quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Spending and revenue are not separate. And you'll notice that the Bush tax cuts (which favored the rich, so I've no idea what you're on about there) was just ONE of the items I listed, the others all being...wait for it....spending. So again, no idea what you're on about.

quote:

I absolutely oppose and opposed invading both Afghanistan and Iraq. Expensive boondoggles both, sparked by magical/short-term thinking and a hand-out to contractors.
And we'll be paying and paying and paying for decades and decades. It's not by accident that we suddenly needed the world's largest and most expensive embassy...in Iraq.

quote:

Anybody who thinks this was about democracy and freedom is naive beyond saving.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Spending and revenue are not separate. And you'll notice that the Bush tax cuts (which favored the rich, so I've no idea what you're on about there) was just ONE of the items I listed, the others all being...wait for it....spending. So again, no idea what you're on about.

I'm "on about" the Bush Tax Cuts. The tax cuts cost $2.5T over 10 years. Those that were for "the rich" only accounted for $770B over that 10-year span. So, the Bush tax cuts that were so horrible, weren't really all that horrible, and, in case you haven't noticed, revenues are at or near all-time highs. So, perhaps it was the spending, no?

I do recall some Democrats bemoaning the deficits and costs of the wars. But, they were speaking out of both sides of their mouths because their next comments were about what other stuff the money could have been spent on. Thus, it had nothing to do with the deficits.

quote:

I absolutely oppose and opposed invading both Afghanistan and Iraq. Expensive boondoggles both, sparked by magical/short-term thinking and a hand-out to contractors.
And we'll be paying and paying and paying for decades and decades. It's not by accident that we suddenly needed the world's largest and most expensive embassy...in Iraq.

Why did you oppose going into Afghanistan? FFS, even the UN was okay with that one!

quote:

Anybody who thinks this was about democracy and freedom is naive beyond saving.

Afghanistan wasn't, initially, about democracy or freedom. It, eventually, became being about freedom (at least for those who were at least pro-US in their words).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: enslaver

The Banks, the Rich, The Politicians, and the Pentagon got taken care of as usual, the common folk are unknown to Washington, lol.

let the common folk eat cake.
I still can't get over this Dodd Frank bullshit, have you tried to borrow money lately?
sons of

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Just another trillion dollars, the grand kids will have deep enough pockets to pay it back. Right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Spending and revenue are not separate. And you'll notice that the Bush tax cuts (which favored the rich, so I've no idea what you're on about there) was just ONE of the items I listed, the others all being...wait for it....spending. So again, no idea what you're on about.

I absolutely oppose and opposed invading both Afghanistan and Iraq. Expensive boondoggles both, sparked by magical/short-term thinking and a hand-out to contractors.

And we'll be paying and paying and paying for decades and decades. It's not by accident that we suddenly needed the world's largest and most expensive embassy...in Iraq.

Anybody who thinks this was about democracy and freedom is naive beyond saving.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Spending and revenue are not separate. And you'll notice that the Bush tax cuts (which favored the rich, so I've no idea what you're on about there) was just ONE of the items I listed, the others all being...wait for it....spending. So again, no idea what you're on about.

I'm "on about" the Bush Tax Cuts. The tax cuts cost $2.5T over 10 years. Those that were for "the rich" only accounted for $770B over that 10-year span. So, the Bush tax cuts that were so horrible, weren't really all that horrible, and, in case you haven't noticed, revenues are at or near all-time highs. So, perhaps it was the spending, no?

I do recall some Democrats bemoaning the deficits and costs of the wars. But, they were speaking out of both sides of their mouths because their next comments were about what other stuff the money could have been spent on. Thus, it had nothing to do with the deficits.

quote:

I absolutely oppose and opposed invading both Afghanistan and Iraq. Expensive boondoggles both, sparked by magical/short-term thinking and a hand-out to contractors.
And we'll be paying and paying and paying for decades and decades. It's not by accident that we suddenly needed the world's largest and most expensive embassy...in Iraq.

Why did you oppose going into Afghanistan? FFS, even the UN was okay with that one!

quote:

Anybody who thinks this was about democracy and freedom is naive beyond saving.

Afghanistan wasn't, initially, about democracy or freedom. It, eventually, became being about freedom (at least for those who were at least pro-US in their words).

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Spending and revenue are not separate. And you'll notice that the Bush tax cuts (which favored the rich, so I've no idea what you're on about there) was just ONE of the items I listed, the others all being...wait for it....spending. So again, no idea what you're on about.

I absolutely oppose and opposed invading both Afghanistan and Iraq. Expensive boondoggles both, sparked by magical/short-term thinking and a hand-out to contractors.

And we'll be paying and paying and paying for decades and decades. It's not by accident that we suddenly needed the world's largest and most expensive embassy...in Iraq.

Anybody who thinks this was about democracy and freedom is naive beyond saving.

Well what far too many don't understand is that nobody has really cut taxes at all...without cutting spending.

They (taxes) are just put off into the future. Somebody will have to pay for all of this greed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Spending and revenue are not separate. And you'll notice that the Bush tax cuts (which favored the rich, so I've no idea what you're on about there) was just ONE of the items I listed, the others all being...wait for it....spending. So again, no idea what you're on about.

I'm "on about" the Bush Tax Cuts. The tax cuts cost $2.5T over 10 years. Those that were for "the rich" only accounted for $770B over that 10-year span. So, the Bush tax cuts that were so horrible, weren't really all that horrible, and, in case you haven't noticed, revenues are at or near all-time highs. So, perhaps it was the spending, no?
I do recall some Democrats bemoaning the deficits and costs of the wars. But, they were speaking out of both sides of their mouths because their next comments were about what other stuff the money could have been spent on. Thus, it had nothing to do with the deficits.

quote:

I absolutely oppose and opposed invading both Afghanistan and Iraq. Expensive boondoggles both, sparked by magical/short-term thinking and a hand-out to contractors.
And we'll be paying and paying and paying for decades and decades. It's not by accident that we suddenly needed the world's largest and most expensive embassy...in Iraq.

Why did you oppose going into Afghanistan? FFS, even the UN was okay with that one!

quote:

Anybody who thinks this was about democracy and freedom is naive beyond saving.

Afghanistan wasn't, initially, about democracy or freedom. It, eventually, became being about freedom (at least for those who were at least pro-US in their words).

Afghanistan was a "pre-empt" invasion. Very bad precedent.

quote:

A lot of folks whine here about precedents.
Bush tax cuts were still a bad idea. And still are. And spending and revenue are still two sides of a coin, not an either/or situation.
As for who was "for" any of this, internally or internationally, I'm not one of those who gets his "thoughts" from TV.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


Bush tax cuts were still a bad idea. And still are. And spending and revenue are still two sides of a coin, not an either/or situation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Spending and revenue are not separate. And you'll notice that the Bush tax cuts (which favored the rich, so I've no idea what you're on about there) was just ONE of the items I listed, the others all being...wait for it....spending. So again, no idea what you're on about.

I'm "on about" the Bush Tax Cuts. The tax cuts cost $2.5T over 10 years. Those that were for "the rich" only accounted for $770B over that 10-year span. So, the Bush tax cuts that were so horrible, weren't really all that horrible, and, in case you haven't noticed, revenues are at or near all-time highs. So, perhaps it was the spending, no?
I do recall some Democrats bemoaning the deficits and costs of the wars. But, they were speaking out of both sides of their mouths because their next comments were about what other stuff the money could have been spent on. Thus, it had nothing to do with the deficits.

quote:

I absolutely oppose and opposed invading both Afghanistan and Iraq. Expensive boondoggles both, sparked by magical/short-term thinking and a hand-out to contractors.
And we'll be paying and paying and paying for decades and decades. It's not by accident that we suddenly needed the world's largest and most expensive embassy...in Iraq.

Why did you oppose going into Afghanistan? FFS, even the UN was okay with that one!

quote:

Anybody who thinks this was about democracy and freedom is naive beyond saving.

Afghanistan wasn't, initially, about democracy or freedom. It, eventually, became being about freedom (at least for those who were at least pro-US in their words).

Afghanistan was a "pre-empt" invasion. Very bad precedent.

How was Afghanistan a "pre-empt" invasion?

quote:

A lot of folks whine here about precedents.
Bush tax cuts were still a bad idea. And still are. And spending and revenue are still two sides of a coin, not an either/or situation.
As for who was "for" any of this, internally or internationally, I'm not one of those who gets his "thoughts" from TV.

I don't get mine from TV, either, in case you were alluding to that.

Spending and revenues are two sides of a coin, but you can change one without changing the other. Unfortunately, Bush changed them both in the same direction. Revenues went up, and so did spending.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


Bush tax cuts were still a bad idea. And still are. And spending and revenue are still two sides of a coin, not an either/or situation.

You think like a mugger does. Letting people keep their own money is the right thing to do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Spending and revenue are not separate. And you'll notice that the Bush tax cuts (which favored the rich, so I've no idea what you're on about there) was just ONE of the items I listed, the others all being...wait for it....spending. So again, no idea what you're on about.

I'm "on about" the Bush Tax Cuts. The tax cuts cost $2.5T over 10 years. Those that were for "the rich" only accounted for $770B over that 10-year span. So, the Bush tax cuts that were so horrible, weren't really all that horrible, and, in case you haven't noticed, revenues are at or near all-time highs. So, perhaps it was the spending, no?
I do recall some Democrats bemoaning the deficits and costs of the wars. But, they were speaking out of both sides of their mouths because their next comments were about what other stuff the money could have been spent on. Thus, it had nothing to do with the deficits.

quote:

I absolutely oppose and opposed invading both Afghanistan and Iraq. Expensive boondoggles both, sparked by magical/short-term thinking and a hand-out to contractors.
And we'll be paying and paying and paying for decades and decades. It's not by accident that we suddenly needed the world's largest and most expensive embassy...in Iraq.

Why did you oppose going into Afghanistan? FFS, even the UN was okay with that one!

quote:

Anybody who thinks this was about democracy and freedom is naive beyond saving.

Afghanistan wasn't, initially, about democracy or freedom. It, eventually, became being about freedom (at least for those who were at least pro-US in their words).

Afghanistan was a "pre-empt" invasion. Very bad precedent.

How was Afghanistan a "pre-empt" invasion?

quote:

A lot of folks whine here about precedents.
Bush tax cuts were still a bad idea. And still are. And spending and revenue are still two sides of a coin, not an either/or situation.
As for who was "for" any of this, internally or internationally, I'm not one of those who gets his "thoughts" from TV.

I don't get mine from TV, either, in case you were alluding to that.
Spending and revenues are two sides of a coin, but you can change one without changing the other. Unfortunately, Bush changed them both in the same direction. Revenues went up, and so did spending.

OK, seriously? Even Bush called it that.
We were not attacked by Afghanistan. Instead, we invaded it openly.
No wonder N. Korea and Iran feel they *must* have nukes. We've proved it's the only thing we listen to.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Gosh. Maybe Bush tax cuts, two wars, a new bureaucracy of Homeland Theater, extending the Bush tax cuts, more war....was perhaps ill advised?

Nonetheless, Everyday Economics -- The Federal Budget Deficit Is Back to Normal

With the government’s budget year having concluded at the end of September, the Congressional Budget Office now estimates that the deficit for 2014 was 2.8 percent of G.D.P., down from 4.1 percent last year. The deficit is now smaller than its average over the past 40 years of 3.1 percent.

The size and speed of the decline has come as a surprise to many forecasters. As recently as February 2013, this year’s deficit was expected to be 3.7 percent of G.D.P. The deficit has declined in each of the past five years, and is now markedly smaller than the deficit (9.8 percent) registered in the 2008-09 fiscal year.

As the economic recovery continues, the deficit is expected to narrow even further next year. Based on current projections, the average deficit through President Obama’s second term will be smaller than it was through President Reagan’s second term.

Gosh! Bush is still president in troll world?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Spending and revenue are not separate. And you'll notice that the Bush tax cuts (which favored the rich, so I've no idea what you're on about there) was just ONE of the items I listed, the others all being...wait for it....spending. So again, no idea what you're on about.

I'm "on about" the Bush Tax Cuts. The tax cuts cost $2.5T over 10 years. Those that were for "the rich" only accounted for $770B over that 10-year span. So, the Bush tax cuts that were so horrible, weren't really all that horrible, and, in case you haven't noticed, revenues are at or near all-time highs. So, perhaps it was the spending, no?
I do recall some Democrats bemoaning the deficits and costs of the wars. But, they were speaking out of both sides of their mouths because their next comments were about what other stuff the money could have been spent on. Thus, it had nothing to do with the deficits.

quote:

I absolutely oppose and opposed invading both Afghanistan and Iraq. Expensive boondoggles both, sparked by magical/short-term thinking and a hand-out to contractors.
And we'll be paying and paying and paying for decades and decades. It's not by accident that we suddenly needed the world's largest and most expensive embassy...in Iraq.

Why did you oppose going into Afghanistan? FFS, even the UN was okay with that one!

quote:

Anybody who thinks this was about democracy and freedom is naive beyond saving.

Afghanistan wasn't, initially, about democracy or freedom. It, eventually, became being about freedom (at least for those who were at least pro-US in their words).

Afghanistan was a "pre-empt" invasion. Very bad precedent.

How was Afghanistan a "pre-empt" invasion?

quote:

A lot of folks whine here about precedents.
Bush tax cuts were still a bad idea. And still are. And spending and revenue are still two sides of a coin, not an either/or situation.
As for who was "for" any of this, internally or internationally, I'm not one of those who gets his "thoughts" from TV.

I don't get mine from TV, either, in case you were alluding to that.
Spending and revenues are two sides of a coin, but you can change one without changing the other. Unfortunately, Bush changed them both in the same direction. Revenues went up, and so did spending.

OK, seriously? Even Bush called it that.
We were not attacked by Afghanistan. Instead, we invaded it openly.
No wonder N. Korea and Iran feel they *must* have nukes. We've proved it's the only thing we listen to.

And, we didn't attack Afghanistan. We took out the Taliban (which was the ruling regime in Afghanistan) for their harboring al Qaeda. When the Taliban was toppled, it was all about al Qaeda, except in those cases where the Taliban involved themselves.

Pre-emptive attacks would have been bombing Iran (which McCain seemed to be in favor of), or bombing ISIS because they potentially pose an eventual threat to US national defense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
we have a community, a social contract, the basis of this nation. That means we pull together for common interests. Military, roads, intel...it all costs money in the real world.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Spending and revenue are not separate. And you'll notice that the Bush tax cuts (which favored the rich, so I've no idea what you're on about there) was just ONE of the items I listed, the others all being...wait for it....spending. So again, no idea what you're on about.

I'm "on about" the Bush Tax Cuts. The tax cuts cost $2.5T over 10 years. Those that were for "the rich" only accounted for $770B over that 10-year span. So, the Bush tax cuts that were so horrible, weren't really all that horrible, and, in case you haven't noticed, revenues are at or near all-time highs. So, perhaps it was the spending, no?
I do recall some Democrats bemoaning the deficits and costs of the wars. But, they were speaking out of both sides of their mouths because their next comments were about what other stuff the money could have been spent on. Thus, it had nothing to do with the deficits.

quote:

I absolutely oppose and opposed invading both Afghanistan and Iraq. Expensive boondoggles both, sparked by magical/short-term thinking and a hand-out to contractors.
And we'll be paying and paying and paying for decades and decades. It's not by accident that we suddenly needed the world's largest and most expensive embassy...in Iraq.

Why did you oppose going into Afghanistan? FFS, even the UN was okay with that one!

quote:

Anybody who thinks this was about democracy and freedom is naive beyond saving.

Afghanistan wasn't, initially, about democracy or freedom. It, eventually, became being about freedom (at least for those who were at least pro-US in their words).

Afghanistan was a "pre-empt" invasion. Very bad precedent.

How was Afghanistan a "pre-empt" invasion?

quote:

A lot of folks whine here about precedents.
Bush tax cuts were still a bad idea. And still are. And spending and revenue are still two sides of a coin, not an either/or situation.
As for who was "for" any of this, internally or internationally, I'm not one of those who gets his "thoughts" from TV.

I don't get mine from TV, either, in case you were alluding to that.
Spending and revenues are two sides of a coin, but you can change one without changing the other. Unfortunately, Bush changed them both in the same direction. Revenues went up, and so did spending.

OK, seriously? Even Bush called it that.
We were not attacked by Afghanistan. Instead, we invaded it openly.
No wonder N. Korea and Iran feel they *must* have nukes. We've proved it's the only thing we listen to.

And, we didn't attack Afghanistan. We took out the Taliban (which was the ruling regime in Afghanistan) for their harboring al Qaeda. When the Taliban was toppled, it was all about al Qaeda, except in those cases where the Taliban involved themselves.

Pre-emptive attacks would have been bombing Iran (which McCain seemed to be in favor of), or bombing ISIS because they potentially pose an eventual threat to US national defense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Well, maybe you can explain it to Bush.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
we have a community, a social contract, the basis of this nation. That means we pull together for common interests. Military, roads, intel...it all costs money in the real world.

Swedish massages for rabbits, gambling lessons for monkeys, bridges to nowhere...

quote:


Who was it exactly that designed this "social contract"

quote:



A firing squad comes to mind

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Well, maybe you can explain it to Bush.

And perhaps the 99.999% of the Dems, who voted overwhelmingly to back him...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
we have a community, a social contract, the basis of this nation. That means we pull together for common interests. Military, roads, intel...it all costs money in the real world.

Swedish massages for rabbits, gambling lessons for monkeys, bridges to nowhere...

Interesting that some of the largest waste comes from Rs -- the Alaskan bridge to nowhere, the military funding the military said it didn't want or need...selective "reasoning" on that side of the isle. But they're not alone, to be sure...plenty of waste. Nonetheless, the "there's waste" dance doesn't mean we don't have actual important expenses. If we didn't, then no one would care about shutting down the government. No schools, no police, no fire, no emergency crews, no road or bridge inspection, maintenance or repair, no defense, no border control....it simply costs money.

quote:


Who was it exactly that designed this "social contract"

Ever heard of the founders of the county? Their pals Rousseau, Locke, etc. were all over it, especially folks like Adams, Jefferson, Franklin...maybe you've heard of them.

The social contract is very simple. It has only two basic terms: (1) mutual defense of rights; and (2) mutual decision by deliberative assembly.

Which do you oppose?

quote:



A firing squad comes to mind

Perhaps to your strange mind. The founders were interested in getting away from the firing squad concept.