Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaneuf3
But a Ron Paul presidency hasn't happen and won't happen (even if it'd be the best thing for them, at least fiscally). Therefore your point is moot.
|
Well, if there is one thing politicians love to do....its spend money.
Ron Paul is the opposite of that, and he campaigned based on being fiscally responsible. So to say that Democrats are 'responsible'...when it comes to the budget, and yet you have two candidates, Ron Paul, who would cut back, and Obama would would just spend more...well it makes THAT point moot.
Plus, Reagan was POTUS during a time where he literally HAD to outspend the Soviets. MAD wasn't going to work if they had 10,000 nukes, and the US had 100. Theoretically, the only reason the USSR/USA never actually fought anything else but a proxy war, outside of MAD, was because they each spend so much freakin' money on their military, that going to war would have been suicide for either of them.
But that still doesn't excuse Reagan for not 'trying' to balance the budget, or any other President for that matter. Clinton tried, but cutting funds to the intelligence/military services directly led to 9/11. Bush 1 was also responsible for that.
Its funny actually, when the US 'should' have spent money: Afghanistan after the Soviets left, they basically refused. Yet when they 'should' be cutting back, abolishing social programs and trying to balance the budget, they just want to spend more.
Yet it seems like the average American is ignorant to the idea of being fiscally responsible.