Gator Country

**exiledgator** · 02-13-2013, 09:38 AM

He may or may not have the guts. The real question is: Is he tough enough?

brainstorm · 02-13-2013, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gator421

We already have term limits. It's called voting.

"Term limits" are generally accepted to mean a "hard" time limit - 4 year, 8 years, whatever.

Voting just means their "contract" is up for renewal every 4-6 years.

**gator421** · 02-13-2013, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brainstorm

"Term limits" are generally accepted to mean a "hard" time limit - 4 year, 8 years, whatever.

Voting just means their "contract" is up for renewal every 4-6 years.

Then don't renew it. I get the definitions.

orangeblueorangeblue · 02-13-2013, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by g8orbill

I think he is 100% dead on in his assessment

Absolutely.

And it's not about guts, it's about self-preservation.

And "conservatives" in office lack those very same guts.

Nobody's going to cut anything.

**g8orbill** · 02-13-2013, 11:00 AM

obob- you may be correct( I am hopeful you are not) but the leadership has to start from the top and that is the 47%ers prez

**gatorman_07732** · 02-13-2013, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by g8orbill

obob- you may be correct( I am hopeful you are not) but the leadership has to start from the top and that is the 47%ers prez

They fear being lambasted by the media for taking something away from somebody

**gator421** · 02-13-2013, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by g8orbill

obob- you may be correct( I am hopeful you are not) but the leadership has to start from the top and that is the 47%ers prez

Who's leading the other 53%?

**g8orbill** · 02-13-2013, 06:41 PM

not prezbo

dangolegators · 02-13-2013, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Shepherd

None of them have the guts-term limits is the only thing that will enable a congress person the courage to do what is right.

Bush had a term limit. Did he try to do what was right? I must have missed all of the tough choice deficit reducing measures he undertook. And Obama has a term limit and clearly you don't think he's doing what's right. So I don't think it's about term limits.

**g8orbill** · 02-13-2013, 06:49 PM

danglo

W was not a fiscal conservative in any sense of the word

you boy is 4 times worse when it comes to spending

**gatorman_07732** · 02-13-2013, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dangolegators

Bush had a term limit. Did he try to do what was right? I must have missed all of the tough choice deficit reducing measures he undertook. And Obama has a term limit and clearly you don't think he's doing what's right. So I don't think it's about term limits.

What in the wide wide world of sports are you talking about

dangolegators · 02-13-2013, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by g8orbill

danglo

W was not a fiscal conservative in any sense of the word

you boy is 4 times worse when it comes to spending

Actually this (Obama worse than Bush on spending) is quite wrong. Under Bush federal spending increased 67% from 2000 to 2008 (it went from roughly 1.8 trillion in 2000 to 3 trillion in 2008. For Obama, spending went from 3 trillion in 2008 to roughly 3.8 trillion in 2012. That's a 27% increase in 4 years. So even if we were to continue to increase spending at the same rate of Obama's first 4 years, it would still not equal the rate of increase we saw under Bush over 8 years. But it is also very unlikely we will see spending rise as much over the next 4 years as it did the last 4 years, as the effects of the recession continue to wear off. The budget for 2013 is around 3.8 trillion, which means there is essentially no increase over the 2012 budget.

Long story short, Bush was worse on spending than Obama has been.

dangolegators · 02-13-2013, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

What in the wide wide world of sports are you talking about

Um, term limits.

brainstorm · 02-13-2013, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dangolegators

Bush had a term limit. Did he try to do what was right? I must have missed all of the tough choice deficit reducing measures he undertook. And Obama has a term limit and clearly you don't think he's doing what's right. So I don't think it's about term limits.

The context was congressional term limits. Which has a lower approval record than the current POTUS.

dangolegators · 02-13-2013, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brainstorm

The context was congressional term limits. Which has a lower approval record than the current POTUS.

So we can't compare the potential effects of congressional term limits with presidential term limits?

**g8orbill** · 02-13-2013, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dangolegators

Actually this (Obama worse than Bush on spending) is quite wrong. Under Bush federal spending increased 67% from 2000 to 2008 (it went from roughly 1.8 trillion in 2000 to 3 trillion in 2008. For Obama, spending went from 3 trillion in 2008 to roughly 3.8 trillion in 2012. That's a 27% increase in 4 years. So even if we were to continue to increase spending at the same rate of Obama's first 4 years, it would still not equal the rate of increase we saw under Bush over 8 years. But it is also very unlikely we will see spending rise as much over the next 4 years as it did the last 4 years, as the effects of the recession continue to wear off. The budget for 2013 is around 3.8 trillion, which means there is essentially no increase over the 2012 budget.

Long story short, Bush was worse on spending than Obama has been.

the budget? what budget! there was no budget passed and you are way off on the spending and the resulting deficit

**ncgatr1** · 02-13-2013, 08:52 PM

The president isn't going to tackle anything where there is a potential for blame. He is the perennial crusader, always fighting those evil Repubs and never governing. He will be the first president to have one of the most horrible economic records ever without having any blame put on him. That is why we never had a budget. It is beyond comical and any thought of rationale. All you can do is watch it unfold and let the democrats completely destroy this Country then maybe the entitlement holders will turn on their elitists.

dangolegators · 02-13-2013, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by g8orbill

the budget? what budget! there was no budget passed and you are way off on the spending and the resulting deficit

The budget for 2013 that Obama sent to congress requested 3.8 trillion in spending. That is Obama's budget. Congress has not passed one.

And the other numbers I presented are factual and easily verified. Bush increased spending at a higher rate than Obama has.

**g8orbill** · 02-13-2013, 09:16 PM

obama's budget could not even garner dem votes

so please verify those numbers

**GatorNorth** · 02-13-2013, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by g8orbill

obama's budget could not even garner dem votes

so please verify those numbers

Here you go.....2013=3.8T outlays and 325B less deficit than 2012 as I read this:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...ets/tables.pdf