If Bush increased the size of the Federal Government over 70%

[Jim Jeffries]

Just something I was hoping you guys could help me with. If George W Bush increased the size of the Federal Government by 72%, which doesn't even include the TARP bailout, half of which was spent under his watch. If after such a huge increase in spending (more than twice the increase that occurred under Clinton) we find ourselves in a recession. Why would someone's first impulse be for the Federal Government to spend gobs of money that it doesn't have? And after spending gobs of money (and adding 5 trillion to the National Debt) and still finding yourself with the longest period of hyper-unemployment since the Great Depression, why would you continue to spend well over a trillion dollar a year more than you're taking in?

And how long can we continue to remain solvent borrowing 8-10% of our total economy just to achieve 2% in "growth?" TIA.

[Sifo]

first.................

[One_Tycoon]

Government doing nothing means that it's not getting in people's way....that's a good thing. The government "did nothing" in every economic downturn from the founding of the nation until 1929. And each of those panics went away quickly. When the government "rolled up its sleeves", we get the Great Depression. That's not a coincidence.

President Harding came into office with an economy worse than the one that faced FDR.... and without intervention, it got better quickly.

We're still impacted by policies from the Old New Deal... and some want a New new deal. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

[One_Tycoon]

But Obama alone isn't to blame for the deficits. We need to start electing principled & committed small govt. Conservatives.

At the bare minimum...we need at least 41 Senators to filibuster and not allow the debt ceiling to be raised. Make it a permanent ceiling. And if we can simply do that one thing.. then the deficit spending comes to an end...by Law. Congress would have no choice but to cut spending. And then the Govt. will be forced to make the tough choices. Across the board from the salaries of Government workers to Social Security checks, it's all gonna cut.

We don't even need a balanced budget amendment..all you need is enough principled senators willing to do that, who don't care if they get re-elected. Because people will try to vilify them saying, "oh he's not letting the security checks go out". You have to be willing to say, "yeah that's right, that's what I'm doing". And if they wanna make those social security payments..fine, cut something else to make up for it. But you've got to cut, and not spend money you don't have.

[Spartacus Sully]

None of it matters, ross perot has a better chance of being elected then the republican candidates.

[F l i c k e r]

War economy. Fight wars, sustain economy. Listen to Eisenhower's warning of the military industrial complex.

But it really doesn't matter if people don't vote for who really wants to do right for the country. Keep voting for people who will tear down the country, and it will only continue to tear down the country. That or not vote/vote for someone else because you believe the right candidate can't win.

[Jim Jeffries]

None of it matters, ross perot has a better chance of being elected then the republican candidates.

Perot did surprisingly well, actually. Well enough for Clinton to get elected with only 43% of the vote. If it doesn't look like Obama will get to 50%, say if the economy stays in the toilet and gas prices keep climbing, expect Ron Paul or Donald Trump to go third party, so that Barry won't need a majority.

[immortal tech]

Im guessing your voting for Ron Paul

[Spartacus Sully]

Perot did surprisingly well, actually. Well enough for Clinton to get elected with only 43% of the vote. If it doesn't look like Obama will get to 50%, say if the economy stays in the toilet and gas prices keep climbing, expect Ron Paul or Donald Trump to go third party, so that Barry won't need a majority.

in 2008 people didnt vote to see what obama would do 2008-2012, they voted to see what he would do 2012-2016.

economy, gas prices, none of that matters, obamas going to be re-elected because people want to see what hes going to do now that he dosnt have to worry about being re-elected.

[Jim Jeffries]

in 2008 people didnt vote to see what obama would do 2008-2012, they voted to see what he would do 2012-2016.

economy, gas prices, none of that matters, obamas going to be re-elected because people want to see what hes going to do now that he dosnt have to worry about being re-elected.

Sounds like you want him to be a dictator. Makes perfect sense, elect someone with zero executive experience, watch him fumble around and screw up for 4 years, just so you can give him four more?

Doesn't change the likelihood that Obama won't reach 50%, even with the 14 million people he's added to the food stamp rolls (in addition to the almost 15 million that Bush added.)