Say Anything Blog

The Dems need to spend to retain their electorate.  The Republicans need to cut spending to retain their electorate.  See the difference?

So now spending on energy independence, veterans’ health, actually funding NCLB, and preparedness for a pandemic threatening to wipe out half of our population is pork?

It not like he’s threatening to quit the senate unless he gets a bridge to nowhere.

Switchgrass, Iraqi war vets, children, bird flu…sounds good to me

Why do you hate Americans?

 Just curious, does this"energy indepenence initiative" include building more refineries and drilling for oil in the continental US? Or more pie in the sky, Startrek fantasy crap? And why would it"cost"$104billion to change the wording regarding VA benefits? And aren’t these the same politicians who keep telling us there is no avian flu? It is just scare tactics from the Chimpy McHitlerburton regime.  As for homeland security, Dems are obstructing any effort to close our borders to illegal entry or to surrveil the communications of those seeking to attack America. So what will that money really go for? Perhaps the resident moonbats will hop right in and clear these points up.

Why do you hate Americans?

Actually, Robert 108, I don’t see it and haven’t seen it for the last 6 years.  At least Conrad is using his paygo concept and not calling for a raise in taxes to do it.  A far cry different than your party who wants to cut taxes and spend us into deeper and deeper debt, raise the debt ceiling once again.  The Rs are all talk about spending cut but their actions speak louder than your rhetoric.

oh yea, thanks for the new debt, gopper

WSJ.com - Ahead of Elections, A Painful Reminder

Those all sound like worthy goals, but how can we pay for all that?

I’d like buy a larger and more luxurious home, a new car, and go on a Hawaiian cruise, but without abusing my credit, my current income doesn’t allow for such things. So, what do I do?

 I do without.

I’m sorry, Mr. Missing-A-Leg-Because-You-Stepped-On-An-IED-Veteran, you’ll just have to do without.

Typical liberal response.  Advocate for cutting spending and automatically you hate kids/poor people/disabled people/veterans, etc.

Get a new talking point.  I wasn’t saying a word about the spending itself, only commenting on the fact that bitching about government deficits while proposing new spending is a bit silly. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

"realitybased"bob spits, Why do you hate Americans?

Why do you keep on saying this? You’re like a parrot.

oh yea, thanks for the new debt, gopper

A moment ago you were for increased spending. Now you’re against? That’s one hell of a quick flip-flop.

modern instances says, I’m sorry, Mr. Missing-A-Leg-Because-You-Stepped-On-An-IED-Veteran, you’ll just have to do without.

And this is what passes for "civilized debate" with the left anymore.

P: Did you actually read my post or the original article before you responded with your usual emotionally-based reply?  It is all about the Republicans losing their base because they haven’t delivered on the promise to their base to cut spending.  The Dems can’t cut spending, because that is how they keep their minorities on the plantation.  Our only hope of getting spending cuts is to elect Republicans and hold them responsible to their base.  Of course, I don’t believe for a moment that you want to cut spending;  you just want to use it to play Get the President.  That is hypocritical of you and your leftie pals, but what else is new?

Rob:  re:MI.  Talk about a strawman argument!

Robert 108, you usual response when someone disagrees with you is call them emotional.  I just can’t figure out what was so "emotional’ about my argument.  I simply wrote that you Rs. are all talk and no action.  You talk about fiscal responsibility and accountability but your actions speak much louder than your words.  And tha tI didn’t see the difference since the Rs have not done a thing besides spend us into the poor house.

P: My usual response to flawed arguments is to refute the content, but you generally offer an emotional slogan-based reply, so I call it what it is.  Your generalization about me is wrong. 

I guess you haven’t been paying attention, but I and the other conservatives on this blog have continually and consistently criticized govt spending.  The difference here is that with the Republicans, there is the possibility of them returning to their conservative roots and cutting back on spending;  with Dems, it’s just more of the same.  For a leftie to criticize big govt spending is the height of hypocrisy.  We are not in the poor house;  another hyperbolic emotionally-loaded falsehood from you.

It has been proven over and over again, with Kennedy, Reagan and GW, that cutting taxes increases govt revenues. You have to get off the leftie KoolAid.

Puzzlefeet said, I simply wrote that you Rs. are all talk and no action.

I didn’t know that we were in government. In any regard, if you actually paid attention to what we write, you’d know that all conservative regulars on this site are against big government spending. You’d have to pay attention to know that.

And tha tI didn’t see the difference since the Rs have not done a thing besides spend us into the poor house.

Most of our government’s spending comes from the Democrats’ "New Deal" and "Great Society" programs.

So in other words the Rs are passively governing since they can’t do a thing because of the Dems new deal programs.  You guys whine and whine about the Dems and then whine about your own Rs but you hold out the ‘possiblility’ of them changing back to conservative.  How will they do that when you will continue to elect them to office?  I dare say that none of you will vote for someone other than those who are in office now.  It’s been 6 years almost half the years they have been in power, when do think that possibility will happen?

So in other words the Rs are passively governing since they can’t do a thing because of the Dems new deal programs.

In regards to the built in spending increases, yes. But overall, no.

You guys whine and whine about the Dems and then whine about your own Rs but you hold out the ‘possiblility’ of them changing back to conservative.

You’re the one whining sir. You need to stop the projection.

How will they do that when you will continue to elect them to office?  I dare say that none of you will vote for someone other than those who are in office now.

If there are more fiscally conservative alternatives that are also strong on national security, then we’ll vote the current group out. We definitely wouldn’t vote your group in, with them even more fiscally irresponsible as well as weak on national security.

P:  With the Dems, it’s 100% probablility that they will spend, spend, spend.  With the Republicans, even if it’s only 99%(which it isn’t) it’s still a better deal.  Get it?

But then, this thread is about proposed additional spending by a Dem.  Nice ‘jack!