Obama asks the middle class to take it in the ass, again

[VinnieKulick]

So Ugmo, your view is, if a person didn't complain about one president, he loses the ability to complain about the next president?

What? No, you can complain about whomever you want. Just be prepared to be called a hyprocrite who cares only about political victories and not the good of the country when you fail to complain about your own party's demonstrable disastrous fiscal irresponsibility but then complain constantly about what you perceive to be the other party's fiscal irresponsibility.

Gee, that would be great, if I HADN'T complained about Bush's spending.

And now, with the spending so much more out of control, it's not "perceived" it's fact.

So, the bottom line is, you don't mind the deficit being ran up like it's not real money, because you can say "Bush fucked the country too".



Lets say somebody came up to you and took their fist and hit you in the chin, about as hard as the normal "fist bump" the current President does to everybody. It might hurt a little, but it's nothing really horrible.

Now, somebody else comes up, hits you 15 times as hard, right in the chin. Do you think you might be a bit more upset, and a bit more hurt?

[Ugmo]

Gee, that would be great, if I HADN'T complained about Bush's spending.

And now, with the spending so much more out of control, it's not "perceived" it's fact.

So, the bottom line is, you don't mind the deficit being ran up like it's not real money, because you can say "Bush fucked the country too".



Lets say somebody came up to you and took their fist and hit you in the chin, about as hard as the normal "fist bump" the current President does to everybody. It might hurt a little, but it's nothing really horrible.

Now, somebody else comes up, hits you 15 times as hard, right in the chin. Do you think you might be a bit more upset, and a bit more hurt?

First of all, we've been over this before, but excuse me if I don't believe you complained about Bush's spending. You've been posting at Sludge for a long time, and I've been posting at the War Board for around 8 years, and I can state with certainty that you never complained here about Bush's spending. I guess it's possible you bitched to those you deal with on a daily basis in real life about Bush's spending, but I doubt that too.

Second of all, we've been over THIS too: I even started a thread on it based on your whining about Obama's spending, challenging you to say where you would cut spending if you were Obama, and you couldn't do it. The budget deficit is huge for three reasons: 1) tax revenues are down because of a) the recession and resulting job losses and b) Bush's unfunded tax cuts and prescription medicine plan, 2) huge spending on entitlements and defense, and 3) the stimulus programs.

You cannot blame Obama for number 1. 2 is only partly Obama's fault, as the entitlements are automatic budget items that he doesn't have any control over without an act of Congress. And 3 was temporary, effective and considered the right move by most economists. So what part of that is fiscally irresponsible? Arguably defense, but we are currently involved in two overseas wars. Not the stimulus package, because leading economists advised in favor of that.

So again, you're wrong and you're not willing to admit it. Especially when it was your team who got us into this giant mess and you were nowhere to be seen when blame needed to be assigned.


Edit: Obviously the prescription medicine bill affects spending and not tax revenues, just a clarification.

[VinnieKulick]

First of all, we've been over this before, but excuse me if I don't believe you complained about Bush's spending.

Despite EVERY time you mention it, I say I was against his out of control spending?

Second of all, we've been over THIS too: I even started a thread on it based on your whining about Obama's spending, challenging you to say where you would cut spending if you were Obama, and you couldn't do it. The budget deficit is huge for three reasons: 1) tax revenues are down because of a) the recession and resulting job losses and b) Bush's unfunded tax cuts and prescription medicine plan, 2) huge spending on entitlements and defense, and 3) the stimulus programs.

Where's that link?

And, let me see if I have this straight... Bush cuts taxes, increases spending and it's bad.

Obama cuts taxes, increases spending at levels much larger than Bush, Clinton, the other Bush, and Reagan, and its okay.

Please, explain that.

You can't sit and preach on and on about what Bush did, and ignore that Obama is doing it as well, and on a much larger scale.

So again, you're wrong and you're not willing to admit it. Especially when it was your team who got us into this giant mess and you were nowhere to be seen when blame needed to be assigned.

And again, tell me how what Obama is doing is BETTER for tax payers (fiscally). I do believe you're the only talking about "your team" when every time we've discussed "my team" I've said Bush was spending out of control.

[Nevermind]

Obama's budget will double the deficit over the next 10 years ,and income levels have fallen 3.2% during Obama's 1st year where under Bush's watch, they rose about 14%.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... 15-months/

You're doing a heckuva job brownie.

[Ugmo]

Despite EVERY time you mention it, I say I was against his out of control spending?

Yeah, now that he's out of office you're saying it, because you're defensive about being rightly called out as a hypocrite on the topic of fiscal responsibility. A day late and dollar short. You joined in December 2005. That means you had nearly three years to criticize Bush for his fiscal irresponsibility, but you didn't.

Where's that link?

Right here:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=219274

You could eliminate ALL non-automatic spending and you still wouldn't balance the budget unless revenues increased. So cut the crap on the Obama is fiscally irresponsible shit. He is facing a huge shitpile of a deficit because Bush put him in that position.

And, let me see if I have this straight... Bush cuts taxes, increases spending and it's bad.

Obama cuts taxes, increases spending at levels much larger than Bush, Clinton, the other Bush, and Reagan, and its okay.

Please, explain that.

He isn't "increasing spending at levels much larger than Bush." Spending increases automatically because health care costs continue to increase, as do unemployment benefits and other recession-related items. The actual spending increases Obama is resonsible for are not that much higher than GWB's. It is mostly the stimulus package, and that was needed to fight the recession and get the economy growing again.

And he will scale back Bush's tax cuts as soon as he gets the opportunity, which he has not been able to do yet because of the ten-year rule.

You can't sit and preach on and on about what Bush did, and ignore that Obama is doing it as well, and on a much larger scale.

He isn't doing it on a much larger scale. Your math is fuzzy.

And again, tell me how what Obama is doing is BETTER for tax payers (fiscally). I do believe you're the only talking about "your team" when every time we've discussed "my team" I've said Bush was spending out of control.

Yeah, starting a year after Bush left office, because you don't want to look like a hypocrite. Probably would have been better for the country if all of you "fiscal conservatives" had spoken up while Cheney was raiding the cookie jar.

[Ugmo]

Obama's budget will double the deficit over the next 10 years ,and income levels have fallen 3.2% during Obama's 1st year where under Bush's watch, they rose about 14%.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... 15-months/

You're doing a heckuva job brownie.

I'm pretty sure every aspect of your post is incorrect. Double the deficit? No it won't. It will reduce the deficit to 800 million in 2012. You are probably thinking about the national debt. Yes, it will double. Do you have a good solution for preventing the baby boomers from retiring?

You don't say. Income levels under Obama have fallen during a recession with 10 percent unemployment? I don't believe your statistic about income levels under Bush. I think you pulled it out of your ass.

Depending on which figures you use to calculate income:

The report indicates that median household income during the Bush administration dropped from $50,557 in 2000 to $50,233 in 2007, a decline of $324.

Or...

Using those numbers, inflation-adjusted income goes from $51,039 in 1992 to $58,555 in 2000 to $56,545 in 2007. That comes to a drop of $2,010 during the Bush administration and an increase of $7,516 during the Clinton administration.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... are-wrong/

Even the right-wing Moonie Washington Times says income remained flat at best under Bush:

The income of the typical American household has barely budged since 1999, while the U.S. poverty rate of 12.5 percent has stubbornly stayed above the recession level of 2001 and the number of Americans without health insurance has increased by 7.2 million since 2000, a U.S. Census Bureau report showed Tuesday.

Median household income increased 1.3 percent last year but remained essentially unchanged from its 1999 peak level, the Census Bureau reported. Half of households have incomes above the median, while half fall below.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... istration/

Please stop dragging down the discourse with false information.

[VinnieKulick]

Yeah, now that he's out of office you're saying it, because you're defensive about being rightly called out as a hypocrite on the topic of fiscal responsibility. A day late and dollar short. You joined in December 2005. That means you had nearly three years to criticize Bush for his fiscal irresponsibility, but you didn't.

Great, can you link to all the posts you made bitching about Bush's deficit in that same time?

The thing is, you keep calling me a hypocrite, but every time it's mentioned, I say "I didn't like that". I've never flip flopped on it at all.

Right here:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=219274

Okay Ugmo, fair enough. Here's what I would do. List all the things that are an absolute MUST HAVE. Defense, Social Security, medicare, medicade, and veterans benefits. I'd freeze those sectors at current levels.
Then, I'd take the the budget deficit amount, divide it by 8, and reduce spending by that much, for an 8 year period, granted, it wouldn't pay off interest, but it would be close enough to zero to have a jumping off point.
Then, I'd not submit a budget that spent at deficit levels.

Not to mention how I'd LOVE to change the tax codes to eliminate the IRS and go with a nation wide sales tax instead of income taxes/breaks/etc.
I am not sure exactly how to do corporate taxes, so I can honestly say I wouldn't know what to do with them.

So yeah, I did answer how I'd do it.

You could eliminate ALL non-automatic spending and you still wouldn't balance the budget unless revenues increased.

SO WHY THE FUCK DO YOU KEEP HARPING ON WHAT BUSH DID? IF IT'S UNAVOIDABLE, ITS UNAVOIDABLE.

So cut the crap on the Obama is fiscally irresponsible shit. He is facing a huge shitpile of a deficit because Bush put him in that position.

If by "shitpile of debt" you mean "a good place to pile more shit" then maybe you're on to something.

He isn't "increasing spending at levels much larger than Bush." Spending increases automatically because health care costs continue to increase, as do unemployment benefits and other recession-related items. The actual spending increases Obama is resonsible for are not that much higher than GWB's. It is mostly the stimulus package, and that was needed to fight the recession and get the economy growing again.

Um, GOVERNMENT spending wasn't going to rise due to health care costs, until the government decided they needed to "reform" it and spend a trillion dollars. So, just on THAT he's spent a trillion more than Bush.

He isn't doing it on a much larger scale. Your math is fuzzy.

So, explain to me again, how Obama isn't spending more than Bush.

Yeah, starting a year after Bush left office, because you don't want to look like a hypocrite. Probably would have been better for the country if all of you "fiscal conservatives" had spoken up while Cheney was raiding the cookie jar.

[/quote][/quote]

Okay, are fiscal conservatives supposed to complain when the people who were running against them were piss poor candidates? Do you expect fiscal conservatives to jump on the John Kerry bandwagon?

[Ugmo]

Great, can you link to all the posts you made bitching about Bush's deficit in that same time?

The thing is, you keep calling me a hypocrite, but every time it's mentioned, I say "I didn't like that". I've never flip flopped on it at all.

Wait, are you shitting me? You know how much I hate Bush, and you know how much I hate the GOP. I spent eight years bitching about Bush for his fiscal irresponsibility! And I did it right here at the War Board. You on the other hand didn't. You showed up well after fact and periodically offer a tepid "I didn't like Bush either", which you can't possibly expect anyone to believe considering you consistently come down on the Republicans' side in every debate.

Okay Ugmo, fair enough. Here's what I would do. List all the things that are an absolute MUST HAVE. Defense, Social Security, medicare, medicade, and veterans benefits. I'd freeze those sectors at current levels.

Then, I'd take the the budget deficit amount, divide it by 8, and reduce spending by that much, for an 8 year period, granted, it wouldn't pay off interest, but it would be close enough to zero to have a jumping off point.
Then, I'd not submit a budget that spent at deficit levels.

Not to mention how I'd LOVE to change the tax codes to eliminate the IRS and go with a nation wide sales tax instead of income taxes/breaks/etc.
I am not sure exactly how to do corporate taxes, so I can honestly say I wouldn't know what to do with them.

So yeah, I did answer how I'd do it.

In that case your solution doesn't pass muster. Notwithstanding that you can't arbitrarily "freeze those sectors at current levels" because that is automatic spending that the president cannot influence, everything left over after you add all that stuff together accounts for 18.75 percent of federal spending, or 666 billion bucks last year. Which isn't nearly enough to balance the budget. So that's a fail. The only way to get close to balancing the budget is to slash defense spending, which you apparently aren't willing to do.

SO WHY THE FUCK DO YOU KEEP HARPING ON WHAT BUSH DID? IF IT'S UNAVOIDABLE, ITS UNAVOIDABLE.

Easy there, Capslock. It's unavoidable because of what Bush did. See the difference? You are blaming Obama and you shouldn't be, because it isn't his fault. It's a combination of Bush's terrible decisions and the worst recession since World War II.

That's a cute graph. Know what it reflects? The fact that the baby boomers are about to retire in waves and the cost of entitlements will balloon as a result.

Um, GOVERNMENT spending wasn't going to rise due to health care costs, until the government decided they needed to "reform" it and spend a trillion dollars. So, just on THAT he's spent a trillion more than Bush.

You really don't know how this works, do you? You need to inform yourself. Government spending absolutely is going to rise automatically, because the government has to pay for health care costs that are rising as a result of unchecked medical expenses and the retirement of the baby boomer generation. The health care bill that the Democrats just passed reduces the deficit. So quit repeating the bullshit right-wing claim that it will cost a trillion dollars. It won't because it's paid for, per the CBO. Everyone knows that. Maybe even you do, but you're repeating it because you think you can get away with it.

So, explain to me again, how Obama isn't spending more than Bush.

Sure, I'll explain it to you again like I do every time you post that misleading graph: 2009 is Bush's deficit! Over a trillion of it is Bush's outgoing deficit, and about 300 million of it is stimulus spending to get us out of the most severe recession since World War II. After 2012 the deficit goes down again, but of course after that it continues to rise because of unchecked entitlement spending tied to health care costs.

Okay, are fiscal conservatives supposed to complain when the people who were running against them were piss poor candidates? Do you expect fiscal conservatives to jump on the John Kerry bandwagon?

That is the lamest argument of them all. I expect anyone with a brain to jump onto the John Kerry bandwagon. So the guy was boring - so what? People should be voting for who would make the better president, not who would make the better rock star.

[VinnieKulick]

Just because you say "that spending is because of the health care bill" doesn't take away from the fact that the health care bill spends billions of dollars, needlessly. On top of all the other crooked shit that's included, and all the retarded laws that are hid away in it, it's pretty much ineffective.

Have you been able to figure out how you add people to medicare, while cutting half a trillion from it's funding?

And, just keep thinking I support the GOP, because I prefer to shit on the Democrats. It's like being a yankees fan, and hating the Red Sox more than anybody else(the Dems) but also disliking the Angels(the GOP).

I can assure you, when I stepped into the booth, I punched the "BOB BARR" circle on my ballot. Not McCain/Palin and certainly not Obama/Biden.

But, believe what you want and keep on telling me how great life is going to be with all this wonderful spending Obama's doing.

[VinnieKulick]

But hey, don't take this conservative's word for it, check out what Newsweek has to say.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/236383

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

But hey, don't take this conservative's word for it, check out what Newsweek has to say.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/236383

So that's one pressure for higher taxes. But it's peanuts compared to the real threat: an aging America. As almost everyone knows, the huge baby-boom generation is edging—or collapsing—into retirement. Its first members, born in 1946, turn 65 in 2011, when they will qualify for Medicare. Some have already taken Social Security as early as 62 at a reduced rate. Boomers collecting benefits, combined with uncontrolled health costs, are the underlying engine for rising federal spending and endless budget deficits.

Is it Obama's fault these people are getting old? Should he have gone with the 'death panels'? These people were retiring and getting SS and Medicare whether or not a healthcare bill passed. This is where we take it in the ass.

[Ugmo]

Just because you say "that spending is because of the health care bill" doesn't take away from the fact that the health care bill spends billions of dollars, needlessly. On top of all the other crooked shit that's included, and all the retarded laws that are hid away in it, it's pretty much ineffective.

It's paid for! That's the part you keep downplaying. And needlessly? Why needlessly, because you already have health insurance and it doesn't affect you? Very selfless of you Vinnie.

Have you been able to figure out how you add people to medicare, while cutting half a trillion from it's funding?

Jury is still out on that:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... e-cut-und/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... tage-bene/

And, just keep thinking I support the GOP, because I prefer to shit on the Democrats. It's like being a yankees fan, and hating the Red Sox more than anybody else(the Dems) but also disliking the Angels(the GOP).

I can assure you, when I stepped into the booth, I punched the "BOB BARR" circle on my ballot. Not McCain/Palin and certainly not Obama/Biden.

But, believe what you want and keep on telling me how great life is going to be with all this wonderful spending Obama's doing.

I will believe what I want. It would be like me shitting all over the GOP constantly (which I do) and claiming not to be a Democrat. I always support the Democrats and always vote for them - not because I like the color blue or donkeys, but because the GOP is so unpalatable.

Who did you vote for in 2000 and 2004?

[VinnieKulick]

It's paid for! That's the part you keep downplaying. And needlessly? Why needlessly, because you already have health insurance and it doesn't affect you? Very selfless of you Vinnie.

It is not paid for (yet) and that's the fucking problem. You can say that medicare is an unavoidable expense, but when you cut it's funding AND spend a trillion dollars, which we do not currently have any fucking clue how we're going to get the money (other than tax the rich), it isn't all paid for and it isn't all needed spending.

Have you been able to figure out how you add people to medicare, while cutting half a trillion from it's funding?

Jury is still out on that:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... e-cut-und/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... tage-bene/

No, the jury was in, a long, LONG time ago, when Obama and Reid and Pelosi decided to cut medicare funds, and increase the number of people who are assigned to it.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/21/ ... index.html

Who did you vote for in 2000 and 2004?

I voted for Bush in 2000, because he ran on a limited government, limited spending platform. Coupled with the fact he was running against Al Gore, who was never a leader in any way, shape or form, AND the VP of the administration that did pretty much all it could to undermind and abuse the Military for political gain (I was in the Navy at the time) I didn't want to be part of another four years of that.
In 2004, I voted for Bush again, because the most pressing issue was the war, and John Kerry had no clue WTF he was doing, never once stuck to his guns on any important issue, and would have made us less safe (in my personal opinion) than Bush would have.

[Ugmo]

It is not paid for (yet) and that's the fucking problem.

Per your link:

The plan, according to CBO projections, will cut budget deficits by over $1 trillion in its second decade.

It's paid for.

You can say that medicare is an unavoidable expense, but when you cut it's funding AND spend a trillion dollars, which we do not currently have any fucking clue how we're going to get the money (other than tax the rich), it isn't all paid for and it isn't all needed spending.

Per your link:

The bill cuts projected Medicare spending by roughly $500 billion, in part through reductions in the Medicare Advantage program. Democratic leaders have promised the reductions will not affect service to Medicare recipients.

What's wrong with taxing the rich? That's how it's paid for! I'm not seeing the problem. You're not allowed discount that and say it's not paid for. That ain't how it works. The CBO says it's paid for AND it will reduce the deficit. You are not more of an authority than the CBO, sorry.

I voted for Bush in 2000, because he ran on a limited government, limited spending platform. Coupled with the fact he was running against Al Gore, who was never a leader in any way, shape or form, AND the VP of the administration that did pretty much all it could to undermind and abuse the Military for political gain (I was in the Navy at the time) I didn't want to be part of another four years of that.
In 2004, I voted for Bush again, because the most pressing issue was the war, and John Kerry had no clue WTF he was doing, never once stuck to his guns on any important issue, and would have made us less safe (in my personal opinion) than Bush would have.

In other words you voted for Bush twice. He was your guy. You don't get to disavow that support just because he fucked everything up. You helped elect him, you have to own up to it.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Who did you vote for in 2000 and 2004?

I voted for Bush in 2000, because he ran on a limited government, limited spending platform. Coupled with the fact he was running against Al Gore, who was never a leader in any way, shape or form, AND the VP of the administration that did pretty much all it could to undermind and abuse the Military for political gain (I was in the Navy at the time) I didn't want to be part of another four years of that.
In 2004, I voted for Bush again, because the most pressing issue was the war, and John Kerry had no clue WTF he was doing, never once stuck to his guns on any important issue, and would have made us less safe (in my personal opinion) than Bush would have.

Thanks for voting, Vinnie. How did that limited government, limited spending platform work out?

[Chevyman]

8 years on a message board bitching about Bush ? how sad

[Nevermind]

8 years on a message board bitching about Bush ? how sad

No, he's gone almost 9 years and a half and still going strong.

[Ugmo]

Worst president of all time. I'll be bitching about Bush for years to come, believe me.

You know what Vinnie, it's really dishonest the way you throw around that "trillion-dollar" figure, because the health care reform bill is offset by other factors and you know it. That trick might work on other boards you post at, but people here are generally too well informed. You're acting like a trillion dollars is just being plonked down on the national debt, when that's not the case. The bill is not only deficit neutral, it actually reduces the deficit. You'd think a fiscally responsible guy like yourself would appreciate that.

But you know what wasn't deficit neutral?

- the Iraq invasion
- the prescription drug financing bill
- the two massive tax cuts in 2001 and 2003

All of which happened during Bush's first term, and you still voted for him again the second time! With fiscal conservatives like you, who needs fiscal liberals?

[Nevermind]

The bill is not only deficit neutral, it actually reduces the deficit. You'd think a fiscally responsible guy like yourself would appreciate that.

We get it. You've been saying over and over for months now. That CBO score is your bible. Enough already.
They scored what was put in front of them. And if you actually read it, you would see the word assumption thrown in there.
Cause we all know it won't cost a dime more than what the CBO assumed right?

The CBO is required to assume that Congress will do what it promises. So, for example,that includes cutting $500 billion from Medicare over the next ten years, cuts few think will ever really occur, to say nothing of how every entitlement program takes on a life of its own which leads to soaring costs well beyond the initial estimates.

[Ugmo]

We get it. You've been saying over and over for months now. That CBO score is your bible. Enough already.
They scored what was put in front of them. And if you actually read it, you would see the word assumption thrown in there.
Cause we all know it won't cost a dime more than what the CBO assumed right?

The CBO is required to assume that Congress will do what it promises. So, for example,that includes cutting $500 billion from Medicare over the next ten years, cuts few think will ever really occur, to say nothing of how every entitlement program takes on a life of its own which leads to soaring costs well beyond the initial estimates.

So in other words no legislation should ever be passed again because it is possible that it might cost more than originally assumed? That is assinine. The fact is the Democrats passed major legislation and put in place a plan to pay for it. Unlike the Bush tax cuts, the Iraq War, the prescription drugs bill, etc. etc. etc. No one who voted for Bush TWICE has any authority to question the fiscal responsibility of the health care reform bill.

And I assume that includes you Shagg/Roxxstar/Yourmomma/Nevermore.

[VinnieKulick]

Worst president of all time. I'll be bitching about Bush for years to come, believe me.

Yeah, because that Carter was such a great leader.

You know what Vinnie, it's really dishonest the way you throw around that "trillion-dollar" figure, because the health care reform bill is offset by other factors and you know it. That trick might work on other boards you post at, but people here are generally too well informed. You're acting like a trillion dollars is just being plonked down on the national debt, when that's not the case. The bill is not only deficit neutral, it actually reduces the deficit. You'd think a fiscally responsible guy like yourself would appreciate that.

That's simply not true. No matter how much Obama Kool Aid you drink, it's not going to reduce the deficit, it's going to raise it. Remember how Medicare ended up costing ten times the CBO projected amount in it's first ten years? Yet, we're supposed to believe THIS legislation is different?
It's "deficit neutral" just like no middle class people will be hit wit a tax right?

But you know what wasn't deficit neutral?

- the Iraq invasion

Which needed to happen.

- the prescription drug financing bill/

So, it's okay to spend money to buy people who won't/don't/cant buy insurance for themselves, but not to buy it for people too old to work? The same people who had a lifetime's worth of money taken from them for social security, when if they had invested it themselves, they wouldn't have needed help covering their prescriptions.

- the two massive tax cuts in 2001 and 2003

And again, you point out two things that Bush did that was so wrong (increasing spending/cutting taxes) and ignore what Obama has done (increased spending/cut taxes).

All of which happened during Bush's first term, and you still voted for him again the second time! With fiscal conservatives like you, who needs fiscal liberals?

I voted for him the second time because of the War, and Kerry wouldn't know what to do if he was in charge. Plain and simple, I was voting for a Commander in Chief, rather than a Federal Government CEO.

[Ugmo]

Yeah, because that Carter was such a great leader.

You cannot be serious. Carter didn't leave America in anything like as horrible a position as Bush. Carter was fiscally responsible. He actually paid down the debt! Bush increased it by trillions, and he started a completely unnecessary war. Carter >>>>>>>>> Bush. God, no comparison.

That's simply not true. No matter how much Obama Kool Aid you drink, it's not going to reduce the deficit, it's going to raise it. Remember how Medicare ended up costing ten times the CBO projected amount in it's first ten years? Yet, we're supposed to believe THIS legislation is different?
It's "deficit neutral" just like no middle class people will be hit wit a tax right?

"That's simply not true" because some guy called "VinnieKulick" on a message board says it isn't? If I'm drinking the Obama Kool Aid, then so is the CBO, and you are not remotely as qualified to determine whether it is deficit neutral as the CBO. Which by the way wasn't around to crunch the numbers when Medicare was passed, so that's a fail too.

Which needed to happen.

No, it certainly didn't. It was one of the most expense blunders in U.S. history.

So, it's okay to spend money to buy people who won't/don't/cant buy insurance for themselves, but not to buy it for people too old to work? The same people who had a lifetime's worth of money taken from them for social security, when if they had invested it themselves, they wouldn't have needed help covering their prescriptions.

It's fine if you figure out a way to pay for it, which the Republicans didn't.

And again, you point out two things that Bush did that was so wrong (increasing spending/cutting taxes) and ignore what Obama has done (increased spending/cut taxes).

He hasn't even had an opportunity to repeal the Bush tax cuts yet. Give him time.

I voted for him the second time because of the War, and Kerry wouldn't know what to do if he was in charge. Plain and simple, I was voting for a Commander in Chief, rather than a Federal Government CEO.

LOL!!! Bush did EVERYTHING wrong in Iraq! Kerry wouldn't know what to do if he were in charge? Based on what, your faulty logic? How could he possibly have screwed it up any more than Bush? That doesn't make sense. Kerry at least knows the horrors of war and wouldn't have been so quick to put the lives of others in danger, unlike Bush and Cheney (and Rove and Wolfowitz and the rest of those dickheads).

Bush voters always use that logic. "Thank GOD Gore wasn't president on 9/11." Why, what would he have done, used it as an excuse to invade a completely uninvolved country at enormous cost?

[VinnieKulick]

"That's simply not true" because some guy called "VinnieKulick" on a message board says it isn't? If I'm drinking the Obama Kool Aid, then so is the CBO, and you are not remotely as qualified to determine whether it is deficit neutral as the CBO. Which by the way wasn't around to crunch the numbers when Medicare was passed, so that's a fail too.

Oh, sorry. Instead of "CBO", insert "Tax happy democrat President"
And, could you please name for me which government program in the past, oh, I don't know, 40 years actually operates under budget?

You cannot be serious. Carter didn't leave America in anything like as horrible a position as Bush. Carter was fiscally responsible. He actually paid down the debt! Bush increased it by trillions, and he started a completely unnecessary war. Carter >>>>>>>>> Bush. God, no comparison.

Carter still operated at a deficit. He had an average annual deficit of $396,427,668,688. Only $27 billion less than Ford, so it's not like he was slashing spending and all. And, of course he didn't get us into a war. He decimated the military so much that we couldn't even get a fucking rescue mission into Tehran without crashing and killing everybody.
Not to mention, the US had every right, and the actual responsibility to go into Iraq, the problem was Bush trying to tie it into the WMD hysteria.

He hasn't even had an opportunity to repeal the Bush tax cuts yet. Give him time.

Which means he is going to raise people's taxes. But, I guess that's okay to tell a little white lie on THAT, right?

LOL!!! Bush did EVERYTHING wrong in Iraq! Kerry wouldn't know what to do if he were in charge? Based on what, your faulty logic? How could he possibly have screwed it up any more than Bush? That doesn't make sense. Kerry at least knows the horrors of war and wouldn't have been so quick to put the lives of others in danger, unlike Bush and Cheney (and Rove and Wolfowitz and the rest of those dickheads).

Bush voters always use that logic. "Thank GOD Gore wasn't president on 9/11." Why, what would he have done, used it as an excuse to invade a completely uninvolved country at enormous cost

Kerry would have been incompetent based on his track record of changing opinions depending on what was popular at the time.
And really, bush screwed it up badly? Up until we took Saddam out, it was pretty much the most efficient invasion and military victory in the history of the USA. It took decades for the US to become a country, but Iraq is supposed to be able to govern itself for the first time in 30 years, more or less overnight?
More soldiers died TRAINING for D-Day than died in Iraq.
And, freeing 24,000,000 people from a brutal dictator was a BAD thing?

[Ugmo]

Oh, sorry. Instead of "CBO", insert "Tax happy democrat President"

No, you don't just insert tax happy Democrat president instead of CBO, because the CBO is nonpartisan. You don't seem to give a shit whether they're accurate or not, you're hell-bent on arguing with them.

And, could you please name for me which government program in the past, oh, I don't know, 40 years actually operates under budget?

The government did a fine job of operating under budget most of the time from 1945 until 1981 when your hero Ronald Reagan took office, at which point everything went to shit.

Carter still operated at a deficit. He had an average annual deficit of $396,427,668,688. Only $27 billion less than Ford, so it's not like he was slashing spending and all.

I was wrong, Carter operated deficits. But that figure of yours is crazy - I don't know where you are getting that from because the actual figures are much lower both in current dollars and adjusted for inflation:





Note how the numbers are in the black during the Clinton years. Fiscally conservative as you are, it's weird that you would vote for the Republicans again in 2000.

And, of course he didn't get us into a war. He decimated the military so much that we couldn't even get a fucking rescue mission into Tehran without crashing and killing everybody.

This is silliness. So you're criticizing him for not getting us into a war? The Tehran mission failed because of poor planning and bad luck, not because the military was "decimated."

Not to mention, the US had every right, and the actual responsibility to go into Iraq, the problem was Bush trying to tie it into the WMD hysteria.

What right and responsibility did we have? This ought to be good. You going to bring up some stupid U.N. resolution like ZVD used to every time?

Which means he is going to raise people's taxes. But, I guess that's okay to tell a little white lie on THAT, right?

He's going to allow the taxes on the wealthy to expire, which is exactly what he said he'd do during the campaign.

Kerry would have been incompetent based on his track record of changing opinions depending on what was popular at the time.

Kerry never had a record of flip-flopping any more than any other politician. Karl Rove come up with that bullshit and the feeble-minded bought it hook, line and sinker.

And really, bush screwed it up badly? Up until we took Saddam out, it was pretty much the most efficient invasion and military victory in the history of the USA.

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play? Cost of War in Iraq: 718 billion and counting. Number of casualties as a result of the war: between 110,600 and 1,033,000 depending on who is counting.

It took decades for the US to become a country, but Iraq is supposed to be able to govern itself for the first time in 30 years, more or less overnight?

Why is that the responsibility of American taxpayers? You're a fiscal conservative and you advocate that?

More soldiers died TRAINING for D-Day than died in Iraq.

I suspect this to be a complete falsehood.

Number of coalition casualties in Iraq to date: 4,709 (http://www.icasualties.org/)
Number of Allied casualties on D-Day: 9,000 (http://www.warchronicle.com/numbers/WWI ... ltyest.htm )

So you're saying more than half as many were killed in training as on D-Day when they were actually being shot at by Germans? Wherever you get your statistics from, you are swinging and missing all over the place today.

And, freeing 24,000,000 people from a brutal dictator was a BAD thing?

Considering the cost in money and human lives, YES.

[VinnieKulick]

No, you don't just insert tax happy Democrat president instead of CBO, because the CBO is nonpartisan. You don't seem to give a shit whether they're accurate or not, you're hell-bent on arguing with them.

All I am saying is, it is impossible to predict the cost of health care over ten years from now. It is impossible to say for a fact, that this spending will REDUCE debt.

The government did a fine job of operating under budget most of the time from 1945 until 1981 when your hero Ronald Reagan took office, at which point everything went to shit.

REALLY?
http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html
Glad you picked 1945 as your starting point, that leaves out the depression era spending, and look at that, only 3 times has the debt ratio from the previous administration been in the black. Right after WW2 ended, then when Ike was in office, then when Clinton was in office. So that's hardly 'most of the time'.

I was wrong, Carter operated deficits. But that figure of yours is crazy - I don't know where you are getting that from because the actual figures are much lower both in current dollars and adjusted for inflation:

Wow, really? Carter's budget was lower in current dollars? All of your "people are getting old and costing more" theory is left out? Carter was operating in a deficit every single year in office.
And, does the term "misery index" mean anything to you?
Is it merely a coincidence that this term was became a household word during Carter's administration?

Note how the numbers are in the black during the Clinton years. Fiscally conservative as you are, it's weird that you would vote for the Republicans again in 2000.

Yes, because if Clinton reduced the deficit, surely Al Gore would continue that trend, right?

This is silliness. So you're criticizing him for not getting us into a war? The Tehran mission failed because of poor planning and bad luck, not because the military was "decimated."

I never criticized him for NOT getting into a war, I was critical of him for vowing to cutting defense spending and then realizing he couldn't, so he maintained near level spending over four years, low pay raises for military members, low military morale, outdated equipment, and sparse maintenance on the aging equipment we DID have, among other things.

What right and responsibility did we have? This ought to be good. You going to bring up some stupid U.N. resolution like ZVD used to every time?

OH, you're one of those "international laws do not matter" type of guys.

He's going to allow the taxes on the wealthy to expire, which is exactly what he said he'd do during the campaign.

He's going to allow ALL of the tax cuts to expire, which means even the ones on the poorest people in the country.
But, keep on with the class warfare. Because we know it's all the rich people's fault, right?
BTW, the top 20% (who pay the majority of American Taxes) include people making $68,296 and above. So, a family with both husband and wife making $35 grand each are "rich" according to the tax codes.

Kerry never had a record of flip-flopping any more than any other politician. Karl Rove come up with that bullshit and the feeble-minded bought it hook, line and sinker.

REALLY? So, the libs LOVE to point at Bush and lament how he "wouldn't listen" to any advice, (that's called sticking to your principals) as if it were a bad thing, but Kerry changing his mind every other week is acceptable. How you can figure out what a guy's values and beliefs are when he changes them at every turn? Or do values and principals not matter?

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play? Cost of War in Iraq: 718 billion and counting. Number of casualties as a result of the war: between 110,600 and 1,033,000 depending on who is counting.

So, there's an 'acceptable' price for being free? Is that your point? What would that cost be? Just for future reference.

It took decades for the US to become a country, but Iraq is supposed to be able to govern itself for the first time in 30 years, more or less overnight?

Why is that the responsibility of American taxpayers? You're a fiscal conservative and you advocate that?

Should we, as a nation, NOT want to help oppressed people become free? Isolationism is the way to go, is that your point. I'm sure wherever you are in Europe is glad we didn't stick to isolationism back when Germany was running wild.

Number of coalition casualties in Iraq to date: 4,709 (http://www.icasualties.org/)
Number of Allied casualties on D-Day: 9,000 (http://www.warchronicle.com/numbers/WWI ... ltyest.htm )

So you're saying more than half as many were killed in training as on D-Day when they were actually being shot at by Germans? Wherever you get your statistics from, you are swinging and missing all over the place today.

Ah, a bit of an exaggeration on my part, but at least a thousand were killed in just two incidents. So the totals are probably more like 2000 than 4700.

And, freeing 24,000,000 people from a brutal dictator was a BAD thing?

Considering the cost in money and human lives, YES.

So, when SHOULD a superpower step in and free 24 million people? Just curious.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play? Cost of War in Iraq: 718 billion and counting. Number of casualties as a result of the war: between 110,600 and 1,033,000 depending on who is counting.

So, there's an 'acceptable' price for being free? Is that your point? What would that cost be? Just for future reference.

How did invading Iraq secure our freedom?

It took decades for the US to become a country, but Iraq is supposed to be able to govern itself for the first time in 30 years, more or less overnight?

Why is that the responsibility of American taxpayers? You're a fiscal conservative and you advocate that?

Should we, as a nation, NOT want to help oppressed people become free? Isolationism is the way to go, is that your point. I'm sure wherever you are in Europe is glad we didn't stick to isolationism back when Germany was running wild.

What about Burma(Myanmar)? Do they deserve to be oppressed? North Korea is always 'running wild'. When should we invade? They're lucky they don't have oil.

And, freeing 24,000,000 people from a brutal dictator was a BAD thing?

Considering the cost in money and human lives, YES.

So, when SHOULD a superpower step in and free 24 million people? Just curious.

There are 1.5 billion people in China. When should we step in?

[Ugmo]

This point-counterpoint stuff is incredibly time-consuming, so you can have the last word if you want it. I see MeatPuppets already has already made a couple of the same points in the meantime, but here it is:

All I am saying is, it is impossible to predict the cost of health care over ten years from now. It is impossible to say for a fact, that this spending will REDUCE debt.

Yes, it is impossible to say for a fact, but that is what the CBO is forecasting, which is why I think it's dishonest of you to keep on claiming that the health care reform bill will just add a trillion dollars to the national debt. Whether or not you like the bill, you can't claim it wasn't designed in a fiscally responsible manner.

REALLY?
http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html
Glad you picked 1945 as your starting point, that leaves out the depression era spending, and look at that, only 3 times has the debt ratio from the previous administration been in the black. Right after WW2 ended, then when Ike was in office, then when Clinton was in office. So that's hardly 'most of the time'.

I was wrong. That being said, your graph still more or less proves my point that the deficits were managable pretty much until Reagan took office. That figure you originally gave for Carter was the four-year total, not the average annual deficit. In other words, Reagan and Bush were running deficits more than twice as big as Carter, and GWB was running deficits four times the size of Carter's, despite inhering a surplus from Clinton. If anything, that chart right there should tell you that "fiscal conservatives" are better off supporting the Democrats, as the Dems have consistently been more fiscally conservative than the Republicans.

Wow, really? Carter's budget was lower in current dollars? All of your "people are getting old and costing more" theory is left out? Carter was operating in a deficit every single year in office.
And, does the term "misery index" mean anything to you?
Is it merely a coincidence that this term was became a household word during Carter's administration?

You'll notice I said it was lower in both current and inflation-adjusted dollars. The baby boomers haven't started retiring until VERY recently, so that doesn't enter into the equation. Carter was operating on a much smaller deficit than all of his Republican colleagues since.

What does the misery index have to do with Carter's fiscal responsibility? But regardless, inflation under Carter resulted mostly from the Arab oil embargo, so I don't know how you can blame him for that.

Yes, because if Clinton reduced the deficit, surely Al Gore would continue that trend, right?

It's a safer bet than that the Republicans can be trusted to be fiscally responsible, yes.

I never criticized him for NOT getting into a war, I was critical of him for vowing to cutting defense spending and then realizing he couldn't, so he maintained near level spending over four years, low pay raises for military members, low military morale, outdated equipment, and sparse maintenance on the aging equipment we DID have, among other things.

Fair enough.

OH, you're one of those "international laws do not matter" type of guys.

LOL, yeah, that's me. I'm one of those international laws do not matter guys. And you're one of those "international laws only matter when we can exploit a technicality to invade a country that we're hell-bent on invading for our own personal reasons" guys. You cannot use the U.N. resolution as an excuse to invade Iraq when the U.N. itself is saying giving the inspectors more time, and when hardly any other country in the world supports the move. Oops, I forgot Poland.

He's going to allow ALL of the tax cuts to expire, which means even the ones on the poorest people in the country.
But, keep on with the class warfare. Because we know it's all the rich people's fault, right?
BTW, the top 20% (who pay the majority of American Taxes) include people making $68,296 and above. So, a family with both husband and wife making $35 grand each are "rich" according to the tax codes.

No, he isn't. He has said he's going to roll back the tax cuts for the wealthy. I'm not saying anything is "rich people's fault." I'm saying they need to pay more goddamned taxes, because right now the system is rigged so that they keep accumlating the wealth while the middle class and the poor are getting an increasingly smaller share of it.

Why are you bringing up the top 20%, when that has nothing to do with what Obama is proposing? He has consistently stated he will rescind the Bush tax cuts for individuals making over 200,000 bucks and families making over 250,000 bucks:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... r-incomes/

Taxes will not rise for those making less:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... r-incomes/

REALLY? So, the libs LOVE to point at Bush and lament how he "wouldn't listen" to any advice, (that's called sticking to your principals) as if it were a bad thing, but Kerry changing his mind every other week is acceptable. How you can figure out what a guy's values and beliefs are when he changes them at every turn? Or do values and principals not matter?

Bush was certainly as stubborn as a mule, no question about that. Your response has nothing to do with what I posted. I said Kerry WASN'T a flip-flopper. He was painted as such by Karl Rove and you got suckered into it. Not that you would have voted for Kerry anyway, but it wasn't a valid argument for voting against him.

So, there's an 'acceptable' price for being free? Is that your point? What would that cost be? Just for future reference.

Why do you want U.S. taxpayers to pay the price for other people being free, and for hundreds of thousands of people to die in the process?

Should we, as a nation, NOT want to help oppressed people become free? Isolationism is the way to go, is that your point. I'm sure wherever you are in Europe is glad we didn't stick to isolationism back when Germany was running wild.

Germany was invading other countries, Saddam Hussein was not (the second time around). If Hitler had stayed put and just oppressed his own people, rest assured there would have been no Allied effort to remove him from power.

So, when SHOULD a superpower step in and free 24 million people? Just curious.

So you'll be advocating we invade Burma any day now, right? Because a shit-load more people are oppressed there than in Iraq. Here's a hint: Bush didn't invade Iraq because anyone there was oppressed. He invaded Iraq because the neo-cons convinced him we could make the whole region America-friendly if we installed a Democratic government there. And maybe it would have been a great idea if it hadn't been so shoddily planned.

[VinnieKulick]

AH, it's the old 'what about this country' red herring.

SO, we shouldn't help ANY country, if we can't help them all?

Got it!

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

AH, it's the old 'what about this country' red herring.

SO, we shouldn't help ANY country, if we can't help them all?

Got it!

You got nothing. It's the old "why help Iraq instead of one of those other countries?" question. Of course, we all know that answer.

[Nevermind]

AH, it's the old 'what about this country' red herring.

SO, we shouldn't help ANY country, if we can't help them all?

Got it!

You got nothing. It's the old "why help Iraq instead of one of those other countries?" question. Of course, we all know that answer.

So what you're saying is, the Obama regime is conducting a war in Iraq in the name of oil? I hear ya!