Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Wal Mart gets political

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
mizzouguy said:
Walmart sucks

Yeah, definitely...Walmart sucks, yeah definitely...KMart...yeah definitely...gotta go to Kmart.
 
bart said:
It's a sad day when Dems advocate balanced budgets :

Boy that is rich, are you stupid enough to believe it?

They advocate it, but have they ever done it? When they controlled the Congress and the White House, they invented deficit spending. It is only when Newt Gingrich was leading the House that we had a balanced budget in our lifetimes. Though the liar in Chief took credit for it, his budget proposal would have caused plenty of red ink, Newt killed it.

I think the JFK tax cuts may have brought about a balanced budget as well, I will research it and let you know.

In the meantime, read your history.

Hmmm....and I thought our first deficit was to buy four ships for our new Navy and Marine Corps to combat the Barbary Pirates in the 18th Century. By the way, spending by the current Republican Congress and Administration are up across the board. You can discount all defense/homeland security issues and still see a significant spending increase. That is why conservatives are starting to speak out against the current neo-conservative "deficits don't matter" administration.
The deficits the current Republican Congress and Administration are leaving us means the government will have to borrow money. Lots of it. It does that by selling bonds. More bonds on the market will lead to higher interest rates for companies and municipalities trying to sell bonds to raise funds. These higher rates will act as a drain on the economy. Its easy to borrow and spend because your successor is left to clean up the mess.

Your argument that we have Gingrich and the Republicans to thank for the surpluses of the 90's falls flat on its face. If we had a Democrat for a President and a Republican Congress back then and had a decent surplus, then surely we should have a much bigger surplus now that we have a Republican President as well. Again, spending is up even outside of Defense/Homeland Security issues.
I'm starting to be convinced that the Republicans made a very good opposition party, but not a good party in power. It had been so long since they had control of two (well, three) branches of goverment that they didn't know how to act. Its easy to lash out at someone else's budget and say it needs to do more for small businesses and keep spending down. Apparently when you hold the pen in your hand its very difficult to say no to anyone when there isn't an opposition party to call you on it. I think the surpluses were possible because two parties were forced to compromise. The current administration knows it has the votes to do whatever it wants, which hasn't been so good for the deficit hawks. For example, if it was forced to give fewer tax breaks to energy companies and invest that money into real conservation efforts would the American people be better off?
The pendulum swings back and forth in politics.
Does anyone else sense a swing in November?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top