son of witless wrote:
I h**e to break the news to you, but in America not v****g for Trump, even if you don't v**e at all is a v**e for Democrats. I do not mean to jump all over you, but I've seen this movie too many times before. I go back to 1992. I am still royally pissed thinking about it. By then Republicans had the White House for 12 years and unfortunately even Republican v**ers were ready for a change. Everybody was mad at Daddy Bush for breaking his no new taxes pledge. Yea I got it, , , BUT why do we always cut off our nose to spite our faces ? Every freaking time.
So everyone was angry at Bush. On the other side you had this hip young trombone player from Arkansas Bill Clinton, who had a philandering reputation. Then out of the blue came this little hand grenade thrower named Ross Perot. Even I liked him, but as a third party candidate he was never going to be President. I told all of my Perot cheering friends not to v**e for him, but nobody listened. So in a three way race we got Bill Clinton, , , , , for 8 freakin years. Yea guys, you sure showed them Republicans, didn't you ?
And this does not just apply to Republicans. In 2000 enough environmentalist wackos thought Al Gore was not quite green wacky enough and v**ed for Ralph Nader. That was probably enough to throw it to Bush the Second. Back to my central point, which ever side you are on, it never pays to not v**e or to v**e third party. As much as we love to h**e the two parties, abandoning them does not work.
I h**e to break the news to you, but in America no... (
show quote)
—————————
son of witless,
Once in office, Bush 1 found it very challenging to keep his promise. Why? Because, as is typical of GOP politicians, the Bush campaign's figures had been based on the assumption that the high economic growth of the late 1980s would continue throughout his time in office. And, that he could claim credit for it, just like Trumpet is doing. Instead, a recession began. We’ll see who takes credit for the next recession. Many economists say another one is on its way, VERY SOON!
By 1990, rising budget deficits, fueled by a growth in mandatory spending and a declining economy, began to greatly increase the federal deficit. The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget Act mandated that the deficit be reduced, or else mandatory cuts, unpalatable to BOTH Republicans and Democrats, would be made. Reducing this deficit was a difficult task. New cuts, of any substance, would have to come either from entitlement programs, such as Medicare or Social Security, or from defense spending. Nowadays, the GOPTPers heavily FAVOR cutting any and all “mandatory spending.” However, nowadays the GOPTPers do NOT include defense spending.
The budget for the next fiscal year proved far more difficult. Bush initially presented Congress a proposed budget containing steep spending cuts and no new taxes, but congressional Democrats dismissed this out of hand. Negotiations began, but it was clear little progress could be made without a compromise on taxes. Richard Darman, who had been appointed head of the Office of Management and Budget, and White House Chief of Staff, John H. Sununu, both felt such a compromise was necessary. Other prominent Republicans had also come out in favor of a tax increase, including Gerald Ford, Paul O'Neill, and Lamar Alexander.
At the end of June, 1990, Bush released a statement stating that, "... it is clear to me that both the size of the deficit problem and the need for a package that can be enacted require all of the following: entitlement and mandatory program reform, tax revenue increases, growth incentives, discretionary spending reductions, orderly reductions in defense expenditures, and budget process reform."
The key element was the reference to "tax revenue increases" now being up for negotiation. An immediate furor followed the release. The headline of the New York Post the next day read "Read my Lips: I Lied." Initially some argued that "tax revenue increases" did not necessarily mean tax increases. For example, he could mean that the government could work to increase taxable income. However, Bush soon confirmed that tax increases were on the table.
To me, this showed Bush 1 was more willing to admit a mistake and that his promise can no longer be kept. It, also, shows Bush 1 has far more positive character in one fo his fingernail clippings than Trumpet has in his entire body. I have no doubt that Trumpet would use his typical M.O. of choosing to lie to cover his many mistakes, then, double-down on his lies. Then, he would blame the Dems for not being willing to bow to his demands and cut spending only on the social programs while INCREASING spending on defense. Immediately afterwards, he would accuse the “F**e Media” of portraying him in a bad light, saying nothing about his own words and actions being the cause of the reported news.