presidency, but last two years of his presidency he actually paid DOWN the national debt. The ONLY U.S. President to do so.
Bush 43 and the Republican congress doubled the national debt in less than 6 years. The amount they borrowed is greater than all 42 previous presidents COMBINED.
Your lack of knowledge on this topic is beyond mind numbing, Puddybud.
Kudos, Blue John.
I was wondering if anyone would catch the tounge-in-cheeck comment.
@ 6:
Yeah, but did you catch what media outlet OUTED one of our allies during a time of WAR????
Yep, the Drudge Report.
Treason. Pure and simple.
Are we talking about bills on which Rossi was the sole sponsor, or bills on which Rossi was one of perhaps many sponsors? Most bills which actually pass the legislature have several sponsors when they are introduced. If Rossi served 7 years in the legislature, then his name should appear as a sponsor on more than 83 bills in any event. There are several thousand introduced every year, with numerous bills (perhaps even most bills) having more than one sponsor.
11 It’s not “lack of knowledge”, GBS. It’s psychotic denial.
GBS: Reagan submitted a budget Tip O’Neill made an agreement then broke it.
Why won’t you or that brainiac ArtFart discuss the Omnibus Tax and Reconciliation Act of 1982? Afraid of the truth?
Come on I dare you.
@13: GBS What was the outing by the Drudge report?
Brainiac@15 I asked back in January to cover this and you donkeys ran far away…
So who has the “psychotic denial” ArtFart.
I’m still waiting to engage in the discussion…
correctnotright: what planet are you living on?
@7
That link isn’t working.
@Goldy, #14
A bit of a comparison between Dino and other legislators would help make, or not make, the argument.
Oops, its Will that wrote this post, not Goldy.
@ 17:
The outing was of Prince Harry. An obvious High Value Target for our enemies.
Thus, subjecting all allied forces to increased focused attacks to kill him. Obviously, killing someone like Price Harry would be a huge victory for our enemies.
It’s a tought spot for the British military. The prince wants to serve in frontline combat positions, but keeping his cover is hard to do. This is the same guy who wanted to go to Iraq, but couldn’t because of all the media attention that got out in front of this story in the British media.
Prince Harry could take the easy way out like Bush did, but chooses to be a man of honor. I applaud our brave allies in high positions of authority for doing what our
CommanderCoward-in-Chief would not.@1`6 – come on Puddy – if Reagan didn’t like the budget he could have VETOED it – but he signed it! And republicans now say things like “Reagan proved that you can deficit spend to…blah blah…” in order to justify expensive war and military spending ( like useless star wars stuff).
@23: thanks GBS – I didn’t realize it was Drudge that did the outing – I read it somewhere else.
Reagan’s contribution to hastening the Soviet collapse nearly bankrupted the United States, just as John Paul II’s contribution nearly bankrupted the Vatican.
Puddybud,
Have you read the Constitution yet that covers the budget process??
When you do we can talk.
We’ll also talk about how the Democrats made the mistake of taking Reagan at his word and gave an earnest attempt to work with the President on his “
Trickle DownVoodoo Economics.”18 I wasn’t addressing you, Pudwax. I was simply seeking to explain your behavior to someone else.
Doesn’t the PuddyBitch (the crackpipier, marvin stammer, mark the rageneck, et. al for that matter) have anything better to do than make a complete ass out of himself spouting specious and discredited clownswevative talking points on a liberal blog where he has literally no chance of changing anyone’s mind?
Just askin’…
Seems like a waste of time to me.
Makes him (them) look like a dumbass to a casual reader if tghe threads. Not a way to win converts.
Puddy,
Is an adult helping you with the Constitution? There are some big words I know.
Here’s a reallllllly good link for you and another adult to help you learn more about the Constitution.
http://www.constitutioncenter......ndex.shtml
Enjoy.
GBS @ 23: Yes, the comparison is rather striking, isn’t it?
George W. Bush – father’s political influence get’s him a safe position in the Texas ANG, and helps him avoid doing any real service after his first two years or so (freeing him up for political work, then to go back to school). His own daughters were best known for their underage drinking problems during his early presidency, never volunteered to serve, although only in the past year one of them started to do some visible charity work.
Karl Rove: Misused student deferrments to avoid the Vietnam draft, then got a mysterious “not subjet to draft” classification once he became politically active for the Republicans.
Dick Cheney – avoided the draft during the Vietnam war (I forget the details right now).
Rush Limbaugh: Argued (successfully) that a pimple on his rear end made him medically unfit for military service.
Jack Kemp: Argued that a knee injury made him medically unfit for military duty, but it didn’t stop him from playing professional football.
Mit Romney – argues that his multiple sons, all of service age, are serving their country just as much as the soldiers in Iraq/Afganistan by for his re-election campaign.
Yet all of them were more than eagre to keep feeding our sons and daughters into the mill in Iraq for the indefinate future, for reasons that they can’t articulate.
Puddy, does this mean that Rossi is only half as good as a 16%-er?
You know GBS sometimes I wonder about you. I already said Reagan submitted the budget and O’Neill reneged on the deal.
Are you like BO and miss the obvious now?
Correctnotright: Veto what? how could he veto and be overridden by Donkey House Congress?
I bet we don’t see Hannah in this thread at all.
What is this Friday Revisionist History Time?
I want someone to step up and tell me about the Omnibus Tax and Reconciliation Act of 1982?
RHP @ 34:
Yeah, it is rather striking.
I have to correct you on your post. The need is rare given the quality of your posts, however, Rush Limbaugh did not have a pimple on his ass.
As funny as that sounds, he actually did have a valid medical excuse for not serving in the military: Anal fissure.
Anal fissures are tears on the anus. One of the causes of anal fissure is vigorous anal intercourse.
I’m just sayin’.
@ 37
You’re speculating.
Don’t “wonder” about me; you should know by know, I have you against the ropes ready to deliver the KO punch. 1-2, uppercut, right cross “DOWN GOES PUDDY, DOWN GOES PUDDY.”
Know what I mean?
Puddy @ 39
I used the Google, and you are the only person in the world who has ever posted the words “Omnibus Tax and Reconciliation Act of 1982” on the internet.
Since you are the only one in all of creation who knows anything about it, then you will need to tell us about it.
rhp6033 @ 34
Really? A pimple on his butt? I thought Rush Limbaugh would have gotten a 4-F draft status simply based on his weight.
@34 Please explain how you oh-so-progressive types CELEBRATED a draft dodging sociopath becomming president, then turn around and complain about anyone else that avoided service in what you all have always referred to as an “illegal war”. Whether or not you think they skated out of service, why should you care, since your side approves of everyone else who did likewise? Please don’t bother with the old saw about “sending someone else out for military service when you won’t go yourself”. That is invalide. You don’t apply that standard to anyone, or anything, else. Or if you insist, then tell me how that differs from any of you complaining about the police?
What Puddybud wants you to believe is that the Democrats didn’t keep their end of the bargain to reduce spending in conjunction with raising taxes.
Many neocon’s belive this. But this has been debunked by Reagan’s own budget director, David Stokholm.
Give it a rest Puddybud. Tip O’Neil kept his word. So, too, did Reagan.
The problem is, alwasy has been, the conservative model of government simply doesn’t work. Like Marxism it sounds good on it surface, but falls flat upon execution.
The only thing that has stood the test of time is the Liberal founding of this nation.
DOWN GOES PUDDY, DOWN GOES PUDDY!!!!
Furthermore, Puddybud, it was Reagan’s inability to resist overspending on Defense that lead to increased outlays in governmental spending.
Ahhhhhhhh, it feels so gooooooood to win. Nothing like beating and humiliating a conservative like a prisoner at Abu Grahib.
44 – We don’t like hypocrites. Let me make that clearer:
WE DON’T CARE FOR HYPOCRITES.
(imagine “Eye of the tiger” playing)
Ring side announcer:
“Puddybud is still down on the canvas, he’s out cold. It doesn’t look like he’s breating. Wait! He’s coming to. He’s trying to say something . . . what is it?”
Puddybud:
“Duhhhhh . . . mmmmm Om-knee-bus (spits blood) Tax and wreck-con-silly-ayyyyyy-shun . . . act, act, act of nine-teeeeen eighty-TWOOOOOO. Tip, Tip, li. . . .ahhhhhh:
Ring side announcer:
“He’s out again, I’m not sure what he was mumbling about, but the Puddybud is on his way to the Truamatic Brain Injury unit at Fort Hood, Texas.”
Too bad the Republcians in congress cut funding for TBI. Looks like Puddybud will be known as Puddy-vegtable.
Puddy,
that was sure a lot easier than schooling you on how the Republicans used the race card throgh the Reagan years.
You remember the Republcian Southeren Strategy and how the Ken Mehlman apologized the NAACP for race baiting and discrimination.
Reagan blew the financial house of America. He set the course for financial ruin of America. He did it, Bush 41 did it, Clinton stopped the bleeding for a while and Bush 43 has done untold damage that will continue to reveal itself for years if not decades to come.
C’mon, for America’s sake, admit it, Republicans are not good for the economy. Do the right thing for America, Puddy. Put aside your poltical beliefs for a minute and consider doing the patriotic thing: DON’T VOTE FOR A REPUBLCIAN.
@ 49:
When I say through the Reagan years I that means from 1964-1988.
@44
It’s not OK to skate out of doing service and then yell at other folks who are against war or skating out of service.
44: Sorry, you can’t dismiss the central definition of being a “ChickenHawk” – it means someone who is eager to send others off to war, but won’t go themselves. Therefore, a pacifist, or even someone who avoids sending troops to war unless all other options have been exhausted, doesn’t qualify.
Clinton did “avoid” the draft. But the Republicans roasted him on that issue on a regular basis. I remember well how Republicans used to get absolutely red in the face, arguing that Clinton’s conduct made him ineligible to serve in any public office. Funny how sensitive they get when they are held to the same standard.
And if you read my post yesterday, you would see that just about equal numbers of presidents and presidential candidates since 1960 from each party served in combat, and also an equal number served in the military in non-combat roles. Republicans have never had an exclusive handle on that qualification.
Also, don’t forget my post (yesterday or the day before, I forget) which documents Republican positions on whether or not a person has to have served in the military in order to become President. It changes every four years, depending upon who is the Republican nominee and who is the challenger.
The only position they consistently hold is that they want to stay in power by any means necessary and make as much money as possible for themselves and their friends as long as possible. All other “closely held beliefs” are just campaign rhetoric, to be discarded whenever it is convenient for them to do so.
One person who actually believed the Republican garbage was David Stockman, who became Ronald Reagan’s first budget director. He believed it when Reagan said the first priority was to balance the budget. But he quickly found out that the Republican priority was not to balance the budget, but to give big tax cuts to their friends and military contracts – also to their friends. Then he was told to make the numbers fuzzy so it would look like the deficit wasn’t as bad as it was, and that it would be improving over the next eight years. He called it the “rosy scenario” – it only worked if you looked at all future economic projections through rose-colored glasses.
Stockman became completely disenchanted with the Republicans – kind of like the Evangelicals are now doing. Once you really get to know the people who are really in charge of the Republican Party, it’s hard to like them. Like a cheap hooker, they look best when viewed from a distance, in the dark, through boozy eyes. After you see them in the light of morning, you can’t believe you actually went to bed with them the night before.
@47 You don’t like hypocrites?
Prove it! Condem everyone who avoided service in Vietnam, right now. Democrat, or Republican, denouce them properly, and then I’ll believe you don’t want it both ways.
Of course,Stockholm wasn’t exactly very welcome in the Republican circles after he “outed” the fact that everyone in the Reagan administration knew that “supply-side economics” was just an attempt to sell “trickle-down economics” to the American voter. He also admitted that no one knew what the numbers he was defending really meant, and he said that the Republican congressmen (and within the Reagan administration itself!) were just as guilty as the Democrats in terms of government spending.
His wife is currently chairwoman of Republican Majority for Choice, an organization that supports pro-choice Republican candidates (I guess there are a few). Stockman himself made a bang in the investment world, being a principle in the Blackstone Group, but getting out in 2000, right before that group made the really big money and merged with Merrill Lynch. He went on to found another investment group and became CEO of an auto parts maker, Collins & Aikman, but was forced out shortly before it filed Chapter 11 and is currently facing SEC charges that he defrauded investors.
@52 You completely avoided the thrust of my post, but that’s fine.
As a matter of fact, I do dismiss the definition of chickenhawk. This is still the United States, which means any citizen still has the right to express an opinion on any subject, whether they’ve served in the military or not. If your standard is going to be that one cannot support a position without personal experience, which is where that road leads, then you’ve just doomed our Republic. If you believe that no Republican can advocate military action without having served in the military, then I would expect never to hear from any leftie that hasn’t served. You can’t have it both ways.
54 – There’s nothing hypocritical about someone who didn’t believe in the war avoiding it.
Bush believed in it and avoided it. Went AWOL. Cheney did the same. He had “other priorities”.
Bush and Cheney started a war of choice and sent others to fight and die. And we’ll all be paying for it for generations.
Republicans tout their “morals”, preach against homosexuality and other “immoral lifestyles” and then shit in diapers in whorehouses and go toe tapping in bathrooms stalls.
That’s hypocrisy and people are sick and tired of it.
55 – You mean Stockman.
I-burn: would you be man enough to denounce Bush, Cheney, Rove, & Limbaugh for avoiding military service, or do you insist on this being a one-sided discussion?
@57 That’s bullshit. Partisan hack job YLB, and nothing but. You want the freedom to condem your ideological opponents for the very same thing your allies have done. How is that not the very definition of hypocrisy?
Yep, Stockman. I guess I’ve got Swede’s on the mind.
60 – Go ahead and defend the neo-con war lovers like Feith and Wolfowitz, Cheney and Bush. People who started a war of choice, doubled this country’s debt and killed and maimed 10’s of thousands.
Not going to do you a bit of good come November.
As a matter of fact, I do dismiss the definition of chickenhawk.
Why, because it’s rhetorically convenient to do so?
This is still the United States, which means any citizen still has the right to express an opinion on any subject, whether they’ve served in the military or not.
People have a constitutionally protect right to be hypocrites. That does, however, mean that I have an equally protect right to point out their hypocrisy.
If your standard is going to be that one cannot support a position without personal experience, which is where that road leads, then you’ve just doomed our Republic.
Now you’ve done more than simply dismiss the definition of “chickenhawk.” You’ve completely redefined the term.
There’s a difference between going to war after you have exhausted all reasonable alternatives and when you have the full and unmitigated support of a great majority of the American people, and going to war over the objections of a significant portion of the American public and before you’ve exhausted some reasonable alternatives.
Indeed, when you consider the way intelligence was manipulated during the run-up to the war in Iraq, we’re talking about people who’ve taken “chickenhawk” to an entirely new level of malfeasance.
@59 I’m certainly not going to condem them for expressing their opinions, no. Do I think that everyone should have done their duty in regards to that war? Yes, I do. Would I have gone? Yes, had I been old enough. I served later, but I would have gone to Vietnam. Does that mean I’m qualified to judge the applicability of utilizing military force and no one else on HA that hasn’t served is?
Corpulent generals safe behind linesHistory’s lessons drowned in red winePoppies for young menDeath’s bitter tradeAll of those young lives betrayed (Gordon Sumner)
That is what we’re talking about when we talk about chickenhawks.
I-burn @ 56: Actually, I do believe that military service is not a prerequisite to becoming President, or expressing an opinion on public policy. I am concerned, however, when someone who has not been in combat themselves seems over-eager to commit American troops into harm’s way (regardless of party).
But after hearing Republicans insist for years that only a military veteran is qualified to be President (but only when it was convenient for them to do so), I am happy to point out the inconsistency of their positions.
I’m tired of trying to be fair to both sides, because the Republicans have no interest in doing the same. This is a liberal blog. I’ll point out their hypocracy anytime I wish. If anyone wants to argue on the other side, they can post here (Goldy doesn’t ban people from posting who don’t agree with him, unlike some right-wing bloggers do). Or you can just turn on Fox News. I’m not going to make your arguments for you.
@63 You’re certainly entitled to your opinion. As long as you understand, that’s all it is. I didn’t redefine anything; I merely responded to the term as it was being used.
As for the standards necessary for taking the country to war? Why don’t you tell me what they are, since you seem to be an expert?
@66
Right on!
And I was too young to have served in Vietnam, the draft having ended just weeks before I turned 18. I did volunteer for the reserves later, but was turned down for medical reasons (bad eyesight, bad knees). They were pretty picky then, I’m sure if I were the right age now, I would have had no trouble getting in.
My mother wasn’t happy about me trying to volunteer. She said my father served twice, enough for both of us (once in post-WWII occupation forces, again in combat during the Korean war. He was pretty conservative mostly, but when it came to committing U.S. troops to combat, he would get real quiet, like a dark cloud was coming over him, listen to some politician talking about how we needed to prove we were “stong” by going toe-to-toe against some foe, and then mutter about them being “idiots” as he turned off the TV in disgust and walked away. He usually didn’t return to a good mood until at least the next day.
Has Rossi passed more or less bills than the average senator? Without the comparison, his passage rate is a meaningless number.
Also, if it’s less than average, is that necessarily a measure of effectiveness? One of my fav’s is the very liberal Rep. Maralyn Chase, who has compiled an awesome track record of failed bills — innovative, trailblazing bills that go up for a vote in several sessions until enough legislators have gotten used to the idea and the bill eventually passes. Somebody had to do it, and she’s not afraid to, unlike some Seattle leaders.
Not that I’d ever vote for Rossi. I just hate sloppy logic.
Does Will have a link for this supposed record of Dino Rossi, or is it just what he thinks might have happened? If Will does have a link I am not seeing it. I ask this not because I believe Will could be biased in his analysis but just because I know will is biased in his analysis.
Of course if voting records is going to be important in the upcoming November elections lets take a look at the (Second Coming of Jesus Christ for the Democrats, Borak Hussein Obama) With links of course because people would only think you were lying if you didn’t provide them, right Will?
It seems that the second coming for the Obamatrons has a absentee rate of 39% in his new job as a United States Senator missing 39% of the votes he was hired and was paid to vote on.
Barack Obama has missed 190 votes (39.8%) during the current Congress. See a list of his missed votes since 1991 or see a full list of vote missers.
http://projects.washingtonpost.....s/o000167/
Oh and excuse me if I use Borak Hussein Obama’s middle name, John Fitzgerald Kennedy who Obama has been compared to, middle name was used extensively. In fact, I am sure that anyone other than those who attended Seattle Public Schools is unaware of President Kennedy’s middle name.
Of course then again I am sure that many of you have not heard of Richard Milhouse Nixon, Gerrald Rudolf Ford, Jimmy Earl Carter, Ronald Wilson Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, William Jefferson Clinton, George Walker Bush. It’s middle names folks, we have them we didn’t choose them but people identify us by them.
Get over the horror of someone addressing a presidential candidate by his full name.
You mean that president after Kennedy name wasn’t Elbee??? No way!!!!
My goodness! The sound of shrieking, asshole trolls preparing themselves for the arrival of the dreaded liberal president and congress. How sweet it is!
Rob @ 72
Okay, Barack Obama has missed 39.6% of the votes in the Senate. But John McCain has missed 56.4% of the votes in the Senate. Your point?
http://projects.washingtonpost.....e-missers/
AS THE COUNT CONTINUED PUDDY CLEARED THE COBWEBS. AS THE REF COUNTED 6 – 7 – PUDDY STAGGERED UP – 8 PUDDY WALKS TO THE REF 9 REF LOOKS AT PUDDY AND ASKS ARE YOU OK?
PUDDY SAYS I’M PIZZED LETS GET IT ON.
David Stockman in “The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed” wrote specifically criticizing the failure of Congressional Republicans to support government spending reductions to offset the large tax cuts. The plan was in order to avoid the creation of large deficits and an exploding national debt was to reduce spending. But GBS, while spending cuts were indeed necessary, you cannot blame the deficits solely on the tax cuts. If you remember GBS tax revenue actually increased following the 1981 passage and enactment of the Reagan tax cuts. Because of the economic expansion activity the US economy increased in output. The deficit ballooned because the congress didn’t stop spending. Reagan agreed to the tax hikes on the promise from Tip O’Neill and Congress of a $3 reduction in spending for every $1 increase in taxes. The donkey didn’t go with the plan because they didn’t want to cut social programs much while they wanted to cut defense (just like donkey) and Reagan didn’t want to cut defense as deep as the donkey wanted. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 raised tax to GDP ratio of +1%.
What the donkey forget is entitlement spending increased over $360 billion while defense spending only increased 270 over the 8 years of his presidency. Yet donkey attribute all this to defense spending. You all can check out the data. Puddy did.
Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth increased at an annual rate of 3.4% per year eventhough you had the savings and loan crisis, the stock market crash, and a net job increase of about 16 million also occurred and these weren’t $7/hr jobs and personal income increased. Tax receipts increased from $517 billion in 1980 to $1,032 billion in 1990.
Then in 1985 Reagan went with ONeill and didn’t cap entitlement spending and the deficit balooned. The Republicans in the Senate crafted a deficit reduction plan, Reagan didn’t go for it in his second term, the donkey cried momma they are cutting programs when in realizty they were reducing the automatic increases to a smaller value, the 1986 voting populace gave back the senate to the donkey. Those are the facts.
A HARD LEFT AND AND RIGHT TO THE HEAD OF GBS AND HE’S REELING ON THE ROPES DAZED AND CONFUSED.
I had to read some of Stockman’s book GBS.
GBS @ 11:
Your statement about Bill Clinton being the only president to pay down the national debt is incorrect.
Andrew Jackson not only paid it down, he paid it OFF.
Dino Rossi wasn’t a very good anything.
Puddybud @ 79:
A) You were already counted out. A KNOCK OUT!
B) You suffered serious brain damage.
C) I have to do some reading now. Hell, it seems I don’t even remember Reagan’s budget directors name. I thought it was Stockholm, like the city, but I guess after reading the other posts I’m not righnt about that. But, I know I’m right about Tip reducing spending very close to what he promised, but it was Reagan insistance on smashing the Soviet Union with a massive military build up that blew the budget.
I’m pretty certian about that.
I’m not going to get into the revenue deal because that has been so throughtly covered it’s not funny. Reagan’s tax cut did not truly increase revenue to the treasury. I know Hannity & co. like to belive that fairy tale, but it’s simply not true.
Are youi suuuuuuure you want to discuss this furhter or do you want to take a TKO?
I know I’m right about Tip keeping his word or at the very least was very close to it. It was Reagan who overspent on the military.
Ivan @ 80.
I had no idea. I’ll take your word for it and do some reading about President Jackson.
Thanks for the history lesson. I really appreciate it.
GBS
44 I-Burn Please explain how you oh-so-progressive types CELEBRATED a draft dodging sociopath becomming president, then turn around and complain about anyone else that avoided service in what you all have always referred to as an “illegal war”.
Sure. Not one combat death during eight years of Bill Clinton.
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz, not so much:
U.S. Deaths Confirmed By The DoD: 3972
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/US_NAMES.aspx
US deaths in Afghanistan: 771
http://www.uswarwatch.org/afgh.....month.html
Who is careful with American lives? We know, and you can’t handle the truth.
pud
Reagan raised taxes in 1982 (twice, one being “the largest peacetime tax increase in American history”), 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987 (http://www.nationalreview.com/.....290853.asp ).
Bush 41 raise taxes in 1990, but it would have been 1989 excpt that Democrat Dan Rostenkowski got the budget through without them. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R....._new_taxes )
So revenues went up? Well, duh. The economy grew and taxes were raised eight times.
Crap
@84
The same way the right celebrates a draft-dodging sociopath becoming president and getting a rich assklown pseudopilot who never quite fulfilled his military requirements, laughable as they were, to act as front man. Skill.
@86
Crap??? Puddy is crap or the premise is crap?
Or, both of them is crap?(puddygrammer)
@88 in other cases it would be “grammar”, but I’m sure you take my meaning…
@84 Seriously? “Not one combat death during eight years of Bill Clinton”???
Ever hear of a place called Somalia? Waco? Any of the goddamned terrorist incidents under Saint Clintons watch?
Don’t be a fool, man! Nothing you’ve listed repudiates, in the least, what I wrote.
@87 As is usual, you dims take things out of context. Again, completely missing the thrust of my original argument.
You have to have something to thrust WITH….
@92 As you would know. Or not…
Really? In WA State as a Republican? He had a tough time getting something done. What a shocker!!!!