Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

HOUSE - WHITE HOUSE TEAM UP AGAINST SENATE TO CONTROL SPENDING
House Policy Committee ^ | June 28, 2002

Posted on 06/28/2002 9:54:55 AM PDT by ReleaseTheHounds

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-112 next last
To: Deb
So, it doesn't matter that he tried to stop spending and was distracted by a terrorist attack?? Wow, no one can say you "principled conservatives" aren't reasonable.

Strawman.

As you may or may not know, it's pointless to veto something if the Congress can't sustain it.

Then how can you say he fought it? Sounds like that's just giving up to me.

But don't think I don't appreciate the condescending snear that passed as a question. (Condescending smear from Deb follows) And if you really cared about spending (haha), you'd do what Ron Paul requested on Hugh Hewitt's show, "...elect 30 more Republicans so we can save the country from the Democrats."

Did Ms. Cleo tell you how I voted?

(Next condescending smear from Deb) But since you obviously don't understand how the Congress and the two-party system works, it's better that you stay out of the fight all together and wait at your computer for the outcome, so you can take safe cheap shots from the sidelines.

I understand precisely how the two party system works. Looks like it's working great for those wishing to stay in power.

61 posted on 06/28/2002 1:38:09 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: SteamshipTime
Your remedy would be....

More Conservative Republicans elected? Or less?

Weakening the GOP? Or strengthening?

Backing the President? Attacking?

Being the political genius you obviously are, how do you propose to reduce spending and the government, in the coming election?

You'll use your vote to do what? (That's assuming you aren't the usual FR malcontent who has a big mouth, but doesn't actually vote)

62 posted on 06/28/2002 1:39:22 PM PDT by Deb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Deb
I'll follow anything I like, since I believe the GOP is our only hope and they should be getting more support...not less. But you're one of them "principled conservatives" who likes to pretend it's better to trash the 200 hard-working Republicans in Congress and stand behind unelectable fringe candidates.

Translation: Do not dare criticize the GOP for anything that they do that is liberal. Even if you voted for them, do not hold their feet to the fire when they stray away from their principles. Thanks for clarifying, Deb.

63 posted on 06/28/2002 1:41:19 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
My condescending snears can beat up your condescending snears...every day of the week.
64 posted on 06/28/2002 1:41:58 PM PDT by Deb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Thanks for proving you have absolutely no clue how government works and for exposing the fact that you don't really care about "smaller government". No one is that naive.

The curtain is pulled back to reveal yet another blowhard leftist, wearing a "principled conservative" mask.

65 posted on 06/28/2002 1:47:28 PM PDT by Deb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Deb
Yeah, you got me.

Was it my love of the Constitution that gave away the fact I'm not a Republican? I should've known.

66 posted on 06/28/2002 1:50:47 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: habs4ever
There has never been a "surplus." The federal government has always spent every penny of general revenue and then some. With the Baby Boomers in the workforce, Social Security and Medicare have in various years taken in more money than they paid out. This surplus cash was not held in trust; it was given to the Treasury, which promptly spent it, recording the proceeds as income and issuing an IOU. Kids, if you're corporate fiduciaries, don't try this at home.

There are numerous problems with government debt, starting with the fact that it has to be paid back. Money generated by debt is not capital. It represents consumed capital which would otherwise have supported future production. As such, it is the first claim on every future dollar earned, meaning you have to work all that much harder to replenish your capital stock. The U.S. government is so deeply in debt that it is using debt to service debt, meaning that it has COMPLETELY depleted its capital stock. Our future production for many, many years into the future is already mortgaged to the hilt. In order to avoid financial disaster, the U.S. will need to declare its own bankruptcy and allow its creditors to seize its assets.

67 posted on 06/28/2002 2:03:13 PM PDT by SteamshipTime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Deb
Let's just say I'm one of those who thinks the United States of America is too large and over-extended to continue as a going concern. ;^)
68 posted on 06/28/2002 2:05:35 PM PDT by SteamshipTime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: SteamshipTime
Good lord, you have gone off the edge with that one.I would spend time refuting you on such matters of high finance and economics, but, well, I have to cash out my bank account and head to Grand Cayman before the last plane leaves Pearson today.I need to be one step ahead of the Great Crash.

When we go to a barter economy, makes sure you have lots of pork and beans.Oh, and ammo too.Good luck.
69 posted on 06/28/2002 2:23:19 PM PDT by habs4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: habs4ever
Nah, you'll be fine. The government needs you; you don't need the government.
70 posted on 06/28/2002 2:31:44 PM PDT by SteamshipTime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: SteamshipTime
I absolutely agree. You are 100% correct.
71 posted on 06/28/2002 2:41:34 PM PDT by Deb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Oh, one a them "principled constitutionalists" we hear so much about.

That explains why you'd jump in with flying fists and painful pinches, instead of acknowledging that the info that started this thread, is admirable.

Seems the principled constitutionalist...fighting for drug rights everywhere...finds it kinda hard to pat GOP backs, even when they fight for a cause you pretend to champion.

Careful, your bong is showing.

72 posted on 06/28/2002 2:50:24 PM PDT by Deb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: ReleaseTheHounds
Well, surprise, surprise.
Lookee at the liberal scumbags who are NOT on the list - - Mike Castle and my scumbag, Greenwood.

If anybody notices other scumbag liberal RINO names missing from the above letter's signature list, please add them to this 'Scumbag RINO List' below.
Thank you.

SCUMBAG RINO LIST

1. Jim Greenwood
2. Mike Castle
3.

73 posted on 06/28/2002 3:14:09 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deb
It gets harder and harder to take you "principled conservatives" seriously...okay, we never did.

I stand by my theory that many of these mice are in reality Democrat operatives who come here to the most powerful political forum in the country to nibble away at Bush however they can. This "principled conservative" stuff is just a handy disguise for them.

Of course, maybe I believe this to be the case because I can't believe that there are so many "principled conservatives" who are such stupid, flaming sphincters.

74 posted on 06/28/2002 3:28:55 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
Absolute bulls-eye.

As soon as you see the term "principled" anything...look for the donkey's tail.

75 posted on 06/28/2002 3:41:53 PM PDT by Deb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
PING FOR A REPUBLICAN PARTY WITH BALLS!

Except where the Farm Bill is concerned.

76 posted on 06/28/2002 3:42:00 PM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: ReleaseTheHounds
darn..none from my area.

but iam in no. cal.

77 posted on 06/28/2002 3:42:47 PM PDT by willy WOXOF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST
All this fuss over around 6 billion?

Are you serious? Is that really the amount involved? 6 billion dollars is a problem, but raising the debt ceiling half a trillion dollars isn't?

78 posted on 06/28/2002 4:00:14 PM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Deb
Not surprised that you're a statist.
79 posted on 06/28/2002 4:26:01 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Not surprised you're a doper...

****nanner nanner nanner****

80 posted on 06/28/2002 4:34:18 PM PDT by Deb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-112 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson