8 Comments Add your own

• 1. shawnnews  |  January 31st, 2009 at 1:40 pm

  I’m sure a Republican would take money given to his oofice from a higher up democrat. Why not?

• 2. mike Carroll  |  January 31st, 2009 at 1:44 pm

  Hardly shocking since most state budgets are bleeding red ink. Obama and the Democratic Congress can achieve Republican Congressional support if they change the bill to a pure stimulus spending bill by stripping out the non-stimulus portions which are nothing more than a liberal spending wish list.
  Of course, given their overwhelming majorities, they really don’t need Republican support. They are just looking for bipartisan cover when the public figures out what a dog this package really is.

• 3. snuss  |  January 31st, 2009 at 3:40 pm

  Calling Obama’s “Jurassic Pork-ulus” package a “dog” is an insult to canines everywhere. BTW, when you add the interest charges to that 850 billion-dollar price tag, you end up with a REAL cost of 1.2 TRILLION, give or take a few billion.

• 4. Craig Knauss  |  January 31st, 2009 at 4:22 pm

  Yeah, snuss. Pretty soon it’s going to cost almost as much as the Iraq War. BTW, since when did all you deficit spending Repubs start worrying about REAL costs anyway? You guys sure didn’t do it when Reagan was president, now did you? And when Clinton was reducing the budget and even creating a budget surplus, all you Repubs did was bitch and whine about that too. So which way do you want it, anyway? And you guys can’t figure out why you got creamed in the last two elections. Incredible!

• 5. mike Carroll  |  January 31st, 2009 at 5:21 pm

  “Clinton was reducing the budget and even creating a budget surplus”
  I am going to assume that you mean reduce the budget deficit rather than the federal budget which he did not reduce. Spending grew every year of his presidency.
  Yes, Billy Bob was able to reduce the deficit and even produce a surplus once Republicans got control of Congress in 1994.

• 6. snuss  |  January 31st, 2009 at 7:58 pm

  BTW, Reagan’s tax-cutting policies not only ended the CARTER RECESSION (the worst since the Great Depression, and much worse than what we have now), but also INCREASED tax revenues significantly. But, the Democratic-controlled Congress spent it even faster than it came in.

• 7. Pat Cunningham  |  February 1st, 2009 at 8:02 am

  snuss knows nothing of history. 1) Reagan pushed through tax cuts, but he also pushed through what was then the biggest tax INCREASE in American history. 2) The Republicans controlled the Senate through six of Reagan’s eight years. 3) Reagan added more to the national debt than all of his predecessors combined. 4) Reagan and the Republicans, denouncing what they called the tax-and-spend policies of the Democrats, preferred their own borrow-and-spend policies. 5) During Reagan’s eight years, his proposed budgets generally called for more spending than Congress approved. It took Clinton to show the Republicans how to balance the budet.
  Reagan was an amiable dunce, and he lived in a little Hollywood fantasy world.

• 8. Henry  |  February 1st, 2009 at 8:34 am

  I guess these Republican governors misplaced Rush’s talking points.

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed