Who can deny that?

Despite Bush's spending spree for the past six years, which has been a travesty and has angered many conservatives, including myself - it is not a big stretch for any reporter to say the Democrats are the party with an "historic spendthrift image."

But that's history, now is the time for Pelosi and the Democrats to reverse historic course and change that image. Let's hope she does.

how historic?

The dems weren't spendthrifts under Clinton. Under Reagan, the budgets passed were no worse than the budgets proposed by Reagan. How far back in time do you have to go to find actual dem spendthrifts?

Congress

I am not talking specifically about Presidents - they don't even appropriate funds, the Congress does.....they do propose budgets, as Bush as done with his increased spending habits, but it's the House and Senate that do the actual spending.

Democrats have historically been in favor of government solutions and bigger government - which translates into more spending.

I'm talking about congress too

The Dem congress in the 80s weren't spendthrifts relative to Reagan. You can theorize all you want, but you can't find real examples of democrats spending more wildly than republicans, at any point in history.

And to see how presidents influence budgets, look at how the budget 180'd in 2001, the presidency 180'd in 2001, and the congress didn't change in 2001.

Actually what you are talking about is

Rightwing propaganda vs Reality.

not very far, depending on what you are really referring to.

Dems have proven to be quite fiscal over time, see this graph of public debt relative to GDP. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see who was in charge when to see what party was most irresponsible when it comes to what we spend vs. what we take in. Dems get an undeserved bad rap because their programs usually call for bigger govt to address, but there really isn't much proof that big business is more efficient than govt at disbursing aid. Heck, most churches only disburst 10 cents out of every dollar in aid. That's efficient?

[link to upload.wikimedia.org]

Exactly!

"it is not a big stretch for any reporter to say the Democrats are the party with an "historic spendthrift image."...by Tommy

=====

And what Pelosi was doing here, IMO, was trying to reassure us that THIS Congress would NOT rack up a deficit by out of control spending. BOTH parties have been guilty of that in the past, but it's the Democratic Party that has had the "tax & spend" label.

So by her remarks she is in fact attempting to SHED the image.

You're right about that Tommy...

...but she's going to have to work awfully hard to accomplish that when every pundit and commentator in the media keeps reminding us of that "historic" image no matter how far it recedes into history.

Midsize

She has taken alot of guff from the right, that's for sure. It has not been fair, and she has handled herself gracefully and calmly. I have been impressed and wish her the best of luck. If she sheds any negative images the Democrats have by her actions, then I am behind her and support wholeheartedly.

That's very laudable and open-minded...

...and I hope we can enter a new era of politics. I think, though, that you're not getting the whole point of the story. The stereotype of Democrats as the big-spenders will never go away as long as it keeps getting repeated in this sleazy, backhanded form of referring to "historic image".

I really hope all my Jewish friends succeed in shaking the historic image of Jews as greedy, selfish tightwads. I wish them the best of luck. Furthermore, I applaud all my African-American and Latino friends for their efforts to shake their historic image as lazy, shiftless, and criminal. Too bad they never will as long as I keep thinking those things about them.

Mid

You, nor I, cannot control the perceptions that some people have of certain groups. There will always be that element of prejudice out there by some, despite the reality.

The best way to combat it is go about your business honorably and with convictions. In the case of Pelosi and the Democrats, screw the image of the past - they have an opportunity to do many good things and turn the tide away from age old labels and images. Just because some will never accept them doesn't mean she shouldn't give it the 100% effort it deserves.

Y'know, Tommy, I try...

...harder at some times than at others, but I try to refrain from getting irritated at you. Listen, I really, really don't mean to pick a fight with you, but you just consistently DON'T GET IT.

Thread after thread, you come around and say "intelligent people see how ridiculous this is" and "I don't care about this, it's time to do the people's businesss and put politics behind us." But, don't you see that's not the issue?

You're usually a very reasonable and civil guy, and I appreciate that, but honestly, you are simply so much of the time. I am sincerely glad that you're extending so much consideration to Nancy Pelosi, and are so gracious about your hopes for the future, but why will you not acknowledge that this isn't about what Pelosi is or isn't going to do?

Why did they take away the preview option?

the word "obtuse" was lost in a failure to close italics.

Mid

I am very sorry you are so frustrated, although I am having a very difficult time seeing why. I have never denied what you are saying - of course perceptions are inaccurate at times, and unfair. But apparently the difference between you and me is you want to continue to bash your head against the wall screaming up and down about them, when I prefer to go out the business of doing what is right and let the chips, which we cannot control, fall where they may.

I have my opinions and state them as clearly as I can.....if that's troll status to you because you don't agree with them, or can't convince me of yours - then that is another example of not wanting to bash my head against the wall and getting on with it.

Obviously our tactics in approaching problems are different, so be it. Much of the items highlighted on this website are much ado nothing, in my opinion - and I say so. There are many worthy, and I say that as well. But I cannot get as worked up over them as you do, in the broad scheme of things. We differ, but I respect your opinion.

Sigh...

We CAN control where the chips fall, Tommy, that's the point of all I am saying. The chips the media let fall where they want them to are not beyond their, or our control. You don't wish to control where they fall as long as you're happy with where that is.

I am tired of saying "that's the point to you" -- it is obviously a waste of time. As for your condescension, save it, you're trolling.

small size that, midsize...

Dude, Tommy isn't as bad as you say. He will stick by certain beliefs. Heck, I do that too - I will never think liberals are the worst thing ever to happen to mankind. But Tommy, like me, will entertain alternate viewpoints, and will ponder his position to see if it still applies. That is a real moderate. Quite frankly, I like moderates. They may fall one side o the fence or the other, but they keep getting back on that fence trying to balance. More of us should try that.

It's not about opinion.

I didn't ask Tommy to change his opinion, Snoopy, I'm asking him to speak to the point of the stories posted on the website. Don't you see that? I'm not challenging Tommy to admit I'm right, I'm challenging him to address the issue at hand.

This isn't about what Nancy Pelosi is or isn't going to do to reign in spending. It's about this instance of the media implying that Pelosi is trying to shed the image of being something that she never was.

Tommy's opinions are often very close to mine, but he states them while disregarding (if not outright showing contempt for) the POINT of the stories under which he posts them. I'd be happy to discuss opinions with people, and don't expect people to agree with me in order for me to consider them reasonable. I expect people to speak to the point or not speak at all.

As for the trolling issue: Tommy has a penchant for dropping little verbal bombs and backhanded jabs at Democrats, and of expressing condescending regret that people like me can't get past our hang-ups and be more like him. That is insulting, and trolling.

Let me put the issue as simply as possible. Any further discussion of what this story is actually about begins with the following yes/no questions:

1) Do you acknowledge that the repetition of stereotypes perpetuates them?

2) Do you acknowledge that there is no basis in recent history for the stereotype of Democrats as spendthrift?

Based on your answers, we can discuss whether this item represents further evidence of the advancing by the mainstream media of conservative misinformation either by deliberate act or intellectual laziness. I don't require that you agree that it is, but I expect you to discuss that question.

This item was posted to criticize the media for relying on hackneyed stereotypes of Democrats, not to invite Tommy to share his positive, laudable, and open-minded opinions with us.

exactly correct

tommy is constantly saying well i see the point of what you're saying, but there's nothing that can be done so what is the use of discussing it. heard it once, heard it two hundred times.

Re: who can deny that?

Who can deny that? Easily done.

You are not addressing the issue here (and bringing in your personal opinion on another matter)

The issue is that Foxnews deceived and lied as they often do.

Foxnews asserted that the speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi, "tried to shed the [democratic] party's historic spendthrift image".

That is NOT what Speaker Pelosi did (or 'tried' to do). Anyone who saw or heard even a slightly longer version of the speech than the tiny clip that Foxnews played, would know that she was referring to the last several years of deficits, and endeavoring to assure the American people that the 110th congress would work towards handling the budget in a much more responsible manner than was done these past several years.

So, Foxnews assertion? Easily denied.

Talking point #113....dems spend money for the U.S....

and republicans bury it in the sand..

Except for what they (Repugnants) steal . . .

Your comment is very accurate, and quite useful in dealing with those with whom I discuss issues. For those whom I seek to inflame, I cannot resist emphasizing the trillion or so dollars the Repugnants have flat disappeared, from the relatively small missing $17billion during the interim authority, to the $22billion royalties, the hundreds of billions misappropriated by contractors in Iraq; the additional hundreds of billions unbid in the US (including Katrina) and the "faith-based" crapola.

I can't resist those either, Conley

but most of the conservatives I mention those things to got distracted by the 300 bucks they were refunded at tax time, and feel content. I wish I could make some deals like that.