The hypocrisy on the deficit is astounding

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: 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.

you are completely correct.

Keynesian economics

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: 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.

Well, he had to privatize Fannie and Freddie in order to do it.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Well, he had to privatize Fannie and Freddie in order to do it.

freddie was created in 1970.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: 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.

You got yourself; I said so, and you did not understand the post so I'll repeat.

1. You used the word liar, offensively, as you are the liar, and you did not even make a *claim* of what was wrong in my post for the basis of the claim, much less get it right.

You went on to make your own claim that was wrong.

You picked a statement about something very rare, the budget being balanced - and when called on your error that of the two times, one did not fit your claim, your defense is that 'only' one was wrong. One is enough to prove you wrong, but 'only' one, when it's one of two, is a pretty crappy error rate.

You need toi crawl back under the rock you are from.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: 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

uh, right. Thats what I said....well that and Bush's date is firm, Obama's is still speculation.

Lets summarize shall we?

eskimospy: 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.

me: IIRC he had a 3 year pull out timetable.

eskimospy: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.

me: 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."

at this point, eskimo seemed to disagree that Bush had a firm pullout date (which I provided proof he did) and instead called it "aspirational time horizons". To which eskimospy seemed to be under the impression that although the pullout agreement firm date was set, it wasnt *really* a firm date, by making this comment:

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.

Then you jumped in, and said my quote of: "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.

was wrong, by citing this quote: ...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.

Now at this point, you confused things because we were talking about two completely seperate issues. The first was Bush's FIRM signed agreement to withdraw 100% by 12/31/11. The second is Obama's TALKED ABOUT date of 16 months. Thats all it is. Talk at this point. To which I corrected you by saying:

me:Two different president's dates, one date is real, one is fictional at this point.

And then you decided I was also a dumbass, by quoting the point I had making all along: the Dec 2011 date was Bush's, Obama's was mid 2010
you were wrong.

Now tell me. What exactly was I wrong about again?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: winnar111

Well, he had to privatize Fannie and Freddie in order to do it.

freddie was created in 1970.

As a result of Fannie being privatized.

 

[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.
Now tell me. What exactly was I wrong about again?

Bolded. WRONG! that was Bush's date.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

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.

If this were a normal economy I would agree with you 100%. But considering we are facing the largest economic national emergency in 100 years, it is difficult to agree and you sound like you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[palehorse]

I condemn every member, of every party, who blindly supports the obscene spending we've witnessed during the last decade, or longer... fuck every last one of 'em.

And, even though I voted for him, I'm beginning to believe that Obama is the worst of the bunch. He'll probably spend in two years what it took Bush eight years to blow through.

Sad that...

 

[lupi]

Look at the schumcks voting for these people; many of which can be found on this very board. Until the people doing the hackery stop that method, why would those being elected go that route.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: 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.

You got yourself; I said so, and you did not understand the post so I'll repeat.

1. You used the word liar, offensively, as you are the liar, and you did not even make a *claim* of what was wrong in my post for the basis of the claim, much less get it right.

You went on to make your own claim that was wrong.

You picked a statement about something very rare, the budget being balanced - and when called on your error that of the two times, one did not fit your claim, your defense is that 'only' one was wrong. One is enough to prove you wrong, but 'only' one, when it's one of two, is a pretty crappy error rate.

You need toi crawl back under the rock you are from.

I used the word liar in that you are trying to convince us if we didnt have such an economic situation Obama would be trying to or would run a balanced or surplus budget. No way in hell and you know that. Hence why you are a liar.

 

[piasabird]

Was there actually a surplus?

I say that there was no surplus. We just accounted for the money differently. They are still stealing money from Social Security.