Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03 ... -collapse/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sizable majorities of Republicans (84 percent) and independents (74 percent) think the government is too big, while just over half of Democrats (51 percent) are okay with the size of government.

THIS ought to concern sitting democrats.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Sizable majorities of Republicans (84 percent) and independents (74 percent) think the government is too big, while just over half of Democrats (51 percent) are okay with the size of government.

THIS ought to concern sitting democrats.

Independents remember the size of government bulging under Bush and Reagan.

dbackjon wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03 ... -collapse/

dback using FOX News as a reference?
How convenient....

What's next? The Heritage Foundation?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
THIS ought to concern sitting democrats.

Independents remember the size of government bulging under Bush and Reagan.

Please make note:
Never in the history of the Republican Party
A) Has a Republican President left office with a smaller budget than he entered office with
B) Has a Republican President lowered the deficit from entry to exit date
C) Has a Republican spent less than the president before him

The Great Republican Myth = We're fiscally responsible
However:
If you scream it loud enough and long enough your constituents will come to believe anything

AZGrizFan wrote:

Sizable majorities of Republicans (84 percent) and independents (74 percent) think the government is too big, while just over half of Democrats (51 percent) are okay with the size of government.

THIS ought to concern sitting democrats.

That's not the only thing that should concern sitting Donks...

62% believe that Obama and his cronies don't have a plan to fix the economy, while 76% believe that the Donks in Congress don't have a plan.

On top of it all, this poll was taken before the debacle on Sunday, so these numbers can only be worse now.

How soon we are led to forget that it was lil' bush that stood by and watched his buddies pilfer our treasury under his watch, and that on the day BO took office, we were on the cusp of the second major depression in our history.

DUH!

Chizzang wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Independents remember the size of government bulging under Bush and Reagan.

Please make note:
Never in the history of the Republican Party
A) Has a Republican President left office with a smaller budget than he entered office with
B) Has a Republican President lowered the deficit from entry to exit date
C) Has a Republican spent less than the president before him

The Great Republican Myth = We're fiscally responsible
However:
If you scream it loud enough and long enough your constituents will come to believe anything

Line item veto.

I agree with AZ. That's exactly how Meg plans on fixing CA, if indeed that's possible. (Though I'm not optimisitc that that it IS possible until we get our bloated Constitution replaced; people are blaming Sacramento when their hands are tied by Constitutional provisions that have been enacted through the initiative process over the last 80 years or so mandating spending levels in way too many areas. We have the largest amended Constitution in the entire country at almost 300 PAGES.)

Baldy wrote:

dbackjon wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03 ... -collapse/

dback using FOX News as a reference?
How convenient....

What's next? The Heritage Foundation?

this is the same poll Alpha referenced. Just pulling different emphasis

AZGrizFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Please make note:
Never in the history of the Republican Party
A) Has a Republican President left office with a smaller budget than he entered office with
B) Has a Republican President lowered the deficit from entry to exit date
C) Has a Republican spent less than the president before him

The Great Republican Myth = We're fiscally responsible
However:
If you scream it loud enough and long enough your constituents will come to believe anything

Line item veto.

Not going to be easy, as the last line item veto given a president (Bill Clinton) was declared unconstitutional in 1998...

But in looking up that date, I found that the honorable senior senator from Arizona (McCain) and the very liberal senator from Wisconsin (Feingold) tried last year...in an effort to eliminate earmarks...

Of course, the first reaction from a Democratic leader in the House was the say Congress intends to protect its "spending prerogatives"...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19589.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Col Hogan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Line item veto.

Not going to be easy, as the last line item veto given a president (Bill Clinton) was declared unconstitutional in 1998...

But in looking up that date, I found that the honorable senior senator from Arizona (McCain) and the very liberal senator from Wisconsin (Feingold) tried last year...in an effort to eliminate earmarks...

Of course, the first reaction from a Democratic leader in the House was the say Congress intends to protect its "spending prerogatives"...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19589.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, if government mandated healthcare can pass the Supreme Court "constitutionality" test, I'm sure we can revisit the line-item veto issue.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
Not going to be easy, as the last line item veto given a president (Bill Clinton) was declared unconstitutional in 1998...

But in looking up that date, I found that the honorable senior senator from Arizona (McCain) and the very liberal senator from Wisconsin (Feingold) tried last year...in an effort to eliminate earmarks...

Of course, the first reaction from a Democratic leader in the House was the say Congress intends to protect its "spending prerogatives"...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19589.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, if government mandated healthcare can pass the Supreme Court "constitutionality" test, I'm sure we can revisit the line-item veto issue.

I will be mildly surprised if the health care challenge loses...given the current makeup of the court...

But not shocked if the challenge is not upheld...

Baldy wrote:

dbackjon wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03 ... -collapse/

dback using FOX News as a reference?
How convenient....

What's next? The Heritage Foundation?

And I thought I'd heard it all when you cited Gorbachev.......

houndawg wrote:

Baldy wrote:
dback using FOX News as a reference?
How convenient....

What's next? The Heritage Foundation?

And I thought I'd heard it all when you cited Gorbachev.......

I quoted Gorbachev for effect.