What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by HTC
Who knows you better than your phone? view!
youtube.com - See you from the perspective of your phone.
503 Comments
- inactive, on 09/26/2008, -47/+419A fiscal conservative is someone like Ron Paul.
- cmjM67, on 09/26/2008, -8/+257i coulda sworn i've saw this 1/2 year ago
anyways dugg for the submitters name - theexitwound, on 09/26/2008, -9/+201These figures can't be debated either, can they?
- GDigger25, on 09/26/2008, -23/+199lol. palin also claims she's a "fiscal conservative" when asked why she approved her state to charge for rape exams...
- inactive, on 09/26/2008, -23/+160The only true fiscal conservative is Ron Paul. The rest are *****.
- mrsammercer, on 09/26/2008, -14/+141An *actual* fiscal conservative is someone like Ron Paul.
- inactive, on 09/26/2008, -21/+102Interesting Fact: Conservatives are unable to see this picture, completely invisible to them.
- inactive, on 09/26/2008, -2/+75Dugg for making everyone who reads this comment scroll up to the top of the page
- obxjdt, on 09/26/2008, -19/+87That was a 10 year projected surplus. The treasury didn't have the cash on had. If they did, Social Security would have been fixed..... Instead, both sides of Washington keeps dipping in to it to this day! I say vote them all out. Congress on has a 19% approval rating. Why do you keep voting for these *****???
- inactive, on 09/26/2008, -11/+72You're actually right about that, but people will end up digging you down because it associates him with other bad fiscal conservatives. The different between Ron Paul's fiscal conservatism and those of run of the mill republicans is that Ron Paul does not approve of pork barrel spending and stupid wars.
- frascellyboy273, on 09/26/2008, -4/+63its in the comedy section you jackass...
- sigmaman2, on 09/26/2008, -11/+66Interesting...
200 billion dollar surplus,
then an almost 500 billion dollar deficit...
That's a difference of roughly 700 BILLION DOLLARS!
Strange how the same numbers keep popping up in different places. - LocalDocal, on 09/26/2008, -11/+62If by '1/2 year ago', you mean 17 hours ago: http://digg.com/business_finance/Fiscal_Conservati ...
....and 7 days ago: http://digg.com/comics_animation/Fiscal_Conservati ...
And 11 days ago: http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Fiscal_Conservat ...
And 14 days ago: http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Fiscal_Conservat ...
And so on and so on.
If you're seeing duplications of previously popular submissions over and over again, then all is right with the world. Don't you understand? That's how the Internet works! - Sornos, on 09/26/2008, -10/+59Technically, they can. You could say that there are other factors not tied to political standings that influenced deficit. Or you could say that this isn't enough time to make a judgment.
I'm not a Republican or anything, just the Devil's Advocate. - NickRac, on 09/26/2008, -6/+53Regardless of the policies/ideologies of who comes into office...we'll still be working with a deficit.
- MCA2142, on 09/26/2008, -6/+47probably not. These "figures" will probably have to cancel the debate in order to rush back to washington.
Too soon? - Tabris, on 09/26/2008, -5/+44Buried for "Duge for "nevermind""
- AmaDaden, on 09/26/2008, -7/+45Dugg for "Dugg for "*****""
- BoredDotNet, on 09/26/2008, -11/+49As a former Republican "I endorse this message".
- brstilson, on 09/26/2008, -7/+44Dugg for "*****"
- tymerry, on 09/26/2008, -1/+37the war among other things was not "fiscally conservative."
- qwer777, on 09/26/2008, -7/+41Dugg for "Dugg for "Dugg for "*****"""
- adamnation, on 09/26/2008, -0/+33Give the poor sod a break - it's hard to see anything with your head up yer arse!
- ethanpack, on 09/26/2008, -4/+36I will make it my personal mission to bankrupt you via submitting "political spam" to Digg. I urge others to adopt a similar policy.
- apophenic, on 09/26/2008, -1/+33...except that Bill Clinton was, in many ways, a fiscal conservative.
- kolyana, on 09/26/2008, -4/+34I love this type of mentality - it completely can't fail or ever be wrong.
If 'your guy' is screwing up, it's because of the moron before.
If your guy is doing well, it's because of his sterling leadership.
If our guy is screwing up, it's because he's an idiot that is undoing all the great work of your guys before, without giving the trickle down approach chance to work. Heck, over a decade isn't long enough.
If our guy does well, it's because of your guys before.
You people are just so blind, so much of an utter SLAVE to your ignorance and stubbornness, that I can understand how people like Hitler get into power and stay there. People like YOU supported him and blindly followed him across Europe. - max420, on 09/26/2008, -8/+38Dugg for "Dugg for "Dugg for "Dugg for "*****""""
- ruarctb, on 09/26/2008, -0/+29Which isn't any less vile.
- ryodoan, on 09/27/2008, -3/+31Dugg for "Buried for "Duge for "nevermind"""
/is going to hell now... - Lucas123, on 09/26/2008, -23/+48Except it was a Republican-spondored bill that required the balancing of the budget during Clinton's term -- Fact.
- Troupkid, on 09/26/2008, -9/+34Oh, oh! Dugg for... nevermind......
- IWDA4, on 09/26/2008, -11/+36dupe http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/What_Does_It_Mea ...
- MCA2142, on 09/26/2008, -1/+25you mean kind of like the way Clinton came into office?
- 9bpm9, on 09/26/2008, -39/+62Yes, they can, but this little picture is lieing.
Clinton had no surplus. Public debt went down during his administration, but the national debt went up every single year of his presidency. These figures can be debated because they've been manipulated by people in Washington who want to make Clinton look good, while in actuality the idea of the "Clinton Surplus" is fiction.
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16 - kolyana, on 09/26/2008, -2/+24That makes zero sense on any level - you are ignoring the embedded facts and getting all 'uppity', and yet the cartoon is correct, and you are wrong. Donating money any which way doesn't change FACTS.
- acraft, on 09/26/2008, -7/+26The budget "deficit" and the national "debt" are two different things. The deficit is how much more money the government spends than it takes in is taxes. Clinton operated a budget "surplus" rather than a "deficit." In other words, the government took in more in taxes than it spent.
I have no idea if the Clinton's budget "surplus" was used to pay down the national "debt"or not--but I doubt it. It was probably earmarked for a bridge to Nowhere. - Terasiel, on 09/26/2008, -7/+26(Neo) Fiscal Conservative:
A political stance in which you continue the traditional spending habits of your predecessors. - boneit, on 09/26/2008, -2/+21The fourth one looks more like Prince Charles.
- RandomGorilla, on 09/27/2008, -3/+21@ 9bpm9
That picture is talking about the deficit.
THE DEFICIT! NOT THE ***** NATIONAL DEBT!!
Read this very very carefully now: YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE THE WRONG POINT!! That's like trying to say that McDonalds is an inferior fast food joint because it's chicken mcnuggets have less beef than the whopper. - Mr.Gone, on 09/26/2008, -7/+25this submission has dust coming out it's vagina.
- robbob, on 09/26/2008, -3/+21Weapons an war is very expensive.
- inactive, on 09/27/2008, -2/+19Buried for "fuggin"
- ironhide, on 09/26/2008, -5/+22LOL! Good one! Oh wait...you were serious???
- fugularity, on 09/26/2008, -1/+18Dude, I troll from work. I rarely use the internet when I'm at home ;)
- inactive, on 09/27/2008, -1/+18thats over 9000!
- gimmini2003, on 09/27/2008, -0/+17I accidentally the national deficit...
- Lucas123, on 09/26/2008, -8/+25Just in case there are any question. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5656
- Rolamoto, on 09/27/2008, -3/+19Dugg for recursiveness
- gwyrth, on 09/26/2008, -16/+32I can debate the cause of the figures.
Let's see, Democratic congress, Democratic congress, Republican congress, then Democratic congress again. Who writes the laws? - HoboMaster, on 09/26/2008, -3/+18To be fair, it worked. That was one of the main reasons the USSR collapsed. They were trying to keep up with the US, especially in defense spending, and couldn't afford it.
There's not much excuse for the Bushes other than bad management, though Congress is still much more to blame than they are for that. -
Show 51 - 100 of 508 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is