carlfense Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Common sense is all relative, many believe it should be common sense to balance the budget. Many social policies are common sense to each side of the debate. In this day and age I do not believe there is any common sense but only partisan rhetoric. Why is a balanced budget common sense? I am most interested to hear an argument from a Ron Paul supporter, or anyone else really, enumerating specific benefits of a balanced federal budget via spending cuts. Or even better, why immediate large spending cuts reaching for an arbitrary goal (like a balanced budget) would be more beneficial than large short term debt with a sustainable long term debt trajectory. That latter of which, coincidentally of course, is Obama's position. And I would like to hear any other republican candidate supporter's reasons to how they would balance the budget. Typical run of the mill hasn't balanced the budget. We're only doomed to follow the same line with the same process of thought. Actually, Bill Clinton more than balanced the budget. Actually Clinton went screaming and kicking to a balanced budget. He wanted socialized health care and was a big spending lib. until the slaughter in the midterm elections. Clinton knew he was in trouble and started working with the pub congress. Clinton got the credit as it should be but he was not the balanced budget guy that everyone knows. He moved to the center aftere the midterm elections and eventually got reelcted rather easily. BO should learn a lesson or two from BC. And just from a few posts after "the balanced budget is common sense" post shows how common sense is so relative to one's belief nowadays. There is no such thing as common sense anymore. Interesting. Clinton was a deficit pumping big spending lib . . . good thing for the national debt that we elected a Republican president in 2001, huh? Link to comment
johnnyrodgers20 Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 I don't think [Clinton's] ideas were particularly radical (as compared to someone like Ron Paul.) Bill Clinton was a typical neoliberal, and had the same financial and foreign policy positions as Bush(41) and Bush(43). What? Bush I and II each initiated massive ground wars. Bush II changed Clinton's surpluses into massive deficits. Where exactly do you think they are similar? Foreign Policy is more than the initiation of ground wars (which Democrats backed). Clinton did not change (for the better) any of Bush(41)'s policies toward Iraq. If you believe that the policy was different, where specifically? Regarding the budget, Clinton took full advantage of the end of the Cold War. Bush(43) mad a major change in taxation, but Clinton had also took smaller steps in that direction. Clinton was also big on derugulation. There were some differences here, but not much. You say that Clinton made smaller steps but he did balance the budget. The US was running a surplus. Period. Full stop. Bush(43) embraced GOP rhetoric that tax cuts boost the economy and instead changed the surplus into record deficits. (Not to mention that the economy took an enormous hit with those tax cuts in place.) Why, exactly, would we limit the foreign policy discussion to a single area where Bush(41) and Clinton were in agreement? (Other than it would support your argument, of course.) In fact, two can play at that game. Bush(43) favored massive ground invasions whereas Clinton used missile/airstrikes and more surgical force. If you believe that the policy was the same, where specifically? (Tongue in cheek. Sorry.) The tax cuts may have added to the deficit but no one talks about the economy after 9/11. That had a devastating effect on our economy and one of the reasons Bush made the decision to cut taxes to stimulate the economy. Link to comment
carlfense Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 The tax cuts may have added to the deficit but no one talks about the economy after 9/11. That had a devastating effect on our economy and one of the reasons Bush made the decision to cut taxes to stimulate the economy. What? You should check that out. Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 4, 2012 Author Share Posted January 4, 2012 Cain is done. Bachmann is done. Perry is "reconsidering." The field narrows. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Cain is done. Bachmann is done. Perry is "reconsidering." The field narrows. It seems that Mitt Romey had maxed out at the 20 something percentage points he had four years ago. In addition Jon Huntsman has maxed out at one percent. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrinch are so bad that the concept of their nomination defies reality. And we all know that the Rpublican Party will NOT accept Ron Paul as its nonimee. I see a Romney/Rubio ticket that will get trounced by Obama/Clinton. Gary Johnson will be the only significant third party candidate, and will be endorsed by Paul. The Donald will fire himself. Link to comment
strigori Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 What I find truely amazing is the 122,000ish caucus goers play such a big role in deciding who wins. The nature of a caucus will limit who shows up to the really motivated (and really, many with no lives) who show up for a candidate. Essentially letting the fringe votes decide things(hence Santorum finishing a close second) Link to comment
zoogs Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 OK, Huskerboard. Did Rick Santorum say "black people", or did he say "blaa....people." Link to comment
It'sNotAFakeID Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Ron Paul, 3rd [really T1st in Iowa] and 2nd in New Hampshire. Watch out. Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 11, 2012 Author Share Posted January 11, 2012 OK, Huskerboard. Did Rick Santorum say "black people", or did he say "blaa....people." Black people. 1 Link to comment
carlfense Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 OK, Huskerboard. Did Rick Santorum say "black people", or did he say "blaa....people." Black people. He has offered a couple of different explanations. That's usually a hint. Link to comment
Malth Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 You guys catch this nugget of gold? It seems to be getting to the point where it's not whether or not Obama will be reelected, but if it'll be the biggest landslide victory in history. 1 Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Ron Paul, 3rd [really T1st in Iowa] and 2nd in New Hampshire. Watch out. CNN actually mentioned his name! Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 12, 2012 Author Share Posted January 12, 2012 It seems to be getting to the point where it's not whether or not Obama will be reelected, but if it'll be the biggest landslide victory in history. I'm beginning to wonder this as well. It's a deeply flawed field. And the Republican party has so lost its way. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 It seems to be getting to the point where it's not whether or not Obama will be reelected, but if it'll be the biggest landslide victory in history. I'm beginning to wonder this as well. It's a deeply flawed field. And the Republican party has so lost its way. Unfortunately there are plenty of bat-sh#t crazies out there who will either vote for a Republican or against Obama for reasons that have no basis in reality. I'm not saying that all Republican voters are crazy, just that both sides have their lunatic fringe of psychotically loyal voters. There are tooo many crazies out there for this to be an epic landslide. Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 12, 2012 Author Share Posted January 12, 2012 Are there more crazies out there today than in 1984? If so, Mondale's gonna be pissed. I don't think he's left his home since 11/7/84. Link to comment
Recommended Posts