Footwedge wrote: That is bullshit. Sorry. What was original unsustainable and unprecedented was Reagan, who tripled the national debt. Nobody had ever done something as radical as that.

Footwedge wrote: That is bullshit. Sorry. What was original unsustainable and unprecedented was Reagan, who tripled the national debt. Nobody had ever done something as radical as that.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A PROCLAMATION

Whereas, it has become necessary to call into service not only volunteers but also portions of the militia of the States by draft in order to suppress the insurrection existing in the United States, and disloyal persons are not adequately restrained by the ordinary processes of law from hindering this measure and from giving aid and comfort in various ways to the insurrection;

Now, therefore, be it ordered, first, that during the existing insurrection and as a necessary measure for suppressing the same, all Rebels and Insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to Rebels against the authority of United States, shall be subject to martial law and liable to trial and punishment by Courts Martial or Military Commission:

Second. That the Writ of Habeas Corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or other place of confinement by any military authority of by the sentence of any Court Martial or Military Commission.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington this twenty fourth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the Independence of the United States the 87th.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

By the President:

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

Footwedge wrote:

jhay78 wrote: So we agree they've all spent and spent more, but the point of the thread is that Obama's spending is unprecedented and unsustainable.

That is bullshit. Sorry. What was original unsustainable and unprecedented was Reagan, who tripled the national debt. Nobody had ever done something as radical as that.

That is why Ross Perot entered the race in 1992. His pie charts clearly warned the American people that this unprecedented spending was unsustainable.

It was in 1992, that Murray Rothbard, a staunch conservative who was a disciple of Austrian economics, laid claim that the US has gone "past the threshold" and should repudiate the National Debt...because of the insolvency situation.

Footwedge wrote:
I definitely agree that Obama's spending is unsustainable. And it is unprecedented in total dollars spent. But it is not unprecedented in terms of percentage of growth (national debt) or as a ratio in comparing national debt to GDP.

My contention is that the N.D. was deemed unsustainable way back when Reagan was blowing all that money.

QuakerOats wrote:

Footwedge wrote:
I definitely agree that Obama's spending is unsustainable. And it is unprecedented in total dollars spent. But it is not unprecedented in terms of percentage of growth (national debt) or as a ratio in comparing national debt to GDP.

My contention is that the N.D. was deemed unsustainable way back when Reagan was blowing all that money.

Having the debt equal to 90% of GDP (in 10 years) is not unprecedented ............. what are you smoking?

SQ_Crazies wrote: Actually don't answer that, you elected a President who may not even be American. So I don't really respect your opinion on shit.

I Wear Pants wrote: My question, and don't misinterpret this as me supporting us spending ourselves dead, is where were all of the people who are ballyhooing the current spending/situation when the framework for what is happening was being laid?

stlouiedipalma wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: My question, and don't misinterpret this as me supporting us spending ourselves dead, is where were all of the people who are ballyhooing the current spending/situation when the framework for what is happening was being laid?

Probably sitting outside their double-wides drinking a case of beer.

I find it amazing that all of these folks suddenly became "fiscally responsible" since November 2008.

Writerbuckeye wrote:

stlouiedipalma wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: My question, and don't misinterpret this as me supporting us spending ourselves dead, is where were all of the people who are ballyhooing the current spending/situation when the framework for what is happening was being laid?

Probably sitting outside their double-wides drinking a case of beer.

I find it amazing that all of these folks suddenly became "fiscally responsible" since November 2008.

Oh here we go again...liberals are sooooo much smarter than everyone else. so much so, in fact, that they believe THEY should make the most basic decisions regarding everyone's lives.

Perhaps the one thing I noticed most back when I was a registered Democrat was how arrogant and condescending most of my liberal friends were toward conservatives.

It's one of the reasons my eyes were opened to how WRONG most liberal policy is when it comes to what is best for people in general.

stlouiedipalma wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: My question, and don't misinterpret this as me supporting us spending ourselves dead, is where were all of the people who are ballyhooing the current spending/situation when the framework for what is happening was being laid?

Probably sitting outside their double-wides drinking a case of beer.

I find it amazing that all of these folks suddenly became "fiscally responsible" since November 2008.

fish82 wrote:

stlouiedipalma wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: My question, and don't misinterpret this as me supporting us spending ourselves dead, is where were all of the people who are ballyhooing the current spending/situation when the framework for what is happening was being laid?

Probably sitting outside their double-wides drinking a case of beer.

I find it amazing that all of these folks suddenly became "fiscally responsible" since November 2008.

All this "where were they" crap isn't doing you people any good. They're here now, and they're kicking your ass in the debate every day. Were it me, I'd worry less about them and more about fixing my own crappy message delivery.

But what do I know....I'm just some violent racist bagger.

stlouiedipalma wrote: I find it amazing that all of these folks suddenly became "fiscally responsible" since November 2008.

QuakerOats wrote:

Footwedge wrote:
I definitely agree that Obama's spending is unsustainable. And it is unprecedented in total dollars spent. But it is not unprecedented in terms of percentage of growth (national debt) or as a ratio in comparing national debt to GDP.

My contention is that the N.D. was deemed unsustainable way back when Reagan was blowing all that money.

Having the debt equal to 90% of GDP (in 10 years) is not unprecedented ............. what are you smoking?

Footwedge wrote:

QuakerOats wrote:

Footwedge wrote:
I definitely agree that Obama's spending is unsustainable. And it is unprecedented in total dollars spent. But it is not unprecedented in terms of percentage of growth (national debt) or as a ratio in comparing national debt to GDP.

My contention is that the N.D. was deemed unsustainable way back when Reagan was blowing all that money.

Having the debt equal to 90% of GDP (in 10 years) is not unprecedented ............. what are you smoking?

I quit smoking 10 years ago. But I'm not at all understanding what you said here. (in bold)....Please elaborate.

BCSbunk wrote:

QuakerOats wrote:

Footwedge wrote:
I definitely agree that Obama's spending is unsustainable. And it is unprecedented in total dollars spent. But it is not unprecedented in terms of percentage of growth (national debt) or as a ratio in comparing national debt to GDP.

My contention is that the N.D. was deemed unsustainable way back when Reagan was blowing all that money.

Having the debt equal to 90% of GDP (in 10 years) is not unprecedented ............. what are you smoking?

It was 94% in 1950.



The Country disappeared years ago before you were born and you just did not notice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Footwedge wrote: The country paid down the national debt mostly due to the massicv expanse of the private sector. We had the biggest trade surplus in the history of the world. Many of the products we made were purchased by the European countries that had their infrastructure blasted into Flintstone land.

It was a great time to be an American.

All that has pretty much gone down the shitter now.

SQ_Crazies wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

QuakerOats wrote:

Footwedge wrote:
I definitely agree that Obama's spending is unsustainable. And it is unprecedented in total dollars spent. But it is not unprecedented in terms of percentage of growth (national debt) or as a ratio in comparing national debt to GDP.

My contention is that the N.D. was deemed unsustainable way back when Reagan was blowing all that money.

Having the debt equal to 90% of GDP (in 10 years) is not unprecedented ............. what are you smoking?

I quit smoking 10 years ago. But I'm not at all understanding what you said here. (in bold)....Please elaborate.

Having the debt equal to 90% of GDP (in 10 years) is not unprecedented[size=x-large]?[/size]

Better Ron Burgandy?

SQ_Crazies wrote:

Footwedge wrote: The country paid down the national debt mostly due to the massive expanse of the private sector. We had the biggest trade surplus in the history of the world. Many of the products we made were purchased by the European countries that had their infrastructure blasted into Flintstone land.

It was a great time to be an American.

All that has pretty much gone down the shitter now.

Obama sure is helping us get back to that...