RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt...

RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

slvemike4u -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/13/2012 8:16:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead So Hussein had WMDs then, did he? And here I thought we went into Afghanistan first.... What the fuck does "first" have to do with it ? Doing the one somehow required us to do the other ? This is an outlandish assertion,why do you neo-cons have such a need to link the two ? Iraq was Bush's personal white wale...had nothing to do with Afghanistan nor 9/11

jlf1961 -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/13/2012 8:52:24 PM)
First of all the Republicans voted to raise the debt 6.8 billion dollars. Get your facts straight. Now, the only thing I will give Obama credit for is the simple fact that he did NOT get us involved in another war. And considering the chaos in North Africa, Middle East, Iran, North Korea and parts of Africa, that is something of an accomplishment. Democrats used to be the party of getting us in wars, not the Republicans. In fact, in 68 and 72 the Republicans won the presidency with the promise of getting us out of a war. Well breaking into the Democratic Party offices in the Water Gate Hotel probably helped a little bit. Now I see people bringing up a couple of wars from recent history, Afghanistan and Iraq. Okay, both wars cost us plenty, a lot of that borrowed from China. Of the two, one was justified, one was a political put up job that was justified with blatant lies and half truths. But the cost of the wars that I have seen have been in dollars. But that cost does not cover the value of human lives that have been ended or drastically changed, both in our military and in the civilian lives either caught in the crossfire, or in a few cases, murdered by American troops. IF you calculated the monetary value of the human body in mineral worth, that amounts to one dollar. If you put the value of a human life based on the value of the skin, you get $3.50. If you value the human life on potential tax revenue, that could add up to a hundred thousand per lifetime for every soldier killed in the line of duty. Okay, I have finished my philosophical rant concerning the cost of war. I will add that my platoon Sargent for the four years I was in the army stated quite often that a human body was worth about 3.5 cents, the average cost of a bullet. While the Democrats scream about "Bush's was" they fail to remember that some democrats, enough of them to give Bush the power to wage those two wars, supported the idea. Maybe they can claim they believed the lies used to justify invading Iraq. Bush fired Generals who disagreed with him on Iraq, and ignored the statements of allies that said in effect a military action in Iraq would be the worst possible action to take. He even ignored the UN Inspector reports that said that Iraq did not have WMD's available to use, or the capacity to make them. And for those conservative posters on this forum that is going to counter with the yellow cake uranium found after the invasion, may I remind you that it is unenriched uranium that cannot be used for anything other than the basis to make nuclear fuel rods OR in a breeder reactor, plutonium. Now before you start claiming that is enough, please remember that Iraq did NOT have the capability to enrich the uranium OR a breeder reactor to convert it to plutonium. The Israeli Air Force took care of that problem years ago when they destroyed the Iraqi Reactor and the surrounding complex. Let us now agree that Bush got us into two wars that we did not have the money to pay for with the help of some democrats and Obama was stuck with both of them. It was a mess from the word go and NO president could have cleaned it up in any way that would have been considered constructive.

Edwynn -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/13/2012 9:46:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 First of all the Republicans voted to raise the debt 6.8 billion dollars. Get your facts straight. No other reader of my post saw anything of my mentioning the raising of the debt,or not, or by whom. Please go clean your glasses. quote: Bush fired Generals who disagreed with him on Iraq, and ignored the statements of allies that said in effect a military action in Iraq would be the worst possible action to take. He even ignored the UN Inspector reports that said that Iraq did not have WMD's available to use, or the capacity to make them. That is an utter delusion. Rumsfeld fired the generals, and did so as soon as he came to office, well before 9/11, much even before Afghanistan. The agenda for both wars was well in place before Bush even came to office. He (Rumsfeld, Sec. Def.) wanted generals who would get on board, be "team players," etc., in the massacres to come. A fair number of good generals fell by the wayside in refusing to go along. quote: Let us now agree that Bush got us into two wars that we did not have the money to pay for ... Oh please .... Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, etc. had that plan all along. All they had to do was to conjure up the figurehead for it all. Who can blame them that they went as bottom-barrel as possible, aside from their traditional maximum ROI instinct, being what chumps the populace are. Part of the "Chimp for chumps" campaign, one might say.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/13/2012 11:59:59 PM)
Reagan and the rest of the Republicans since have yet to implement Austrian Economic policies. With all the government and Federal Reserve meddling, there is no way anyone that has a clue about Austrian Economics would think those Administrations were following them. Nice try, but we have yet to experience actual Austrian Economics.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/14/2012 12:08:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead So Hussein had WMDs then, did he? And here I thought we went into Afghanistan first.... What the fuck does "first" have to do with it ? Doing the one somehow required us to do the other ? This is an outlandish assertion,why do you neo-cons have such a need to link the two ? Iraq was Bush's personal white wale...had nothing to do with Afghanistan nor 9/11 Here was the claim by SimplyMichael in Post#4: quote: Yes, going into debt to invade the wrong country in order to help out Iran and Al Queda seemed, well, kinda dumb. So, ignoring Afghanistan to blame the deficits on Iraq is, well, kinda dumb. Had we not gone into Iraq, we'd still have run deficits from Afghanistan. So, either it's about the deficits, or just more bitching about Iraq. That's what Afghanistan has to do with anything, how it was first, and we'd have run deficits without Iraq.

Moonhead -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/14/2012 7:19:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Had we not gone into Iraq, we'd still have run deficits from Afghanistan. So, either it's about the deficits, or just more bitching about Iraq. That's what Afghanistan has to do with anything, how it was first, and we'd have run deficits without Iraq. Yes, but you'd have only run up deficits for something that resembles national defence, rather than (as was the case with Iraq) invading an oil rich nation and overthrowing the government to provide the company that paid to put to the chimp and his organ grinder veep in power with a vassal state whose natural resources they could exploit. That one put nearly as many noses out of joint as the bullshit that was spouted to try to provide an excuse for any of that nonsense, even before the story justifying the occupation started changing every six months...

papassion -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/14/2012 9:32:00 AM)
All these Democrats with selective memories. I seem to remember Hillary Clinton and John Kerry talking on news programs about Sadaam having weapos of mass destruction. In FACT, he used serin gas on the Kurds. Thus he HAD WMD's. Sadaam himself said he had WMD's and A captured Iraq general said the Russians advised Sadaam to ship his arsenal to Syria Before the US gets there. Now Syria is threatening to use chemical weapons on the rebels. Hmmm, wonder where Syria got a supply of chemical weapons? Is there any evidence from the intelligence community that Syria had their own chemical weapons?

Hillwilliam -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/14/2012 9:46:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: papassion All these Democrats with selective memories. I seem to remember Hillary Clinton and John Kerry talking on news programs about Sadaam having weapos of mass destruction. In FACT, he used serin gas on the Kurds. Thus he HAD WMD's. Sadaam himself said he had WMD's and A captured Iraq general said the Russians advised Sadaam to ship his arsenal to Syria Before the US gets there. Now Syria is threatening to use chemical weapons on the rebels. Hmmm, wonder where Syria got a supply of chemical weapons? Is there any evidence from the intelligence community that Syria had their own chemical weapons? Saddam's use of chemical weapons on the Kurds was over a decade and an invasion before the false claims that he still had them in '01. As for Syria getting theirs from Iraq, there are fewer than a half dozen highways from Syria to Iraq. Don't you think we might have been watching them? Might also figure in that we not only didn't find poison gas, we didn't even find manufacturing facilities. Are you going to claim they moved the manufacturing buildings to Syria as well? Is everyone that spouts this crap incapable of independent thought?

SimplyMichael -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/14/2012 10:08:21 AM)
What the POS fox consumers forget is you were screaminh TRAITOR at anyone who questioned ANYTHING post 9/11. With bush claiming secret knowledge...standing tall was seriously risky. Look what they did to Valerie Wilson... Sorry, that dog don't hunt. As for chemical weapons, they dont take much to fabricate, anyone with the ability to,make munitions can produce them. Syria has long had the ability. Lastly, as the US is blowing the living shit out of Iraq and bush is desperate to find anything to,hide the lies, who the fuck would be dumb enough to let him store TARGETS? Syria would have bombed any,convoy carrying gas before letting them bring it. Only mouth breathing simpletons would buy that silly story that they got shipped to Syria, lol!

SimplyMichael -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/14/2012 10:10:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Friedman debunked?!? LOL! Keyne's has been debunked. Better to follow Hayek, von Mises and Rothbard, IMO. There we go. The Republicans finally found themselves to be thoroughly polluted by the ideology of the above via Reagan, as did Thatcher in England, and economic and financial calamity ensued. But now you want to blame it all on the Democrats and Republicans, right? whose only cause was in service free-marketeerism as advocated by Mises, Hayek and Rothbard. Reagan and Clinton deregulation, almost word-for-word what the three marketeers prescribed. Greenspan was the Randian Mandarin of choice for that job, as he suckered them all in, which is why he never left until he had done the job so thoroughly that he could not have done anymore damage in that cause. Reaganomics and Rubinomics (Clinton Sec. Treas. Goldman Sachs CEO Robert Rubin) and Greenspan (Ayn Rand acolyte) Randianomics, the economically lethal trio. The deregulation they advocated and that the Republicans and Democrats were stupid enough to implement has cost well over $4 trillion in outright taxpayer expenses, to date, along with a conservatively estimated $12 trillion hit to aggregate household wealth, still counting regarding both numbers. Hail Mises, hail Hayek, hail Rothbard. The most expensive and wealth-destructing idiots since all of post-Medieval history You Sir, need to post more.

RacerJim -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/14/2012 10:14:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: subspaceseven I think that just shows how little people know,,,the money has been spent already, this is just to pay the dam bills, You know how only the GOP House can authorize spending, but it is still the Dems fault.. How during the last Admin, why the GOP only approved the debt what 8-9 times with out once bitching about where the money is coming from.....But NOWWWWWWW they get all worked up....Hmmm who was it who said"Deficits don't matter"??????? Wasn't that the shrine of the GOP And in the last Administration, the Dem's pissed, moaned, bitched and fussed about the deficits,. but now that their Party is in the White House... Let's not forget that during his 2008 campaign the usurper in office now BLASTED his Republican predecessor adding $4 Trillion in debt over an 8 year period as "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic" yet the usurper in office now added almost twice that in less than half the time.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/14/2012 10:33:09 AM)
Bush spent that money on pointless wars during a booming,economy where we could have have paid down the debt, you know, like we did under Clinton. Obama used deficit spending in an attempt to repair the foundation of our very economy.

Montana32DDD -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/14/2012 12:26:17 PM)
It hilarious. It took President Bush six years of war to spend a trillion dollars. No congressional outlay for war during the bush years exceeded 200 billion annually. President Obama spent 785 billion in his first thirty days, with the predictable results of a stagnant economy. Now, the left, being intellectually bankrupt, insist it is Reagan's fault. Reagan never had a 6 trillion dollar deficit, ever. The only President who has managed to spend the most money is President Barack Obama who has not even bothered to get a budget passed by congress like he is supposed to according to federal law. So, we have perfectly capable republican leaders, like Bush, who followed the law (Bush had budgets approved by congress, a feat President Obama has been unable to duplicate) followed by a Democrat who is unable to perform basic duties, like a budget. A budget is restrictions on spending, this is why President Obama does not want a budget. President Obama is spending more money than we can make in revenue. Taxing the rich is not going to close the gap when you are spending 43% more than you are taking in. Raising taxes will not close the gap. Facts are troubling things. Leftists have no choice to lie about the budget, and Reagan. its all the got.

tazzygirl -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/14/2012 12:31:33 PM)
quote: The only President who has managed to spend the most money is President Barack Obama who has not even bothered to get a budget passed by congress like he is supposed to according to federal law. Who passes the budget? He has to present one, by federal law. I believe he has, every year. The President submits the budget request each year to Congress for the following fiscal year, as required by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. Current law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a))[4] requires the President to submit a budget no earlier than the first Monday in January, and no later than the first Monday in February. Typically, Presidents submit budgets on the first Monday in February.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/14/2012 12:40:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Bush spent that money on pointless wars during a booming,economy where we could have have paid down the debt, you know, like we did under Clinton. Obama used deficit spending in an attempt to repair the foundation of our very economy. Oh, please. You seem to forget the burgeoning economy under Clinton started to sputter at the end of Clinton's Administration and there was the dotcom bubble burst in Bush's first 6 months. Not long after, 9/11 happened and the economy too yet another hit. The Bush tax cuts were passed. We went to war. The economy took off. Through all that, revenues under Bush surpassed those that came in under Clinton 5 times. Did Bush spend too much? Fuck, yeah, he did! Obama inherited the recession. To say it was Bush's fault, however, is stupid political rhetoric, and just plain wrong. Obama also inherited swelling revenues (any idea how many times Obama's revenues have been llower than Clinton's best?

tazzygirl -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/14/2012 12:46:53 PM)
quote: President Obama spent 785 billion in his first thirty days, with the predictable results of a stagnant economy. $114 billion in stimulus spending. Obama signed the stimulus bill Feb. 17. While headlines proclaimed a $787 billion price tag, about 27 percent of the total was actually for tax cuts, not spending. And most of the spending didn’t take place until after fiscal 2009. CBO initially put the total spent in fiscal 2009 at $107.8 billion, but the following year it revised the figure upward to $114 billion, in a report issued in August 2010 (page 13). http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/ The Bailout Scorecard Last update: Dec. 12, 2012 Altogether, accounting for both the TARP and the Fannie and Freddie bailout, $605 billion has gone out the door—invested, loaned, or paid out—while $351 billion has been returned. The Treasury has been earning a return on most of the money invested or loaned. So far, it has earned $97.9B. When those revenues are taken into account, $156.0B is the net still outstanding as of Dec. 12, 2012. http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/

RacerJim -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/14/2012 12:53:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Bush spent that money on pointless wars during a booming,economy where we could have have paid down the debt, you know, like we did under Clinton. Obama used deficit spending in an attempt to repair the foundation of our very economy. Those are your opinions, unlike my facts.

tazzygirl -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/14/2012 12:55:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Bush spent that money on pointless wars during a booming,economy where we could have have paid down the debt, you know, like we did under Clinton. Obama used deficit spending in an attempt to repair the foundation of our very economy. Those are your opinions, unlike my facts. Wait. Are you saying that our economy wasnt in a death spiral?

RacerJim -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/14/2012 1:09:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: The only President who has managed to spend the most money is President Barack Obama who has not even bothered to get a budget passed by congress like he is supposed to according to federal law. Who passes the budget? He has to present one, by federal law. I believe he has, every year. The President submits the budget request each year to Congress for the following fiscal year, as required by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. Current law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a))[4] requires the President to submit a budget no earlier than the first Monday in January, and no later than the first Monday in February. Typically, Presidents submit budgets on the first Monday in February. The usurper may well have submitted a budget to Congress every year but the Democrat Majority Senate has voted AGAINST every budget the usurper has submitted -- the last two times by UNANIMOUS vote. So, even though he may have submitted a budget every year as required by federal law, they were so ridiculous that even his own party refused to pass them and not one member of his own party vote for the last two.

tazzygirl -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/14/2012 1:14:32 PM)
quote: Democrat Majority Senate has voted AGAINST every budget the usurper has submitted I dont have time to look up the others. The last one wasnt his budget. It was a shell presented by someone else. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/30/memo-to-megyn-kelly-the-senate-never-voted-on-o/191620 Kelly's assertion is a deceptive revision of history. In May, the Senate did vote 99-0 against a nonbinding budget resolution, but not this was not Obama's full budget. Instead, Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions introduced his own, much shorter version of Obama's plan, which included the same figures as Obama's plan for spending, revenue, and deficits, but none of his specific policy proposals. As ABC's Jake Tapper reported, "The Sessions legislation was 56 pages long; actual budgets are closer to 2,000 pages long."

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875