The hypocrisy on the deficit is astounding

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Then you should be just as outraged that Obama is continuing the war madness as though Bush were still office

Trust me, had Bush pledged to end the war in Iraq within a reasonable time frame and shifted those resources to Afghanistan (you know, the place that actually attacked us), I would have been an awfully happy camper. I'd love if anyone could find a single post I've made that was against the war in Afghanistan.

IIRC he had a 3 year pull out timetable. Same as Obamas pretty much.

You mean when he said it was okay to have 'aspirational time horizons' of three years? Sorry, but that's not even close. Obama has floated several plans, from his original 16 month version to a longer one that would be 2 years... and those are for withdrawal, not an 'aspirational time horizon' that means nothing and constrains no one. Even at Obama's worst, Bush's plan was still 50% longer and with no commitment.

Sorry if I wasn't impressed by it.

Well, according to this article, Obama inherited a pullout date of Dec 31 2011, "the date set in a security agreement with Baghdad that says all U.S. troops, not just combat forces, must be gone by then."

shrug. Looks like a pullout date to me.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Well, according to this article, Obama inherited a pullout date of Dec 31 2011, "the date set in a security agreement with Baghdad that says all U.S. troops, not just combat forces, must be gone by then."

shrug. Looks like a pullout date to me.

That's the date he inherited from Bush. Obama's public statements, website, and news stories about his plan have all detailed a 16-24 month timeframe.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Well, according to this article, Obama inherited a pullout date of Dec 31 2011, "the date set in a security agreement with Baghdad that says all U.S. troops, not just combat forces, must be gone by then."

shrug. Looks like a pullout date to me.

That's the date he inherited from Bush. Obama's public statements, website, and news stories about his plan have all detailed a 16-24 month timeframe.

uh, thats what I said.

Quite different than "'aspirational time horizon' that means nothing and constrains no one." that you were stating earlier

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Sawyer
When Bush was in office the hardcore Dems were all in arms about it and the hardcore Repubs didn't seem to have a problem with it, now the roles are reversed. Is it not hilarious and disgusting at the same time how this crap goes on? When will the hypocrisy and madness end? This applies to more than the deficit as well, almost all aspects of politics in our country. We would be so much better off the the partisan hacks on both sides would cut the crap be honest for a change.

What you're missing is that the Republicans were in favor of deficit *spending* (and tax cut borrowing) while Democrats are now in favor of 'save the system' borrowing.

Dont be such a liar. The only time in the past century we have run a surplus or broke even on paper has been with a republican congress and democrat president. Even if Obama inherited a perfect economy we were going to keep deficit spending.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Well, according to this article, Obama inherited a pullout date of Dec 31 2011, "the date set in a security agreement with Baghdad that says all U.S. troops, not just combat forces, must be gone by then."

shrug. Looks like a pullout date to me.

That's the date he inherited from Bush. Obama's public statements, website, and news stories about his plan have all detailed a 16-24 month timeframe.

uh, thats what I said.

Quite different than "'aspirational time horizon' that means nothing and constrains no one." that you were stating earlier

Not really. Do you honestly think that the US troops in Iraq are going ANYWHERE if we don't want them to? The US president is not constrained by the Iraqi government, sorry.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: blackangst1


Well, according to this article, Obama inherited a pullout date of Dec 31 2011, "the date set in a security agreement with Baghdad that says all U.S. troops, not just combat forces, must be gone by then."

shrug. Looks like a pullout date to me.

wrong... ( I guess you didn't read your own link)

...can be pulled out safely at a rate of one to two brigades a month, meaning all 14 combat brigades there now could be gone within 16 months, which equates to mid-2010.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: retrospooty

I mean, I know we need to do something, but hte pork in that bill makes me sick. That isnt change at all. Thats par for the course we have been on for 50+ years.

so what are those porks in the bill? care to point them out?

There is a ton of Pork. Millions for the salt march mouse is one popular one that has been talked about... There are also millions being spend on contraception, and many other politicians pet projects that have no place in this bill... I am not saying the govt shouldnt pay for any of those things, its just that it shouldnt be part of this stimulus bill... The stimulus bill should be limited to things that will stimulate the economy.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: blackangst1


Well, according to this article, Obama inherited a pullout date of Dec 31 2011, "the date set in a security agreement with Baghdad that says all U.S. troops, not just combat forces, must be gone by then."

shrug. Looks like a pullout date to me.

wrong... ( I guess you didn't read your own link)

...can be pulled out safely at a rate of one to two brigades a month, meaning all 14 combat brigades there now could be gone within 16 months, which equates to mid-2010.

Youre a dumbass.

The 2011 date is the firm date Bush created for complete pullout. The 2010 date is one of Obama's tossed around dates. Get it? Two different president's dates, one date is real, one is fictional at this point :roll:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: retrospooty

I mean, I know we need to do something, but hte pork in that bill makes me sick. That isnt change at all. Thats par for the course we have been on for 50+ years.

so what are those porks in the bill? care to point them out?

There is a ton of Pork. Millions for the salt march mouse is one popular one that has been talked about... There are also millions being spend on contraception, and many other politicians pet projects that have no place in this bill... I am not saying the govt shouldnt pay for any of those things, its just that it shouldnt be part of this stimulus bill... The stimulus bill should be limited to things that will stimulate the economy.

This isn't a stimulus bill, it's a FY09 spending bill, for the operations of the government.

Secondly, pork is most certainly something the government shouldn't be paying for. If it's a legitimate expenditure, it's not pork.

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: Chunkee

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: blackangst1
It will end when we have a multi party government IMHO. Until then, its all partisan.

I did my part to vote third party last November, did you?

Yes, I did...and this is the start to making some positive changes that will actually work...that and limiting terms for all areas of elected and appointed officials. No more 30 year incumbents..wonder why things do not change?

This.
I've been screaming it for years, TERM LIMITS!!!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: Chunkee

Yes, I did...and this is the start to making some positive changes that will actually work...that and limiting terms for all areas of elected and appointed officials. No more 30 year incumbents..wonder why things do not change?

This.
I've been screaming it for years, TERM LIMITS!!!

Term limits are a terrible idea and they always have been. They drastically weaken the power of the legislature, and the last thing we need right now is a weaker Congress.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: halik
Heh the sentiment should actually be very opposite - yields on treasury notes were high when dubbya went on a cok...err spending binge. Right now treasury yields are in their historical lows, which means borrowing (deficit) is cheap. You should be outraged at 5+%, not 0% apr

over the course of the bush admin the debt actually became cheaper to service despite being massively larger.

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: Chunkee

Yes, I did...and this is the start to making some positive changes that will actually work...that and limiting terms for all areas of elected and appointed officials. No more 30 year incumbents..wonder why things do not change?

This.
I've been screaming it for years, TERM LIMITS!!!

Term limits are a terrible idea and they always have been. They drastically weaken the power of the legislature, and the last thing we need right now is a weaker Congress.

Term limits are necessary and what are needed now. It would allow us to get new talented people with new ideas in a position to make positive changes. There are too many congressmen/women who have been in office for decades and are sheep. They are ineffective and are caught up in the Washington bureaucracy. They have no clue what their constituents want or need.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: retrospooty

I mean, I know we need to do something, but hte pork in that bill makes me sick. That isnt change at all. Thats par for the course we have been on for 50+ years.

so what are those porks in the bill? care to point them out?

There is a ton of Pork. Millions for the salt march mouse is one popular one that has been talked about... There are also millions being spend on contraception, and many other politicians pet projects that have no place in this bill... I am not saying the govt shouldnt pay for any of those things, its just that it shouldnt be part of this stimulus bill... The stimulus bill should be limited to things that will stimulate the economy.

Tell us what in the stimulus package does not stimulate, and explain why.

 

[Balt]

It's all about how you justify the spending. People are more willing to accept deficit spending to possibly prevent another Great Depression than they were (in hindsight) to bomb the shit out of Iraq and then rebuild it and have our troops police the streets.

If the spending by Obama looks just as bad in hindsight or people don't buy that it helped or prevented anything, he may not get the second term that GWB did.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Then you should be just as outraged that Obama is continuing the war madness as though Bush were still office

Trust me, had Bush pledged to end the war in Iraq within a reasonable time frame and shifted those resources to Afghanistan (you know, the place that actually attacked us), I would have been an awfully happy camper. I'd love if anyone could find a single post I've made that was against the war in Afghanistan.

IIRC he had a 3 year pull out timetable. Same as Obamas pretty much.

You are joking, right? Must be nice having your convenient memory.

Bush had no intention of considering a timetable for withdrawal until Iraq threatened to revoke UN protections of our soldiers. Even then with the signed agreement the conditional response was ""...not a hard-and-fast deadline (like Bush rejected) - will require sustained progress on the political, economic and security fronts.""

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Term limits are necessary and what are needed now. It would allow us to get new talented people with new ideas in a position to make positive changes. There are too many congressmen/women who have been in office for decades and are sheep. They are ineffective and are caught up in the Washington bureaucracy. They have no clue what their constituents want or need.

And yet the approval rating of the average member of Congress remains quite high. Someone should probably go and tell all their constituents that their representatives have no clue what they want or need, as the constituents seem to think otherwise.

I'm sorry, but I don't think you know what you're talking about in terms of the relation of time in office to effectiveness. The exact reason why term limits for the legislature are such an awful idea is that individual members of Congress don't have the massive federal bureaucracy behind them that the executive has from day one. They have limited resources and limited staff. In order to obtain the knowledge, the expertise, and the backing needed to effectively oppose the executive branch, the legislature needs leadership that can muster these qualities and be an actual co-equal branch.

As the legislature exists today it is already pathetically weak as opposed to how it was originally envisioned. Removing effective leadership from it would simply make matters worse, and a weaker legislature is something this country simply can't afford. The executive is already totally out of control as it is.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Sawyer
When Bush was in office the hardcore Dems were all in arms about it and the hardcore Repubs didn't seem to have a problem with it, now the roles are reversed. Is it not hilarious and disgusting at the same time how this crap goes on? When will the hypocrisy and madness end? This applies to more than the deficit as well, almost all aspects of politics in our country. We would be so much better off the the partisan hacks on both sides would cut the crap be honest for a change.

What you're missing is that the Republicans were in favor of deficit *spending* (and tax cut borrowing) while Democrats are now in favor of 'save the system' borrowing.

Dont be such a liar. The only time in the past century we have run a surplus or broke even on paper has been with a republican congress and democrat president. Even if Obama inherited a perfect economy we were going to keep deficit spending.

You're an ass. I take offense at you using the word liar - it's a lie that you say it, you are the liar. You didn't even *claim* any error in what I said, you just lied with the word.

As for yours, the last time we balanced the budget before Clinton was in the 1969 budget passed under LBJ - why don't you show me the 'Republican Congress' who was in office?

Scumbag.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Sawyer
When Bush was in office the hardcore Dems were all in arms about it and the hardcore Repubs didn't seem to have a problem with it, now the roles are reversed. Is it not hilarious and disgusting at the same time how this crap goes on? When will the hypocrisy and madness end? This applies to more than the deficit as well, almost all aspects of politics in our country. We would be so much better off the the partisan hacks on both sides would cut the crap be honest for a change.

What you're missing is that the Republicans were in favor of deficit *spending* (and tax cut borrowing) while Democrats are now in favor of 'save the system' borrowing.

Dont be such a liar. The only time in the past century we have run a surplus or broke even on paper has been with a republican congress and democrat president. Even if Obama inherited a perfect economy we were going to keep deficit spending.

You're an ass. I take offense at you using the word liar - it's a lie that you say it, you are the liar. You didn't even *claim* any error in what I said, you just lied with the word.

As for yours, the last time we balanced the budget before Clinton was in the 1969 budget passed under LBJ - why don't you show me the 'Republican Congress' who was in office?

Scumbag.

Oh you got me. One time 40 years ago it was done.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Time to call Mr. Math ...

Federal Debt Accumulation Per Second

From September 30th to January 20th is 111 days so ...
$602,152,152,000.59 divided by 111 days = $5,424,794,162.17 per day

From January 20th to February 24 is 35 days so ...
$212,649,542,573.82 divided by 35 days = $6,075,701,216.40 per day


Last Days of Bushed: $3,767,218.17 per second
First Days of Obama: $4,219,236.96 per second



It's Official: Impeach Obama Now


(before it's too late)

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: retrospooty

I mean, I know we need to do something, but hte pork in that bill makes me sick. That isnt change at all. Thats par for the course we have been on for 50+ years.

so what are those porks in the bill? care to point them out?

There is a ton of Pork. Millions for the salt march mouse is one popular one that has been talked about... There are also millions being spend on contraception, and many other politicians pet projects that have no place in this bill... I am not saying the govt shouldnt pay for any of those things, its just that it shouldnt be part of this stimulus bill... The stimulus bill should be limited to things that will stimulate the economy.

we hire workers to protect the habitate, at the same time preserving an endangered species for our children. and its not barely 0.1% of the bill. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: blackangst1


Well, according to this article, Obama inherited a pullout date of Dec 31 2011, "the date set in a security agreement with Baghdad that says all U.S. troops, not just combat forces, must be gone by then."

shrug. Looks like a pullout date to me.

wrong... ( I guess you didn't read your own link)

...can be pulled out safely at a rate of one to two brigades a month, meaning all 14 combat brigades there now could be gone within 16 months, which equates to mid-2010.

Youre a dumbass.

The 2011 date is the firm date Bush created for complete pullout. The 2010 date is one of Obama's tossed around dates. Get it? Two different president's dates, one date is real, one is fictional at this point :roll:

the Dec 2011 date was Bush's, Obama's was mid 2010
you were wrong. Dumb ass

 

[dullard]

I'm in favor of surplusses in good times (ie slash spending that isn't needed, or raise taxes if you must). I'm in favor of deficits in bad times (ie slash taxes to help out, or raise spending if you must).

In the good times (mid 2000s), I was unhappy with the deficits (we should have been saving for a rainy day). In the bad times (early and late 2000s), I am okay with the deficits IF the deficits are supported by prior surplusses.

How is that hyprocritical? Just because my views reflect the needs of the times, doesn't mean that I contradict my prior views. It all fits into one unified belief.

 

[sandorski]

Bush's Deficits were for the most part completely unnecessary. No one wants these huge ass Bailouts/Stims, but they are not Optional.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Then you should be just as outraged that Obama is continuing the war madness as though Bush were still office

Trust me, had Bush pledged to end the war in Iraq within a reasonable time frame and shifted those resources to Afghanistan (you know, the place that actually attacked us), I would have been an awfully happy camper. I'd love if anyone could find a single post I've made that was against the war in Afghanistan.

IIRC he had a 3 year pull out timetable. Same as Obamas pretty much.

You are joking, right? Must be nice having your convenient memory.

Bush had no intention of considering a timetable for withdrawal until Iraq threatened to revoke UN protections of our soldiers. Even then with the signed agreement the conditional response was ""...not a hard-and-fast deadline (like Bush rejected) - will require sustained progress on the political, economic and security fronts.""

Youre wrong. A complete pullout was set for Dec31 2011. If you have a beef with AP or yahoo news, take it up with them. I posted the link.