[clue-talk] Wow, Card's a little political...

[Nate Duehr]

On Nov 2, 2008, at 11:33 AM, Angelo Bertolli wrote:

> Well I don't just think the Republicans are fiscally imprudent,  
> they've proved it over the past 20 years.  I'll be fair:  it's not  
> all Republicans, it's been the executive administrations.  I'm in  
> favor of Republican Congress, and Democrat President mix (which is  
> where we're headed).  I appreciate the House Republicans knocking  
> down Bush's $700 billion bail-out plan the first time, for example.   
> It wasn't good for my stocks, but I'm glad they didn't just give  
> away a blank check (with all of our names on it).

It also gave the Senate time to create a bill (specifically prohibited  
by the Constitution - appropriations bills MUST begin in the House)  
with another $150 billion worth of pork on it, tacitly "pass" it by  
gathering enough votes, and then to present it to the House as ready  
to go.  That was some seriously screwed up politics there.

> You really don't have much of a leg to stand on for accusing the  
> Democrats of being worse.  Clinton gutted social programs just to  
> balance the budget, but because he's called a Democrat, no one ever  
> gives him credit for that.  We will never, ever, ever achieve lower  
> taxes without first fixing the budget and finances of the  
> government.  You can't "bleed the beast" because the beast will keep  
> borrowing.  The order cannot be 1) lower taxes then 2) spend less.   
> Spend less must come first, just like it does in our individual  
> lives if we ever want to pay off that credit card.

I haven't heard Obama say ANYTHING about spending less, or balancing  
the budget.  It was interesting when Clinton did it, but it's a fairy  
tale if someone thinks Obama's going to do it.  He's published his  
plan, it's not in there.

--
Nate Duehr
nate at natetech.com