I’m so old that I remember the anti medicare backlash in the late 1960s. Even Ronny Reagan got into the act as he recorded a spot where he said “if congress passes this bill (medicare), we are on the road to communism”. It’s the old same $#!! different day scenario.
I’m so old I remember Ronny saying to cut back spending on school lunches by removing veggies. No worries, the kids have their ketchup packets. Did he mean by removing fruit? I don’t know. Then, you had some guy talking about putting food on his family.
Planet, you must be having a bad brain day. Read your post. It is as goofy as I have seen on IJ. It kind of reminds me of some of Nancy Pelosi’s statements. She gets up there and waves her hands and utters no coherent sentences. I did understand one of her statements. She said that they had to pass it so we could see what was in it. I think we now know what is in it and that is why there is so much opposition to it. We will see what November brings and if the exchanges survive repeal of the law.
It makes perfect sense. Tomatoes are a fruit, not a vegetable. And George Bush made the comment “Workin’ hard to put food on your family”. You need to change the channel from Fox once in a while, Agent.
Is Libby short for Liberal? Perhaps you are from the SEIU public school system which doesn’t teach much but Progressive ideology. Apparently, proper English is not being taught. I see you couldn’t waste an opportunity to bash Bush just like your heros are still doing almost daily. You need to change your channels from MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NPR or NBC. By the way, their viewership is declining as more people wake up to their lies and lack of real reporting of the news. CNN’s President had to resign because the ratings are in the toilet. I wonder what brought that on.
I didn’t bash Bush. Captain Planet mentioned the quote in his post and you didn’t know what it meant. I was merely explaining the post to you. What is an SEIU school system and what was wrong with my English?
August 8, 2012 at 3:57 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And since I have to change my channel from MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NPR or NBC then all I’m left with is Fox. I guess you are trying to make me believe all six networks are wrong and only Fox is right? Doesn’t really compute.
August 8, 2012 at 2:13 pm
realist says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Amazing and only $860 million for start up. What a deal.
Libby, I am not sure there is hope for you unless you wake up and smell the coffee. You haven’t heard of the now infamous Service Employees Union??? They are one of the biggest unions in the US and control many of the school systems in this country. It is easy to identify the failing schools because they reign supreme in them. As far as Fox, I don’t agree with a lot of what they do, particularly when they let Progressives dominate the conversation on interviews and opinion, but at least it is not all left wing all the time like the other networks. They report no news at all unless it fits the agenda they have adopted. If there is a story out there detrimental to this President or his administration, they don’t report it at all. Is that what this country is all about now? Investigative reporters have all but disappeared from the landscape unless they think they have a damaging story on a conservative and then they go after it like a shark even if it is not verified or fact checked.
Disagree! I can’t believe there are insurance people who post on this site! Dude. Read the law. If this is not the best thing that ever happened to the private insurance market I don’t know what is. The law is packed with Republican ideas, like the individual mandate for example. Typical right wing point of view. Don’t go with facts, just make things up to prove your point. Make up things like “death panels” to scare the public. And, don’t one of the favorites terms of the lunitic right wing, “rationing”, which is just another word for “underwriting”.
That’s not what the law says. You can buy your insurance anywhere you want. There will just be governmental exchanges in place for those that can’t/don’t procur it privately. The law already states we have to buy car insurance if we own a car. Now it says you have to carry health insurance. No difference.
Libby, slow down and read my post again.
You can only buy through the government which is set up by whom? The government.
If you want to sell your auto insurance, you have to go through the exchange. What is wrong with that?
Oh by the way your commision…
… will be determined by yours truly.
I don’t understand your post then. No-one is saying you must buy health insurance through the government. There will still be private insurance carriers offering coverage through the traditional system.
So if I don’t have to buy through them, why are they setting this up?
As a capitalist, couldn’t I set up a “priceline” type of website?
Or is it because the exchange will dictate coverage and pricing and commisions and …..
My point is … I believe we all do better with the least amount of government involvement. I would think a website dedicated to serving the casualty agent would be as well.
I would also think the workers in our business would be too?
The exchanges are being set up by the state as an on-line resource where individuals can obtain coverage through competing private insurance programs. The federal exchange is being put in place for those states that won’t on don’t follow the guideline and establish a state exchange. The exchange system is designed to increase competition and participation, therefore driving costs down.
August 8, 2012 at 4:10 pm
Vlad says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Thanks for your honesty in thinking the government can solve your problems better than the market.
….And there continue to be persons dedicated to obstructing what is obviously a win-win solution for all. I am doubtful the shrieking tantrums or cynical political manuevering will cease so I say ‘good for you’ patriots – keep moving ahead for the greater good – that’s what we need from our elected and appointed public servants.
This boils down to an issue of economics. If the states set it up, the states get to run it and the fed will’subsidize’ the expense. If the fed sets it up, they absorb all the costs.
I would bet that the federal subsidy will be decreased or eliminated in the future due to deficit reduction constraints so leaving to the fed may be the wise solution.
And ‘D’, I wouldn’t hang my hat on a failing program that the government is using as a model for a future run at universal healthcare.
I used Medicare as an example that the argument has not changed, even though we have a program (medicare) that has improved the lives of millions for almost 40 years. I would not call a program that has lasted that long and has helped to increase the average life span of all Americans a failure. The day-to-day management needs plenty of work to eliminate fraud and abuse. But, it’s not a failure. Maybe you should take it away from your parents or grandparents, or yourself when the time comes to make use of it? I’m waiting for one of you right-wing genius’ to do that. The republicans sure did not help when they passed Medicare Part D, an unfunded nightmare of a program that could actually kill it. Thankfully, the new law has elements in it to address Medicare Part D’s abysmal mistakes.
$860 million, at least????? For setting up a computer system??? I wonder how facebook was able to do it or any other business starting out. I think someone that is related to our government is getting a nicely over-inflated contract. I can’t believe no one commented on this. Just shows in todays world nobody bats an eye over hundreds of millions of dollars. Maybe a billion would have rattled some feathers. This is just sickening.
Baxtor, You fail to take into account that Facebook and other systems like that were built slowly, from the ground up and with a fair amount of trial & error. Odds are pretty good that if you look at the overall development cost and expenditures for newer/better tech, that Facebook and others have spent that much or more for their systems.
The federal exchange has to hit the ground running right off the start without a slow gradual build up. They are going to be hit with use the second it goes live.
Yes they are running with this so that even if Obamacare fails, they can stick the next administration with all the debt. Get it now, let the taxpayers pay it later when the debt comes due.
DOD Spending, does not increases during a war. It’s at a set amount. This is why during Bush’s presidency, there were several years where even including Iraq and Afghinstan wars the DOD spending was 300-400 billion. Counting the past DOD amount, which Bush continued at a similar rate to that of Clinton who had no wars, actually shows Bush spent better then by your logics correct?
See below for the projected 2012 DOD budget without two wars:
DOD spending $707.5 billion Base budget + “Overseas Contingency Operations”
FBI counter-terrorism $2.7 billion At least one-third FBI budget.
International Affairs $5.6–$63.0 billion At minimum, foreign arms sales. At most, entire State budget
Energy Department, defense-related $21.8 billion
Veterans Affairs $70.0 billion
Homeland Security $46.9 billion
NASA, satellites $3.5–$8.7 billion Between 20% and 50% of NASA’s total budget
Veterans pensions $54.6 billion
Other defense-related mandatory spending $8.2 billion
I realize different years were different amounts but I call B.S. on your bull Captain Planet. I don’t blame you. Liberals have been parroting two unpaid for wars forever as if it was additional spending. It wasn’t. The DOD was in no way modified for the two wars. It was kept at it’s constant rate that it’s been at for over 20 years. Moron.
I swear it’s like you believe the people in the military suddenly get paid and that the tanks suddenly appear.
We build tanks at a constant rate. We build planes at a constant rate and then guess what? We use them. Military personell are paid at a constant rate. We didn’t draft anyone into this war. It was all from existing military. We didn’t hire new people on new payroll. Do you have any idea how stupid you sound when you claim that the Iraq and Afghan war caused spending increases when the spending without the war is the same? It’s called DOD spending and you appear to know nothing about it.
Hey Getreal. There used to be an old saying that we are robbing Peter to pay Paul. That is what the Progressive agenda is all about. Deficit spend to the tune of $1.4 Trillion + each year. We can’t possibly run a Federal Government on the measley $2.4 Trillion in tax receipts. Instead of creating new taxpayers, they are busy creating leaches with more food stamps, disability recipients, unemployed people to 99 weeks. They go after the job creators with more taxes and just perpetuate debt because no new jobs will be created under that approach. More people keep leaving the workforce every month to get on the government dole. It is a very nasty agenda which is designed to make more people dependent on government and there just isn’t enough money in the till to do it. What happens to this country in the near future? The short answer is a bigger version of Greece, Spain, France, Great Britain and some others who have chosen this path and are going down like the Titanic after hitting the iceberg of debt.
Job creators? That’s me and you. We are the job creators when we spend our money for services. We have a demand issue in this country. The Republicans got their way for at least the last year (extension of Bush Tax Cuts that were supposed to end according to, oh I don’t know…George Bush himself) and how many jobs have been created? Why? Because demand is down. Increase the velocity of money in the country and you’ll see job creation. Pro tip – the 1% is not trickling it down, they’re holding onto it as they always have. Why make more product if no one is going to buy it? So, if you don’t need to make more product, don’t really need to hire anyone do you? Don’t give us that “job creators” lie.
“Busy creating leaches with more food stamps, disability recipients, unemployed people to 99 weeks” – you sound more and more like the old Frank Meeinks every time you spit these comments out, Agent. I know you’re not that way, but the rhetoric sure sounds like him and his old ways. Thank God he came around and saw his errors. Now, he’s doing good and seeking redemption of sorts. No, I did not watch “Hardball”. Frank is good friends with Chris Bradshaw and has been on his show in the past on 98.3 Wow FM here and was just on webcastonelive.com the other day. Feel free to tune into Bradshaw, he’s usually on from 1 – 3 but lately, has been more 1:30 – 3 as they are making changes in the studio.
Question – if liberals don’t want to work, why do I go to work every day and why do I have a side job? Why don’t I just take this AWESOME handout from the gov’t. You make it sound like I can get steak, lobster, and BMWs from the gov’t if I just stay home. Why don’t you actually try going to a soup kitchen or the dreaded projects of an area and tell me how good they have it down there. Take a poll while you’re at at and ask how many of the unemployed in that area would like to have a steady job. Most people, a strong majority, want to work in order to improve their quality of life. This fantastic handout you speak of isn’t even a bare minimum to keep those who need it sustained. Now, those that are out there that truly are lazy and don’t want to do anything except sit on a couch all day. Okay, you and I agree there. But, that percentage is awfully low.
Planet, I enjoy a lively debate and shooting down your Progressive theories. Apparently, you don’t look at reality in your assessments of what is going on. Are you listening to your leaders? Nancy Pelosi infamously said that unemployment checks were job creators and a stimulus to the economy. Hmm! The reason demand is down is that people are afraid of what this administration will do to them next so they aren’t buying as much. There was a story yesterday about the rise in gasoline prices again. People in several states were spending over 10% of their income just on fuel. Your government keeps doing things that discourage production, won’t allow the Keystone pipeline which by the way would create 50-100,000 jobs and are busy shutting down coal in West Virginia and Ohio. In addition, 47 million are now on food stamps and the government advertises to apply for them. I didn’t say that all liberals do not want to work, but there are millions of freeloaders out there who would rather get on the dole than work. Every month, there are as many dropping out of the workforce and applying for Disability as there are entering the workforce. The country needs to have a net gain of 200,000 jobs each month to stay up with population growth. Instead, the country is slowly going backward into the abyss of debt and entitlement. Your solution is to tax the job creators more in hope they will hire more. Most smart businessmen will continue to wait until we have a friendlier government in charge before thinking about expanding and hiring. If you want more revenue to fund the government, the way to do that is to create more taxpayers with productive jobs. By the way, the 50% who pay no Federal Taxes should also have some skin in the game and pay at least some minimum tax instead of depending on the top 10% to pay 70% of the taxes. The Tax Code needs to be thrown out entirely and a flat or fair tax implemented with no loopholes for the big boys and their tax attorneys to manipulate. As a small businessman, I am very tired of Progressive Socialism expressed by the left and RINO politicians. It doesn’t work. I recomment you read any of Milton Friedman’s books comparing Capitalism and Socialism. It may enlighten you.
If you have been in Washington state, and more particularly Gold Bar, or north of Marysville, or Everett, etc you would know that a substantial amount of women get pregnant for government assistance.
There are day care centers which only have publicly funded children. My child’s mother works at one. They rarely have private clients.
Men here do the same. Regarding social security: I was just talking with another such guy who is getting child care support (as my wife works in the day care field, which oddly enough most the demand comes from public funded clients, she sees this all the time) who was getting social security disability. Guess how old he was? In his 20’s. His injury was not even an issue any longer. He had no teeth (wonder why? Drugs?) He was still receiving disability which counts against our social security budget. His “wife” is not only getting darcare assistance, she is also getting free college funding and assisted housing funds. I make $75,000 a year, I do not enjoy paying $950 a month for day care, $3,000 a quarter for my Wife’s college tuition, $1,500 for my house but let’s use They are spending: $750 a month for college, $850 for housing, $950 for childcare, he’s getting about $500 per month, that’s $3,050 a month, $36,600 a year they receive for NOT working not including food stamp assistance. If we apply standard taxes, they are receiving more like $43,000. Like it or not, many Americans do this and it’s why our budget is breaking.
If people were not riding off the government budget, we would not have the deficits we do despite taking the amount of taxes we do.
Also: Reagan did not have a taxing problem. He had a spending problem. Despite cuting the rates as much as he did, the rates began to rise again after we got out of the recession. If this were not true, than why would only a small increse during Clinton’s presidency suddenly cause a surplus? Trickle down works. We did not return to the pre Reagan rates and we had a surplus. Don’t preach to the choir about tax rates. Our highest per gdp percentage during Clinton with a 36.9 top rate was the same as a 95% top rate. Trickle down by those logics is automatically correct by default.
Ok. Follow along here. This might be a little over your head.
But, since you brought up deficits, I will comment on your post:
The current administration was “stuck” with the debt from the Iraq war. The prior administration didn’t even put spending for that war in their budget. Yet, they still ran a deficit. Iraq’s oil money never paid the bill for that war like Cheny said it would. The prior president NEVER vetoed a spending bill. Add the inherited Bush deficit to the increased deficit when the current administration did the only responsible thing and included Iraq war spending in their budget. Oh yeah, that former administration inherited a surplus. And the republicans are the fiscally responsible ones? History has not shown that in the last 50 years. Please show me a republican president who managed to create a surplus. Name one!
See my above comment D. You’re wrong. The DOD spending is what covered the Iraq war. Prior years of DOD spending do not affect future years under Obama.
If we have X amount of military in Iraq getting paid in 2003, sending jets there and tanks, the cost goes in 2003. Not 2012.
It would be impossible to budget it 9 years in the future as you ignorantly suggest. You pay for it when you use it. The deficits back then did take the Iraq and Afghan war into consideration. It was part of the DOD budget.
We continue to incur costs for both wars. Costs of returning vets needing care (estimated at $1 trillion), interest on loans used to fund direct costs, replacement equipment ($17B per year), and appropriations too numerous to mention.
Libby: Don’t be a fool. War spending under Bush was 300-400 billion per year. That’s DOD budget.
We do have interest on past wars, not only Iraq and Afghanistan. With that logic I can state that the 700 billion exact numbers I put above for 2012 are Obama’s, and the DOUBLE interest on that is being paid for by the next president.
Your logics are ridiculous. The DOD budget was not affected by Iraq and Afghanistan. It was at it’s normal percent of the budget. The wars came out of the normal DOD budget, it was not in addition to it. In other words the DOD budget would have been the same without the Iraq and Afghan “spending” you talk about. There was no dedicated Iraq and Afghan spending. How many different ways do I have to say it?
August 9, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I did not say the DOD budget was affected. You said the spending was done in the year it was incurred. I say we continue to incur expenses today. Why do you find it necessary to name call and insult people to make a point?
August 9, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And the spending was done in the year it was incurred. Replacement equipment is part of the DOD annual spending. Interest is part of the annual spending. You are stating that Bush’s wars are the reason for Obama’s deficit. They are not.
Obama has failed to change the annual DOD amount. He has continued to increase it.
Do not back petal. I feel the need to name call because your facts that you present are done so with the usual liberal “this was some one else’s fault” mentality. You are ignorantly choosing to dislike one president and are twisting reality to do so. At the same time you are attempting to twist other to the same lie.
Wake up.
August 9, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And further: Calling you a fool (which you are being a fool) is not name calling.
You amounted 17 billion of the budget Obama spends to Bush, which is still his choice to send out and still part of the DOD budget.
Very bad way of trying to prove the point that Obama inherited a war deficit. He chooses to spend and it’s time you held him accountable.
August 9, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I never mentioned Bush in the same breath as DOD budget or deficit. You are right about one thing. I do dislike Bush. For lying to the U.N. and the American people about WMD’s in Iraq for one. For turning the entire world against the U.S. For being an international joke and buffoon attempting (badly) to represent the best country in the world. He was not a good president, as you stated. In fact, he shouldn’t have been annointed president because he didn’t win the election. I am not a minority regarding this sentiment. Maybe it’s you that is the fool.
August 9, 2012 at 1:40 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
He did not manipulate the world. I’m sorry Libby you either believe that a man like Bush could convince every democrat to go to war (intelligent people as you suggest) or they are lying. The more likely is that they are lying.
Why do I say this? Would you believe that crap? No. Bush presented the information given to him. He’s not a king. He does not gather information. He presents it.
Further: You were replying to a post about DOD spending and how D stated that the deficits Obama had came from Bush. So nice try on the back petaling. You were wrong. Pony up.
Also: Being in the majority does not make you right. Having numbers and common sense like all of my posts makes someone right. See talking points 101.
August 9, 2012 at 1:41 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Just in case you couldn’t understand:
“Further: You were replying to a post about DOD spending and how D stated that the deficits Obama had came from Bush”
This means you did once, and in your primary argument link Bush’s deficits to Obama.
August 9, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
First of all, Bob, I was responding to your post – not D’s. I agree with D. And yes, I do believe Bush (as Cheney’s marienette doll) lied to the American people. They knew Janabi was unreliable when they “presented” the so-called evidence. That is lying. Colin Powell embellished the truth. That is lying. And I think it should be grounds for treason. And your version of “common sense” doesn’t make you right. It makes you opinionated. That’s all. We all have one, you know.
August 9, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You were replying to my reply to D, thus you WERE addressing the issue at hand with D regarding Bush and Obama.
You are the type who doesn’t like admitting when you have been backed into a corner. Don’t talk with me as if I lost track of this convo. You have tried to imply I’m attacking you already. You are passive agressively encouraging me to, which is not classy Libby.
Now moving forward: Every foreign intelligence presented. Not just the person you quoted. He did not lie to the people. It is impossible for one man to fool an entire league of democrats. They reviewed a total of every UN nation’s foreign intelligence and they agreed there was cause to go to war.
The WMD’S were NOT the reason quoted for the war in the speech on the day of the war. Bush quoted 16 UN sanctions. Therefore, Bush being wrong about WMD’S is irrelavent, as the democrats even agreed the WMD’s were not the reason we went to war. It was certainly a concern.
Making up facts like you did is not a version of an opinion. It is insanity partisan politics. I am actually not a republican. I would like a two way system. An assisted universal care, as well as private care rather than one or the other. Integrating the private with the government defeats the purpose. I am for private and government social security.
Of the two of us, I am not biased. Of the two of us, I have presented the most logical facts. If your argument is that democrats did not know what they were doing because Bush was able to state on his own there were WMD’s you are grossly innaccurate or democrats or grossly stupid and should never EVER ever be in office. If I were to believe you (and the facts in no way point to you being right) I would definitely change my position and rather than prefer republicans, I would never vote for a democrat in my entire life for fear of them being so stupid that they would invoke world war 3 as soon as they thought Iran had nukes.
Now moving forward: You were wrong as well as D regarding DOD spending. That’s not an opinion. You were wrong about why we went to war. It was the 16 un sanctions. That’s not an opnion. You were wrong about what intelligence sent us there. It was every UN nation who gave us intelligence. That is not an opinion. You are wrong about the WMD’s. Your facts are so crooked it’s ridiculous and laughable. Your bias is showing. Cover it up and get out of partisan politics please.
August 9, 2012 at 2:19 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I guess I am too foolish to know I was backed into a corner. The U.N. sanctions were in place because Saddam would not comply with investigations into WMD’s. The Iraq Resolution stated that the intent of the war was to remove “a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world”. I, too, have facts a figures. And seem to be able to make my point in 100 words or less. Of the two of us, we are both biased. As for your assumption of my political party, you are WRONG. I am not a registered democrat. But my ideals lie more left than right, just as yours lie more right than left. I do not back pedal.
August 9, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby, apparently you didn’t study math in school as well. Where did you get the amount of $1trillion for the cost of vets care? Do you have any concept of what $1trillion actually is? Do you even know what $1billion is? I have followed costs on military and budgets and have never seen a report that says the cost would be the amount you just made up. I am inclined to think the government could fund the entire Veterans Administration for 50 years and it wouldn’t cost a trillion dollars unless Progressives were spending the money and diverting funds to their pet projects.
August 9, 2012 at 2:52 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I got it from the same source you get your information, the internet. And yes, the number surpised me, as well. I didn’t say $1 trillion in a year. I believe that number includes care for all Iraqi and Afghan war vets over the years and into the future.
August 9, 2012 at 4:12 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby: Your name is most likely based off of “liberal”. Don’t play the “I’m not democrat” while siding with Democrat beliefs.
Further, yes. You were backed into a corner. We already proved you did in fact comment regarding Bush and Obama, regarding my comment to D. I’m glad you finally admitted that rather than continually try to argue about it when it made no sense doing so. I’m also glad this shows you argue for the sake of winning rather than facts.
Moving forward: Your quote below included WMD’s and even your quote below showed it was not the primary reason. If you are foolish enough to not have known that WMD’s were used by Saddam in the past you are quite foolish in not knowing why every statement in your factual evidence was fact. Are you trying to state there was a lie in your quote? I certainly am not. In fact, I’m using your same fact source. WMD’s were not the only sanctions of the 16. I’m gald you qouted some of the others, including cruelty to his on people thus proving yourself wrong.
Why should I debate with someone who continually proves themself wrong? This is hilarious. Love it.
Further: You did back petal in trying to state that you had no intentions of making statements you clearly made. See above regarding your very entry into this debate as a reply to my response to D. Then you stated you weren’t making a link between Bush and Obama and the DOD. That’s just purely not true. The whole comment to D was in reference to relating Bush and Obama war spending and Iraq and Afghanistan and his disregard of DOD numbers.
Further: I am not more right than left. That is a bullshit comment. Pardon my french. I have quite clearly shown how gay rights can be done non-invasively and pointed out how healthcare can be done with a private and public system. I have clearly stated things which Obama, a liberal techincally agrees with. However, I unlike you realize he’s lying trash, I know what happened with the Iraq war, I don’t accept a poilticians answer of being confused at something which in no way confusing or vague, and which Bush had no way of making confusing or vague, and I do not listen to bull crap. Whether you like it or not, the democrats lie, and lie, and then lie some more. Republicans like Bush, were not even republicans. That’s why his rating was so low. Republicans hated that he was a moderate. No child left behind, along with expansion of medicare D, along with privitization of social security while keeping in place social security through incentives, as well as many other areas are all moderate issues. Not far right. Whether or not they worked is opinion based. The problem is you like Planet, are too dumb to see that Bush was a moderate which is why he was hated. Not an extremist.
August 9, 2012 at 4:19 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I should also point out that bush also pushed for new regulatory systems for housing in 2003, 2005, and 2006. Also things that Obama claims “republicans” don’t support.
So he pushed for a double system for retirement, medicare part d, no child left behind, housing regulatory reform, delt with two receissions, one blew up the world freaking trade center libby. I’m not sure you realize how big that is, while at the same time dealing with the dot com bubble burst. We got out of that rut. We got out of the 2003 rut. We are still in the 2008 rut. Blame it on Bush all you want (though it was not his fault) recessions typically end quicker than they have this time (the deeper the recession the quicker it ends, in all cases except for the great depression). Bush was an excellent modern president. Don’t talk about Clinton. He was in place during a world boom. The whole world literally was in boom. And he raised taxes. Canada cut taxes. Their corporate tax rate was cut to 15%, and lower than that later on. Yet they paid off a portion of their DEBT. We aren’t talking just a few surpluses, which Clinton did not use to pay down the debt. We are talking bringing their debt down. They are the only G7 country to have ever done this. Clinton is nothing when comparing how to cut debt and pay of surpluses. Canada is a different story. They went the route Bush tried and paid off their debt for ten years. Did it just magically happen?
August 9, 2012 at 4:24 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Wow. Where do I start. First of all, I know what I was responding to and what my words meant. Not you. I will no longer try to explain myself to you, as you are too fond of trying to interpret my words to suit yourself.
You are more right than left. Period.
It appears to me you are the one that likes to argue. And you get nastier by the post.
Everyone lies. Men, women, whites, blacks, Republicans, and Democrats. But Mr. Bush lied to the U.N. and the American people, including Congress. You will not convince me otherwise, no matter how many names you call me.
You are neither logical nor unbiased in your posts. Some of them don’t even make sense as you are probably foaming at the mouth during your neverending rants.
Coupled with 9/11, the fear of WMD’s was a driving force for shoving the Iraq war down our throats. There was no worldwide threat. Bush and Cheney made that up for their own purposes. We (everyone) bought into it because they scared us. Now the truth is being revealed (stay tuned) and they will be exposed for what they are. Treasonous bastards.
August 9, 2012 at 4:32 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So you wiped the saliva off and came up for air, huh Bob? I don’t recall blaming Bush for anything other than the Iraqi war in this blog. And Clinton’s name was never mentioned. I think Bush was a terrible president and certainly not very bright. Cheney, on the other hand, is the devil.
August 9, 2012 at 4:37 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby:
Here is D:
“Ok. Follow along here. This might be a little over your head.
But, since you brought up deficits, I will comment on your post:
The current administration was “stuck” with the debt from the Iraq war. The prior administration didn’t even put spending for that war in their budget. Yet, they still ran a deficit. Iraq’s oil money never paid the bill for that war like Cheny said it would. The prior president NEVER vetoed a spending bill. Add the inherited Bush deficit to the increased deficit when the current administration did the only responsible thing and included Iraq war spending in their budget. Oh yeah, that former administration inherited a surplus. And the republicans are the fiscally responsible ones? History has not shown that in the last 50 years. Please show me a republican president who managed to create a surplus. Name one!”
Here is me:
“Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
4
5See my above comment D. You’re wrong. The DOD spending is what covered the Iraq war. Prior years of DOD spending do not affect future years under Obama.
If we have X amount of military in Iraq getting paid in 2003, sending jets there and tanks, the cost goes in 2003. Not 2012.
It would be impossible to budget it 9 years in the future as you ignorantly suggest. You pay for it when you use it. The deficits back then did take the Iraq and Afghan war into consideration. It was part of the DOD budget.”
Then you:
“We continue to incur costs for both wars. Costs of returning vets needing care (estimated at $1 trillion), interest on loans used to fund direct costs, replacement equipment ($17B per year), and appropriations too numerous to mention.”
His comment was saying “The current administration was “stuck” with the debt from the Iraq war. The prior administration didn’t even put spending for that war in their budget”
I replied with “See my above comment D. You’re wrong. The DOD spending is what covered the Iraq war. Prior years of DOD spending do not affect future years under Obama.”
You replied stating we still incur costs. I replied stating those are part of the DOD budget. However, you replying at stating we still incur costs is you trying to state those costs are from the Iraq war, and are thusly attaching Iraq and Afghan costs from Bush to Obama. You said it, get over yourself.
August 9, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I recall you calling me more right than left.
I have to assume the reason is me being pro bush. It is a resonable assumption considering my other posts clearly made mention of my clearly not right side political beliefs regarding social security, healthcare reform, and gay rights issues.
Should I then just assume you are an ass or are ignorant and don’t understand that those issues are moderate issues not leaning right in any way?
Ready to continue the path you’re going on Libby? I think not. Get your head on straight.
August 9, 2012 at 4:44 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
When you go foaming at the mouth making a statement like Bush (someone who doesn’t have the power to present UN nation’s intelligence) sent us to war, when every democrat begged for it, I of course will slap you across the face and tell you to shut the hell up, like a father would a dumb son.
Obviously democrats are not stupid. They knew what they were presented. That is where you and I differ. It’s that I KNOW they aren’t stupid that makes me realize they were not fooled. Bush presented what he was given, and other presented information as well which Bush had no control over. Bush stated they had used weapons in the past and were pursuing them. They had weapons in the past, and were pursuing them. He stated they had them now, based on intelligence given to him. Every other democrat stated Iraq had them now based on the same information. Yet somehow you believe it’s ok to call Bush a liar for believing information he had no control over and democrats just stupid for believing the same information.
Get it now? You are unbelievably stupid. Hold consistent logics. Bush doesn’t gather intelligence for the CIA or the MI6. If that information says they have WMD’s and he goes off their statement as well as democrats you can’t suddenly state that he lied, and the democrats didn’t. I am logically consistent. I believe the information was wrong, Bush’s statement was therefore wrong, and therefore the democrats were wrong. Bush owned up. The democrats are trying to create a conspiracy theory where it’s all Bush’s fault. That information was not Bush’s. Again, it was CIA, MI6, and other agency intel prepared by them not us.
August 9, 2012 at 4:59 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And juuuuusttt in case you’re still too stupid even after my last post:
“I did not say the DOD budget was affected. You said the spending was done in the year it was incurred. I say we continue to incur expenses today. Why do you find it necessary to name call and insult people to make a point?”
Now then, when I talked to D I clearly stated it was a part of the DOD budget. This budget is passed and increases automatically at a set amount. If your goal is to state that those are carry over costs, then you are disregarding two things: Those costs are part of the DOD budget. The DOD budget is passed by Obama year to year. He does not have to send more to Iraq.
Further: If the DOD was not affected, then Obama had nothing to pay for. So you were stating the DOD was affected which Obama then ended up paying for. Costs for the DOD are set at a rate. They would spend that same money for maintaining the Iraq war in other areas were it not spent there. Therefore, as the DOD is set, and Obama has the choice to lower it, or remove the Iraq war costs, or both, those are Obama’s costs.
You made the argument. You made the comment. I choose to not believe that you didn’t know what you were saying. That is because I usually respect debators. Unlike you.
Let me get this straight, We are spending “at least” $860 million dollars for a computer system to run an exchange that looks an awful lot like the one they have in Taxachusetts, the most costly healthcare state in the US. Why not borrow the one they have in Taxachusetts? Then HHS will need to hire who knows how many thousands of people to “manage” the exchanges complete with government benefits and Gov pensions. Then we are supposed to believe they are going to have this “fine oiled and efficient machine” provide wondrous healthcare to us better than we have now. Anyone that believes that is on dope. If the federal government can’t run the post office (It is broke according to the WSJ) can’t run Social Security (it is going broke) and can’t balance a budget, what makes anyone have enough confidence that this will be any better. What a farce
Here is a lesson on Social Security:
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,
It is no longer Voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,
Now 7.65%
on the first $90,000.
3.) The money participants elected to put
into the Program would be tax deductible from
their income for each year,
No longer tax deductible
4.) That the money would be placed into an
independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the
general operating fund. The money would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program.
Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent.
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed
as income.
Under Clinton & Gore- Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed
Many have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month —
and are now getting taxed on 85% of the money they paid to the Federal government.
This is just one reason I have no faith that federal involvement in healthcare can produce a good long term result.
Sargent, as usual, you have your facts correct about what went down on Social Security. I am sure Planet will come out and say it was s Republican idea and specifically George W. who implemented it. You remember the saying – Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. These Progressives are adament that we can spend our way to prosperity. They say that the reason the Stimulus didn’t work was that it wasn’t big enough. Debt doesn’t mean a thing to them and let future generations deal with it. We Conservatives say no, we don’t want that for our children and grandchildren and future generations and we certainly don’t want our country descending into some form of a banana republic in the next 20-30 years.
Yeah, conservatives are all about the deficit, huh?
Reagan Proved Deficits Don’t Matter*
By Jon Perr
Credit: Gallup
“Reagan,” Vice President Dick Cheney famously declared in 2002, “proved deficits don’t matter.” Unless, that is, a Democrat is in the White House. After all, while Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt and George W. Bush doubled it again, each Republican was rewarded with a second term in office. But as the Gallup polling data show, concern over the federal deficit hasn’t been this high since Democratic budget balancer Bill Clinton was in office. All of which suggest the Republicans’ born-again disdain for deficits ranks among the greatest – and most successful – political double-standards in recent memory.
The triumph of the GOP messaging machine is reflected in a new Washington Post/Pew Research poll. In just the four months since the Republican majority took control of the House, the percentage of Americans believing the budget deficit is a major problem which must be addressed now catapulted from 70% to 81%. But even more revealing is an April Gallup survey which showed the deficit (17%) rivaling the unemployment (19%) and the overall state of the economy (26%). And as it turns out, those cyclical swings in budget angst reflect the complete victory of the conservative deficit narrative.
As predicted at the time, Reagan’s massive $749 billion supply-side tax cuts in 1981 quickly produced even more massive annual budget deficits. Combined with his rapid increase in defense spending, Reagan delivered not the balanced budgets he promised, but record-settings deficits. Ultimately, Reagan was forced to repeatedly raised taxes to avert financial catastrophe, including the last major bipartisan tax code overhaul in 1986. By the time he left office in 1989, Ronald Reagan nonetheless more than equaled the entire debt burden produced by the previous 200 years of American history. It’s no wonder the Gipper cited the skyrocketing deficits he bequeathed to America as perhaps his greatest regret.
Of course, President George H.W. Bush would come to lament them even more. Despite his legendary 1988 campaign pledge of “read my lips – no new taxes,” Bush the Elder just two years later was forced to break his promise. As PBS recounted:
This “could mean a one term Presidency,” he confided to his diary, “but it’s that important for the country.”
Bush 41 was right on both counts.
For his part, Bill Clinton faced a double-whammy on the deficit issue. He was, after all, a Democrat. And in 1992 and again in 1996, Clinton was confronted with the third party candidacy -and the pie charts – of Ross Perot. But when President Clinton proposed boosting the top tax rate to 39.6% to help close the yawning Reagan/Bush budget gaps, every single Republican in the House and Senate voted no. While then Rep. John Kasich (R-OH) told Clinton and the Democrats, “your economic program is a job killer,” Dick Armey looked into his crystal ball to claim:
“Clearly this is a job killer in the short run. The revenues forecast for this budget will not materialize; the costs of this budget will be greater than what is forecast. The deficit will be worse, and it is not a good omen for the American economy.”
Most dramatic of all was Texas Senator Phil Gramm. The same man who led the 1990’s crusade to gut regulation of Wall Street and the IRS and later called America a “nation of whiners,” boldly – and wrongly – predicted:
“I believe hundreds of thousands of people are going to lose their jobs…I believe Bill Clinton will be one of those people.”
As it turned out, not so much. In 1996, Bill Clinton buried Bob Dole. Then in his second term, he buried the budget deficit as well.
Then came George W. Bush, who promised in his 2001 message to Congress:
At the end of those 10 years, we will have paid down all the debt that is available to retire. That is more debt repaid more quickly than has ever been repaid by any nation at any time in history.
Instead, President Bush produced red ink as far as the eye can see. After inheriting a federal budget in the black and CBO forecast of a $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years, President George W. Bush quickly set about dismantling the progress made under Bill Clinton. Even with two unfunded wars and the similarly unpaid Medicare prescription drug benefit, Bush’s $1.4 trillion tax cut in 2001, followed by a $550 billion second round in 2003, accounted for half of the yawning budget deficits he produced. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explained, if made permanent those Bush tax cuts if made permanent, would add more to the national debt over the next decade than the impact of Iraq, Afghanistan, the recession, the stimulus and TARP – combined.
During his presidency, Republicans in Congress voted seven times to raise the debt ceiling, the last to $11.3 trillion. By the time George W. Bush ambled out of the White House, he left his successor a $1.2 trillion budget deficit for 2009.
Barack Obama inherited two wars, a doubled national debt, and that $1.2 trillion deficit from George W. Bush. (As Orrin Hatch described the Bush years, “it was standard practice not to pay for things.”) But one thing was new: Republican concern about the budget deficit.
“President Obama’s agenda, ambitious as it may be, is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits, despite what many of his Republican critics are saying,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt explained in 2009, adding, “The economic growth under George W. Bush did not generate nearly enough tax revenue to pay for his agenda, which included tax cuts, the Iraq war, and Medicare prescription drug coverage.” That fall, former Reagan Treasury official Bruce Bartlett offered just that kind of honesty to the born again deficit virgins of his Republican Party. Noting that the FY2009 deficit of $1.4 trillion was solely due to lower tax revenues and not increased spending, Bartlett concluded:
“I think there are grounds on which to criticize the Obama administration’s anti-recession actions. But spending too much is not one of them. Indeed, based on this analysis, it is pretty obvious that spending – real spending on things like public works – has been grossly inadequate. The idea that Reagan-style tax cuts would have done anything is just nuts.”
Which is exactly right. Thanks to the steep recession, as the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and others have documented time and again, the overall federal tax burden as a percentage of GDP is now below 15%, “levels that low have not been seen since 1950.” And as Jonathan Cohn and Paul Krugman each explained, it is not a mythical Obama “spending binge” but the drastic loss of revenue combined with automatic increases in mandated safety net outlays that is producing the current budget gaps.
Nevertheless, only now – with Democrat Barack Obama in the Oval Office – Republicans like John Boehner warn Americans that “unsustainable debt and deficits threaten the prosperity of our children.” But despite their fear-mongering, the GOP would make the situation much, much worse. December’s two year tax cut compromise will add $800 billion to the deficits this year and next. And by making the Bush tax cuts permanent and lowering the top rate to 25%, the Ryan budget just passed by the House would drain over $4 trillion from the U.S. Treasury.
Back in June, Rhode Island Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse lamented the double-standard at work in the Republicans’ posturing on the national debt:
“I understand the point about the debt and the deficit and the spending,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). “But to me, that doesn’t have an enormous amount of credibility, because when President Clinton left office, he left an annual surplus… At the end of [George W. Bush’s] term, we had $9 trillion in debt.”
“We would have none of this if it hadn’t been for the Republican debt orgy that they went through,” Whitehouse said.
Apparently, Sheldon Whitehouse and his Democratic allies don’t understand how this game works. As Cheney said, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”
Unless, of course, a Democrat is in the White House.
As usual Planet, you jumped to conclusions about Reagan and what he was facing. If you remember, he followed the now infamous Jimmy Carter and an economy that was completely stagnant and in serious recession, skyrocketing interest rates, business malaise of historic preportions, an energy crisis, gutted military capability and a Democratic Congress which refused to cut spending. His deficits were inherited and he couldn’t get Congress to go along with spending cuts. They welched on the deal he made with them to cut the budget. You rave about how Bill Clinton, the serial liar was so wonderful. He wanted to raise taxes, install Hilarycare and the Republican Congress stopped him in his tracks and forced him to sign a balanced budget and end Welfare as we knew it. Now, you think he was such a great President and did such a great job on the economy. The fact is he was threatened with a government shutdown if he didn’t get his act together and he capitulated. George W really didn’t have a chance since 9/11 and he had to respond to being attacked. You Progressives probably would have apologized to Al Quida and begged them not to attack us again. He also faced a hostile Democratic Congress who again refused to get the fiscal responsibility house in order. Bush’s big mistake, particularly in the last two years was not vetoing much of the Pelosi/Reid big government spending legislation sent over. I hold him completely accountable for that. I do agree with you on one thing. Any President who does not get a handle on the economy of this country and make the kind of changes necessary to restore fiscal responsibility and cut out all this entitlement nonsense does not deserve a second term. Your President admitted that if he doesn’t get the fiscal house in order, it is a one term proposition. He will find that out in November. Enough is enough.
Libby, your ignorance is astounding. Is the brainwashing you received in school that bad? How about these for facts! Bush did go after Al Quida and the Taliban who supported them in Afghanistan. He never went after Iran as no other President has as well. There is a difference between Iraq and Iran by the way. There were 17 different resolutions in the wonderful UN that said WMD’s were in Iraq and Sadam intended to use them. Every major intelligence agency in the world said the same thing. By the time action happened, they gave Sadam enough time to squirrel them away into Syria who now has them and is threatening to use them if they are attacked. You must be related to Planet in some way to just spout off untruths like they are gospel. Wake up.
Of course I meant to say Iraq. I won’t bother to respond to the rest of your post. It’s too preposterous.
August 9, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby, your brain is so muddled that you can’t recognize the truth when you see it. Your apologist President would have kneeled to Al Quida and begged them not to attack us again. They killed over 3,000 of our citizens and we aren’t supposed to retaliate for that atrocity????? He had every right to go after these subhumans. Actually, the Democrats did step forward and join hands with Republicans to go after the evildoers. That didn’t last very long, but we had a brief period of national unity and patriotism when faced with this threat. Wake up and smell the coffee.
August 10, 2012 at 8:19 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
He didn’t go after the people responsible. They were mostly from Saudi Arabia, with which he had/has strong ties through oil. Saddam Hussein was a terrible despot, but Bush misrepresented information in order to justify a war with Iraq because he had his own agenda. Iraq was not responsible for 9/11. My brain is not muddled at all.
Libby, Are you getting your opinions from The View or Rosie O’Donnell and her Truther crowd? Al Quida was responsible for 9/11 and they were holed up in Afghanistan and supported by the equally evil Taliban. Iraq was an entirely new problem with the evil Saddam and his sons threatening every country in the area. He had already used WMD’s on his own people (Kurds) and in a prior war with Iran. The mistake we made was not taking him out in the first Gulf War. There was a great amount of debate about what to do with Iraq with the UN, intelligence services all over the world. They passed resloution after resolution, somewhere around 17 condemning his regime, imposing sanctions and demanding inspection of his facilities, all met with defiance. Bush did ask for Congressional approval to act and your Democratic friends in Congress signed off on it so don’t tell me he was acting just on his own agenda. Your President did an Executive Order to act without Congressional approval in Libya to take out Kadafi so Europe could reclaim their oil supplies. Meanwhile, he does nothing about Syria who is slaughtering thousands of their own people to keep the evil despot in power. He has supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt who has the chief goal of wiping out Israel. How do you think that will work out for peace in the area? This is my history lesson for the day. I know you won’t believe it, but if you did basic research, you can verify it.
August 10, 2012 at 11:00 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Here’s my history lesson for you: During a speech in a special joint session of the U.S. Congress given on 11 September 1990, U.S. President George H. W. Bush summed up the reasons (for the Gulf war) with the following remarks: “Within three days, 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then that I decided to act to check that aggression.”
The Gulf war was only an attempt by Bush to support his good buddies in oil, the Saudis. Saudi Arabia paid over 1/2 of the entire expense of that war.
The only reason Dubya invaded Iraq is to finish what his daddy started and didn’t quite finish. He used misleading (untrue) intelligence (propaganda) to coax the entire world into supporting his agenda.
Unfortunately, there are many atrocities going on all over the world and yet the U.S. does not declare war with those countries. Iraq was no great threat, with or without WMD’s, to the U.S. (That would be Iran &/or North Korea.)
Wake up yourself!
August 10, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Funny Libby, remind me where Osama Bin Laden was found. (Here’s a hint, it was in the Axis of Evil Bush talked about)
Our intel was correct on where Osama was, and when later checked into, several countries did harbor the people responsible for 9/11 and we could have caught Bin Laden sooner.
Saddam did harbor terrorists. Saddam did refuse to allow us to check for those terrorists. We asked him if we could check, and Saddam would not allow us. We asked Saddam to allow us to check his weapons program and he would not allow us. He literally said it would be an act of war if we did. So we told him we would check, we would check into his acts against humanity, and if he so chose to have that an act of war then it was an act of war. When we reply to an ultimatum direclty from Saddam that does not make us the ones at fault.
I feel I must reiterate: Bush was not going after and finishing a war his daddy started. It was not for oil.
August 10, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I know what happened and how it happened. How does anything you just said refute it? Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, where the majority of Al Quida responsible for 9/11 were hiding. What does that have to do with the war on Iraq? I know what I said and I stand by it. You may find it funny if you like.
When we later checked into it, there were over half a million mass graves in Iraq.
This is not a reason to go to war with Iraq? When Bush says this is one of the reasons he went to war with Iraq you would rather somehow link him to oil? You are literally insane if you think a president would ever to go war for Oil or Energy, democrat or republican. I know Al Gore has energy tendencies. Same with Obama. I know Al Gore has ownership in green energy companies. I am however not dumb enough to state that he would start a war to go after China who has the world’s most precious metals which would be used for green energies which we don’t have access to.
Just because a link exists, does not mean the link was used. You have to prove the link was used. You have not.
You have to show there was no reason to go to war with Iraq. There was. Half a million worth of Iraqis, and a dictator telling us we couldn’t search his country for terrorists which we had intel (which was correct) detailing where those terrorists were. You’re absolutely right, the war wasn’t directly about Al Quieda. Saddam made damn sure that we could not directly pursue Al quieda, and we made damn sure he went down.
Osama was found in the Axis of Evil, and intel Bush had, showed that he was likely in Iraq, and than Pakistan. Guess what? The intel was right.
What do you know, Bush’s intel was right, therefore your attempt at stating he had no reason to go after Iraq, and no reason to declare Pakistan part of the axis of evil was incorrect.
When the intel went along and was accurate and Bush followed that intel, we see that he didn’t use the intel. The intel used and lead him.
August 10, 2012 at 2:39 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Also note that further showing the consistency of Bush going after Osama, note that Bush resfused to close Guantanamo, and said the terrorists there were leading him to Osama.
Note this line in the article I showed you:
“The U.S. learned four years ago that Bin Laden was hidden with the help of the courier and his brother. It took two more years for the intelligence community to get the couriers names, senior administration said–and where they lived. One of the couriers was a “protégé” of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a mastermind of the 9-11 attacks. He is being held in the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba”
When it looks like a duck, leads to the capture of Osama, and the ultimate plan works, it is what it is. You are twisting reality.
August 10, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
There were as many deaths at the hands of Idi Amin and I did’t see us going to war with Uganda. $100,000 in Bosnia and no war. I could go on. So, no, I do not support that was the reason for the war. You blindly believe your idiot Dubya. I’m just glad he’s finally gone.
August 10, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby: I am glad we finally proved you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I do not ever make a statement which was not heavily researched with common sense, and with a painstakingly large amount of research.
I know when I’m debating with someone who has not done the same. It becomes clear, because they don’t get the big picture. When you cannot even correctly name the country of which Osama was found, the most basic of details, the intel which lead to that capture, the name of the person and his location who gave the intel, and the intel surrounding the capture, as well as why we went to war with Iraq (which is tied to said info) then no, you didn’t do your research, and no, you do not know what you’re talking about.
Before my father died he would commently proudly of the fact that no one, and I mean no one, does as much unbiased research into this as me.
I actually walked into a research more recently going from Politico, MSNBC, as well as NY Times comparing info regarding an action made by Obama I agreed with. My father was proud because I did not walk in assuming what I wanted to believe.
You have assumed what you wanted to believe regarding this war, and it has influenced your ability to research it.
Don’t debate on a topic if you do not know the details.
Thank you and good night.
August 10, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You keep bringing different topics into the conversation as if we were talking about them. We weren’t talking about Osama bin Laden or Pakistan or the Axis of Evil. They are not pertinent to the discussion?
August 10, 2012 at 2:48 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
They are pertinent to the bigger picture.
They are the reasons we went to war. You stated Iraq had nothing to do with the war and we went after the wrong people. You stated Bush went to war regarding oil and didn’t have a reason.
I showed why Iraq was the right country to go after. I showed that they issued an ultimatum when we chased after Osama. The intel showed Osama was in Iraq before Pakistan. We had intended on chasing him there. Saddam not only stopped us, he demanded we go to war if we wanted to inspect. So we did.
Big picture Libby. Big picture.
August 10, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And further: The reason I must debate with you like this is because you are clueless to most these facts.
In order to believe Bush went to war for Oil you must first prove he did not go to war for the reasons I listed. You must show we truly were duped and had no reason to go to war. You must prove his intel was wrong, which you said he was wrong and lied about. But he was right about Osama, which is one of the reasons we wanted to inspect Iraq. He was right about the mass graves we found, another reason we wanted to inspect Iraq. He was right on all but the WMD’s, which were in development (which means half right). The intel was correct and he acted on it. Yet you state he lied, he lied, he did an unfounded war, it wasn’t about Al Queida (despite intel showing that it was very much so about getting Bin Laden) etc.
Your credibility is moot.
August 10, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I am not debating you. I am stating my opinion. I am happy your father was so proud of you. Would he be proud of the way you have conducted yourself in your exchanges with me? Doubtful. There is way to impart knowledge in a way that is going to get someone to listen to you. You do not have that skill. You are a smarty pants know-it-all that gains satisfaction from trying to humiliate and demean people you believe are below your above-average intellegence. There is nothing to be proud about that. So you know your shit? So what? There is more to dealing with people in this life than regurgitating facts and figures and insulting others that may not be as knowledgable. I can still have an opinion. I do not need to substantiate it to you what you call research. I would rather have a thoughtful exchange with someone that respectfully presents their argument in a polite manner and allows me to respond. You are a jerk.
August 10, 2012 at 3:00 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Wrong. I have acted pretty well in this convo, considering you presented yourself as someone who was a know it all and presented me as someone putting words in your mouth every time your misspoke.
Coming into a conversation believing you are right regardless of facts (you) and mistating information and believing it’s ok to do that (you) is not a proper way to debate.
I’m not a “smarty pants” and the one who debates like a child throws out the phrase “smarty pants”. Yes. I do know my shit. Calling someone who doesn’t make me a jerk. You barging in stating comments that are not researched does however make you a jerk.
And believing those unresearched beliefs, and hating another to the point of calling them bastards for making the action (which you have not researched, ergo unfounded hate, comparable to racism) is not any more ok just because it’s against Bush and not a black man. Hate with unfounded facts are not ok. And I will defend Bush from your “hate” crimes until the day I die. As I would a black man from hate crimes.
I see you and most democrats as no different when it comes to hating bush for unresearched info.
August 10, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
For some reason my comment did not post regarding Uganda.
Uganda did not have 16 un sanctions which were specifically put in place for said killing, and to allow us to inspect their country. We had the right to inspect to see if he was killing his own people. Clinton passed that right. We had the right to inspect for the terrorists. Saddam threatened us with war if we came in.
We didn’t start the war. We said we were coming in. When we came in he fought with us. He didn’t have to. He could have said, I cave, go ahead and search.
If you have a problem with the sanctions that allowed for the war go complain to Clinton who put them in place.
August 10, 2012 at 3:07 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You’re right. I’m wrong. Happy now? Then shut up, please.
August 10, 2012 at 3:57 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Hey Libby, If Bush went to war with Iraq to get their oil, how come not one drop of their oil has been sent to this country for payment of our blood and treasure? Had Donald Trump been in charge, he said he would have demanded payment for our sacrifices. We have kept on buying that expensive middle east oil for decades, meanwhile sitting on the largest reserves in the world and not being developed. I am afraid our politicians on both sides of the aisle have IQ’s in the 50’s which is somewhere between and idiot and an imbecile. This country should never have a balance of payments deficit when it comes to energy. We also shouldn’t be into using up our depleted corn crop to produce ethanol which is far less efficient and certainly more expensive. We should also not be funding any more failed green energy projects which have cost the taxpayers dearly. Wind and Solar was never expected to produce more than 5% of our energy needs. If this country ever wakes up and realizes we need to be energy independent and makes it a national priority like we did in the 60’s with the moon landing, we could do it because we are America and all things are possible for men and women of good will.
August 10, 2012 at 4:02 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I never said he went to war with Iraq to get their oil. I said he went in to finish the job his daddy started, which was to protect the Saudis from Iraq since they have been and continue to be in bed together.
August 10, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Protecting what’s his. Not ours. Plain and simple.
August 10, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And I qoute:
“The Gulf war was only an attempt by Bush to support his good buddies in oil, the Saudis. Saudi Arabia paid over 1/2 of the entire expense of that war.”
Yes you did Libby. I have to assume that you know that Saudi Arabia is our number 2 or 1 provider of oil depending on the year (Switched between Canada, which Obama denied the Keystone Oil Project therefore ensuring we rely on Saudi Arabia for oil, so who is friends with Saudis Libby? You need to start seeing the Big Picture.) so I have to assume you meant it was for oil.
Libby, we would debate with you more friendly as you desire if you were not so clearly making statements that were questionable when you were cornered in debate.
Agent: I kind of feel sorry for her at this point. I don’t doubt her intentions. Clearly she is trying to be against people she perceives as wrong. Maybe we can make sure she knows we don’t hate her. We just don’t like the bad situations.
August 10, 2012 at 6:02 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Protecting what’s his. Not ours. Plain and simple.”
You have absolutely no evidence to substantiate this claim.
And more importantly: The oil isn’t his. He gets no money for it. None. Zip. Nada.
August 14, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Oh! And let’s not forget Cheney’s ties to Haliburton. Don’t even get me started on that old crook.
August 9, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Two words Planet: Mathmatically, impossible.
$800 billion in 2 years? That’s 400 billion a year. Another $4 trillion in 2 years is 2.4 trillion in two years. That is as much as the total revenues we brougt in was 2.3 trillion in 2011.
Are you trying to state that a bump up of a few points is going to make our revenues go up in double?
Tax revenues in 2000: 2 trillion Tax revenues in 2007: 2.56 trillion.
Now here is why the numbers are relevant: 2007 tax revenues of 2.56 trillion are higher than 2011. Why? The economy. The tax revenues compared to GDP is an irrelvant stastic due to this comparison. We clearly see that similar GDP amounts can produce different results depending on the overall strength of the economy and the amount of employed persons. This is clearly proven in that the GDP numerically is stronger now than during 2007 (literally higher) and yet the revenues are considerably below 2007 levels with a lower GDP numerical aspect.
The CBO has been wrong in nearly every projection they have ever had, including Bush’s estimates. Bush’s tax cuts did not cause revenue drops. The economy did. It is clearly visible that when the economy improved so did the revenues.
Bob, It was pretty excruciating to see how you dismantled all her arguments until she screeched that you were right and she was wrong and now you can shut up. Oops! You will have a tougher time with Planet since he is now busy posting all the vile hate against Bush stuff he can find. These are the same people that are calling Romney a murderer. It is abominable and way beneath Planet to do this, but he can’t win the argument so just resort to hate rhetoric.
And more importantly why those numbers are relevant: 2.0 as compared to 2.56 is actually a 25% increase in revenues in comparison to before. As shown in my last numbers, revenues do not always increase proportionately work out. If they did, Obama’s revenues would be equal to 2007 levels, considering the taxes and the GDP are nearly the same, and yet there is a substantial gap. CBO estimates on missed out taxes are always false, should never be listened to, and are stastics you should not be using. Ever. At all.
I find it concerning that we are copying Taxachusetts healthcare system which is a huge burden for the state and full of fraud. It is not nicknamed “Taxachusetts for nothing. I also find it amusing that D uses medicare as a success story when Barry Soetoro/Obama is going to take at least $500 Billion out of Medicare to pay for Obamacare while shifting money to medicaid to take care of the deadbeat illegals and other malingerers.
I’m so tired of the illegals and medicare/medicaid argument. Illegals are not eligible for medicare or medicaid except in an emergency situation, which is humane in the least. And as far as deadbeat goes, most illegals are here in this country to work so they can send money home to their families. They end up doing all the work most Americans will not do at wages most wouldn’t accept.
If you look at the problems in Europe it is a tell tale sign for the US. Those countries moved to big government controlling big spending on socialized medicine, pensions and other socialized programs (medicaid, wic, adc etc) and many are on the verge of bankruptcy because of it. So what happens? The country gets to a point where they can’t fund the freebies. They have to cutback or stop some programs. Then the Tattooed, body pierced, dope smoking, I phone and medicaid receiving throng, protest, riot etc because those that work can’t give anymore or have quit giving or moved their money offshore or moved to a country that is more work ethic oriented.
Truth hurts about Bush, I know. Actually, I’d go further and say it’s Reagan’s fault.
On another note, I see your comment about service for the country and I would like to thank you for it. We may not see eye-to-eye on many topics, but I think we can agree on that one. My dad served, too. I also have some very close friends who have served in various branches. God willing, they are all healthy and doing well these days. Well, my dad has been battling skin cancer for a number of years but he’s on the up-and-up these days.
Captain: I’m going to debate with you about Bush, and I’ll guarantee you I know more about him and the collapse. Here’s a hint: Look at the CRA ratings for Leahman Brothers, WAMU, Country Wide Financial, Goldman Sachs, and the main institutions which failed. Look at their 2007 (or 2006 when 2007 is not available, not all have a 2007 rating) CRA ratings and more importantly the WHY THEY WERE GIVEN THE RATING. Leahman brothers gave out almosst 15% of their loans to people at poverty level with “little to no proof of income documentation” with a median loan of $212,000. They were praised for it in their rating, because they were giving low income loans. It was not about race, or discrimination, it was about giving low income high risk loans with little to no income documentation You tell me what’s wrong with those numbers. Obama sued citibank in the 90’s for red lining against low income borrowers. Then they collapsed in the future for giving those loans. Democrats tripped this whole nation into the gutter and you constantly blame it on republicans, because of class warfare tar. Not all loans are CRA loans, but every company was pushed for a high CRA rating. WAMU exploded by 20 locations in 7 years because you could only operate as certain types of banks (due to democrat regulations) with a high CRA rating. It was not only documented in their online government CRA rating, (look it the @#%#@ up for every company who failed or almost failed and see what you think about the read) and then tell me Bush caused the recession. When you finally do some actual research, you will then find that Bush sought to set up a program which would allow for private and government social security. The only president who was moderate enough to do so. You will also find he did quite a bit in many areas, and stopped not one, but two recessions with his tax cuts rather than fighting with congress every two seconds, he was able to get bipartisan support on numerous ocassions, even including the Iraq war. Which whether you disagree with or not EVERY democrat agreed with, and we followed BRITISH intelligence to start not American as well as 16 UN sanctions put in place by Clinton. Bush was an above average president.
Libby, Illegals do get medicaid and plenty of it. If you show up at a medicaid office here they have signs in English and Spanish. If you are a white male and need help you don’t get it. If you are an “undocumented worker” you get $500.00 in emergency assistance and moved to the head of the line for medicaid benefits. I know, my brother (an American citizen)who has had 3 back surgeries and no income (his company filed bankruptcy) could not get any assistance except from me. The illegals standing behind him in line got cash and medicaid.
As far as doing work in the US? They are a drain on our economy. If we cut off able bodied workers from medicaid and welfare we they would go to work and the illegals would have to go home. Besides that I will pay an extra quarter for fruit or vegatables
MEDICAID AND SCHIP ELIGIBILITY RULES FOR IMMIGRANTS
The passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in 1996 changed
the eligibility requirements for immigrants, making it more
difficult for immigrants, especially those newly arrived in the
U.S., to obtain Medicaid coverage. For the first time, the
1996 law tied legal immigrants’ eligibility for Medicaid to their
length of residency in the U.S. These restrictions also
applied to SCHIP, which was established in 1997. The
following summarizes Medicaid and SCHIP eligibility rules
for immigrants today.
Most immigrants are subject to a five-year bar on
eligibility. Legal permanent residents (immigrants with
green cards) are ineligible for Medicaid or SCHIP during their
first five years in the U.S. After five years, they become
eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP if they meet the programs’
other eligibility requirements. Some immigrants are exempt
from the bar and are eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP
regardless of their length of residence. These include
refugees and most other humanitarian immigrants as well as
active-duty members or veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces
and their families. In 2004, 22 states and the District of
Columbia used state funds to provide coverage to some
immigrants ineligible for Medicaid and SCHIP.
Undocumented immigrants and immigrants in the U.S.
on a temporary basis (e.g., have temporary work visa or
student visa) are generally ineligible for Medicaid and
SCHIP. Regardless of their length of residence in the U.S.,undocumented and temporary immigrants are ineligible for
Medicaid and SCHIP. This restriction was in place prior to
PRWORA and remains in place today.
States can use SCHIP funds to provide prenatal care to
pregnant women, regardless of their immigration status.
In 2002, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services,
which administers the SCHIP program, amended the SCHIP
regulations to provide states with the option of providing
SCHIP-funded prenatal care without applying an immigration
test. The rule extends SCHIP eligibility to a pregnant
woman’s fetus, which does not have an immigration status
and is not subject to the restrictions. Currently, seven states
provide SCHIP-funded prenatal care to pregnant immigrant
women.
Emergency treatment is available to all immigrants,
regardless of their status. Legal and undocumented
immigrants who meet all eligibility requirements except for
the immigrant eligibility restrictions are eligible for
Emergency Medicaid, which covers the costs of emergency
medical treatment. Additionally, the Emergency Medical
Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) requires hospitals to
screen and stabilize all individuals, including immigrants,
who seek care in an emergency room.
My father did two tours in Vietnam, one in Korea, and is now dead because of Agent Orange. I am very proud of the service given by any service man and meant no disrespect. My apologies.
My brother witnessed it and called me to complain that I talked him into going down to what he called “Mexican Village”. They are illegals when the medicaid worker, behind the counter asks;
Are you an American citizen- Nada
Are you in the US under a visa or green card- Nada
Do you have children with you- Si. No children were with them.
Do you need emergency assistance- Si
Do you have work- no answer.
By the way this was done thru an interpreter as they spoke 0 english
Actually, no in Spanish is no, not nada. So, unless you are paraphrasing, which you might be, I don’t think your brother heard the conversation right. Also, if it was done through an interpreter, and if your brother doesn’t speak Spanish, how would he know what was being asked? Obviously, now you’ll say you are paraphrasing and your brother is fluent. Which he might be. I’m certainly not calling you a liar.
I know I’ll be made to be the crazy one here, but 0 English doesn’t really bother me. So what?
Your brother calls it, “Mexican Village”? Awfully white of him to generalize and stereotype like that. I’m sorry, that’s just not right on many levels. I wonder what all of the connotations are meant by such a comment. I have a number of guesses.
I think just the employee was behind the counter, according to the story. But, it doesn’t really matter. Sgt’s brother sounds pretty jaded to me, actually worse than that, potentially owns a rebel flag. Regardless, I know what Jesus would do. This is a “Christian nation” supposedly, right? Founded on Christian principles? He’d turn these people away for not speaking the predominant language of the land. He’d tell these people to starve and get diseases. Jesus a humanitarian? Yeah, right! He never helped…oh, wait…
Shame on you Planet for your ugly post about Sargents brother. It is beneath your normally uninformed posts. I guess this is the new game plan. If you can’t win an argument, you just resort to ugly inuendo just like Libby does.
A guy calls a Medicaid office “Mexican Village” and I’m the ugly one? Okay. C’mon, Agent. I hope you wouldn’t do the same. There is no game plan, just opinions. Hence, blog.
Planet, No one invited people to break our immigration laws to come here illegally and collect benefits from this country. That is reserved for citizens of this country which Sargents brother was by the way. He was expressing frustration that they were getting benefits reserved for our citizens. These people all need to be loaded up on a bus and sent back and told to do it the right way like immigrants have been doing since our country was founded. They have no right to Social Security, Medicaid, Food Stamps or any other benefit that our country provides to its citizens. I don’t feel a bit guilty about this. Call me a cold hearted Conservative all you want. These people are a major problem for this country.
I challenge you to take a look at how immigration has, um, ‘developed’ since our country was founded. A bit more convoluted these days. I think you’d probably say the government is getting in the way. Thousands of dollars and years of time are spent. Back when the country was founded, I think you just signed your name.
Agent – get off your high horse. There is nothing ugly about using the word jaded. Using a term like “Mexican Village” to describe the local assistance office is ugly. And how about lumping all people receiving assistance (as his brother was attempting to do) as “Tattooed, body pierced, dope smoking, I phone and medicaid receiving throng”? That sounds kind of ugly to me. Point out one thing I have posted that is your definition of ugly. You can’t.
Actaully Captain and libby my brother was standing next to the “Spanish speaking undocumented worker”. The Medicaid worker would ask the questions in english and a person who came with the “spanish speaking undocumented worker” would interpret the question in spanish. then the “spanish speaking undocumented worker” would answer and shake his head and the interpreter would answer in english. That is how he knew.
It took my brother, a person who is 1. a US citizen, 2. someone who has paid into Social Security for 20 or more years, 3. who has never asked for a dime of unemployment and often worked two jobs; it took him 3 years to get any kind of Social Security benefits and he had to get an attorney. In the meantime he had surgery after surgery and could not get released by his doctors to do any work. I sent him money to live on or he would have been either homeless or living with me. I think that just maybe we should take care of our own citizens first, before taking care of anyone else.
I agree with that, but wouldn’t that make your brother part of a Tattooed, body pierced, dope smoking, I phone and medicaid receiving throng? My point is, not all people on assistance are lazy or trying to scam the system. I have a sister on SSD (with help from an attorney) and a good friend that sounds alot like your brother who is in the process of going through a hearing after his first denial, again, with the help of a lawyer. It just doesn’t seem logical to me that 3 U.S. citizens with legitimate disabilities have such difficulty, but illegal aliens are given benefits with no questions asked. Maybe emergency assistance, but not any steady kind of assistance or medical care. I just don’t believe that.
Man, if only we had some sort of healthcare system in this country so even with surgery after surgery, you didn’t need to ask family for money. #1 cause of bankruptcy in this country? Medical costs.
Off the soapbox point, I hope your brother is doing better and I agree, we should be helping citizens first. That’s only logical.
We’d rock it! Probably be a lot of tattoed, body pierced, dope smoking fans out there. I’m good with that. Our first album will be titled “Republican’t”.
Another popular name is “Demoncrat”. That is what we are dealing with now. Within minutes after Romney named Ryan as his VP nominee, they just couldn’t stand it and ran the Granny off the cliff ad depicting Ryan pushing her off the cliff in a wheelchair. That’s pretty typical of what they will do to “demonize” a Conservative. Not to worry. Ryan has a titanium spine and will hold his own.
August 9, 2012 at 4:26 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You can’t even agree with me on a joke! You really do need to lighten up Francis.
Libby,are you talking about Francis the talking A$$? That is your mascot, not mine. Mine is a giant elephant with a long memory. I remember when we had the greatest country the world has ever known before the Progressive movement corrupted minds like yours into believing their agenda and that we needed to re-distribute the wealth, let any illegal into the country and give them our treasure and try to spend our way to prosperity. How did that work out for the country? You and Planet think the government and this President is great and he thinks the private sector is doing just “fine”. What a warped view of how things really are.
I was talking about the movie, Stripes. You really should chill out and laugh once in while. I think you and Bob need to untwist the panties and take a deep breath. We can all agree to disagree and still be civil, if not friendly.
So Libby, You and Planet have spent numerous posts insulting Sargent, his brother, Bob & I and now you want to make nice and tell us to lighten up. You even intimated that Sargent took some shrapnel to the head for his views. Your belated apology rings hollow. We will be much more lighthearted when the Progressives you idolize are swept out of office in November and we can start restoring this country to greatness once again. The country has been in a death spiral for about 10 years now and I blame both parties for it. It is time for a reversal of direction.
Don’t mistake my posts for trying to “make nice” with you. I’m trying to point out how uptight and fanatical you sound. And my apology was to Sargent Major and only Sargent Major. Your opinion of it means nothing to me.
August 10, 2012 at 10:13 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I didn’t insult anyone. I pointed out Sgt’s brother referred to the Medicaid office as “Mexican Village” and that is a pretty white statement. Plain and simple. If anyone was insulting, it is the brother, not me. I didn’t say, “Mexican Village”.
Good luck in November, Agent. See you at the polls. And yes, both parties are to blame.
August 10, 2012 at 9:10 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You call me Francis and I’ll kill you. Yeah, I got it. I don’t think Agent has seen the movie.
There are people who need assistance, that was my point which obviously, you missed. That said there is a large amount of inconsistency, ineptness on the part of those who administer the program and a large amount of fraud. That was also my point. As far as the description of being tattooed- My sister is a nurse. Since the inner city general receiving hospital closed (went broke because of the amount of non paying walk ins and the large percentage of medicaid patients) many of these patients have been coming to her suburban hospital to deliver babies. According to he they are all on medicaid. She is shocked to see a high percentage of patients and their families who are able bodied tattooed with body piercings, implants, jewelry, expensive clothing and shoes etc. She said most have phones/PDAa that are better than the one she has and they smoke like chimneys outside the hospital. Not only that many of the family members want the hospital to give them a free pass for food at the hospital which is refused.
So how is it that this much understood group of needy recipients have the money for all the above but can’t seem to find a job to pay for it? There is far to much fraud in the system
I agree there is fraud and it should be addressed. I just don’t like to hear sweeping generalizations of entire classes of people. It’s offensive. Let’s hear some ideas/suggestions about cleaning it up, that would be more constructive.
Amen, Libby. We should be talking about solutions. That’s where a conversation can be had. Parties may not agree on the solutions, but at least the discussion is fruitful. Think of the small group exercises from school. Different mindsets combining to mix up a bowl of problem solution, hypothetical or not. We really should try that approach more often rather than simply point fingers, jump up and down, and scream, “I’m right, you’re evil!”
Trust me Libby. Evil is not good and it is not right. I recommend you & your cohort Planet Google Milton Friedman on the net. He was probably the most brilliant economist of the 20th Century and wrote the book Capitalism & Freedom. Watch the video of his interview with Phil Donahue. There may still be time for you to learn about the evils of Progressive Socialism and Big Government.
Libby, you and Planet could do us a favor and stop with the wisecracks and jokes on this forum. You obviously don’t have anything meaningful to post and your ideas lack substance and style. Bob is very analytical and backs up his statements just like Sargent does. You should open your mind up instead of just blogging nonsense. I again refer you to google Milton Friedman, but you seem to be lost in your Progressive dogma.
And just because my ideas don’t conform with yours, does not mean they are not meaningful and lack substance OR style. My style is humor if you haven’t noticed. Bob can analyze all the numbers he wants, it doesn’t make them right. We all know how numbers can be manipulated to prove a point. I don’t need “facts” and “figures” or history lessons from you or Bob. I’m here for a HEALTHY exchange of ideas, not a bunch of rhetoric from the likes of you and Bob.
The facts on Iraq and the DOD were correct. And if being hate filled toward Bush is ok as long as you have style while you are wrong so is being hate filled toward blacks. You were wrong I’m our argue meant and didn’t even know where Osama was killed. Obama was going to close gitmo. He didn’t. Eer wonder why? He received the information on Osama as per the post I showed you stating Bush was right and they had a lead on Osama. This isn’t an opinion. It came out of Obama’s mouth. But since Obama decided gitmo was good it’s good right? With Bush it’s just because he’s completing his daddy’s war. That is not style Libby. That’s classless literally rhetoric. My facts are facts. You just don’t like them. And they are right
I am filled with rage over the way the Bush family has used their political power for personal gain:
BUSH’S PERSONAL FINANCIAL TIES TO SAUDIS RUN DEEP: According to various sources, Bush has been awash in Saudi money for years. Journalist/author Craig Unger in his new book “House of Bush, House of Saud” traced millions “in investments and contracts that went from the Saudis over the past 20 years to companies in which the Bushes and their allies have had prominent positions – Harken Energy, Halliburton, and the Carlyle Group among them.” According to the Boston Herald, that includes a $1 million gift from Prince Bandar to the Bush Presidential Library in Texas.
WAS BCCI’S INDICTED PRINCIPAL A BUSH BUSINESS BACKER?: Author Kevin Phillips, a top Republican strategist under President Nixon, reported in his new book, “Bush made his first connection in the late 1970s with James Bath, a Texas businessmen who served as the North American representative for two rich Saudis (and Osama bin Laden relatives) – billionaire Salem bin Laden and banker and BCCI insider Khalid bin Mahfouz. Bath put $50,000 into Bush’s 1979 Arbusto oil partnership, probably using bin Laden-bin Mahfouz funds.” Also of interest: Former CIA Director James Woolsey testified to the Senate on 9/3/98 that Mafouz’s sister was married to Osama bin Laden. And according to the conservative American Spectator, “Bush has given conflicting statements about Bath’s investment in Arbusto, finally admitting to the Wall Street Journal that he was aware that Bath represented Saudi investors.”
BUSH CAMPAIGN TIES TO THE SAUDIS: A 12/11/01 Boston Herald report found that “a powerful Washington, D.c=, law firm with unusually close ties to the White House has earned hefty fees representing controversial Saudi billionaires as well as a Texas-based Islamic charity fingered last week as a terrorist front.” The influential law firm of Akin, Gump, whose partners “include one of President Bush’s closest Texas friends, James C. Langdon, and Bush fundraiser George R. Salem,” has represented three wealthy Saudi businessmen – BCCI’s Mahfouz, Mohammed Hussein Al-Amoudi and Salah Idris – “who have been scrutinized by U.S. authorities for possible involvement in financing Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network.”
WHY THESE TIES ARE IMPORTANT: Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, told the Boston Herald “that these intricate personal and financial links have led to virtual silence in the administration on Saudi Arabia’s failings in dealing with terrorists like bin Laden” and in oil policy. He said, “It’s good old fashioned ‘I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine.’ You have former U.S. officials, former presidents, aides to the current president, a long line of people who are tight with the Saudis, people who are the pillars of American society and officialdom. So for that and other reasons no one wants to alienate the Saudis, and we are willing to basically ignore inconvenient truths that might otherwise cause our blood to boil. We basically look away. Folks don’t like to stop the gravy train.”
As President Bush today squeezes in a visit to a 9/11 memorial as part of a fundraising trip, his Administration is coming under increasing pressure to explain its close relationship with a “Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.” Just yesterday, Newsday reported the family of the FBI’s late counterterrorism chief who was killed in the 9/11 attacks “filed lawsuits Wednesday accusing Saudi Arabia of aiding terrorists worldwide.” And today, an explosive excerpt from the new book “House of Bush, House of Saud” examines how top White House officials orchestrated the post-9/11 exodus of Osama bin Laden’s relatives before U.S. law enforcement officers could ask them for critical details about the Al Qaeda leader and his terror network. Meanwhile, Time Magazine reports “the Saudis still appear to be protecting charities associated with the royal family” which funnel money to terrorists. And yet, despite all this, President Bush has continued to praise Saudi Arabia, has invited Saudi government leaders to his Crawford mansion, and in general is far “cozier than most [Presidents] to Riyadh.” As Vanity Fair noted, “the Bush-Saudi relationship raises serious questions, if only because it is so extraordinary for two presidents to share such a long and rich personal history with any foreign power” – especially one that has been so closely implicated in the 9/11 attacks. And despite the calls to get tough, Time Magazine concludes that the Administration’s all-too-close ties to the Saudi royal family makes “it seem unlikely that the Bush Administration will adopt a tougher policy toward Riyadh.”
I could go on, but you will just argue with me that these are not facts and only the information you present is fact.
August 13, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Do you have any idea how many people try to tie Saudi dealing to every president?
Your facts are not relevant because they are partisan B.S. politics, I could attempt the same connection with every president since Regan, and it still wouldn’t be true. You link a friend of a buddy of a friend, then state the action must have been made due to your intricate web of BS. Saudis and others have clearly been making investments into spreading their mentality here, to schools etc. They clearly have the right to do business with us. That’s their agenda. Not Bush. Your same president says and so do all democrats that we should not restrict business from Cuba or isolate countries. Bush does not make the decision to go after Saudi deals, Saudis go after him and other men of power, it’s a targetting technique to make us an enemy. You vastly underestimate the tactics of world leaders to tarnish other leaders. The leaders falsely believe that doing business with Obama, supporting him, or supporting Bush gives them power over us. And it does in a way give them power over you. All they have to Clearly, as Rudy Giuliani showed, it does not. You believe all they have to do is establish some business here that is with a friend of a president, and you will state the president is involved in roughly 20 businesses with Saudis. Bush or Obama or any president would not have the ability to map 20 business plans targetting Saudi Ties. One man would lack the business ability. And seeing as you democrats are clueless on business, it makes sense you think Bush could run and manage 20 or more businesses with hundreds (thousands) of people to get these deals.
My facts are relevant. They aren’t relevant to you because they do not support your position. There are deep ties between the Bush family and the Saudi royal family. And they have protected them in the past regardless of the fact that they had far stronger ties to Al Queda than Iraq did. Sorry, but your theory of this perfect Bush dynasty is a crock.
August 13, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Your facts are not relevant. I don’t question the facts. Your facts are in a way facts. The methodology has no sense Libby.
None. You have to make a web in order for them to come close to making sense. Using that same web, I can link Obama to the suadis as shown above. Or we can use other methodology, the one I presented which showed your facts are true of every president. And that’s odd is it not? If cannot be Bush it it is every president. Therefore the tie is not Bush. So my methodlogy is superior to yours. It has nothing to do with facts not meeting my agenda. It has everything to do with your methodology being half assed, a crock, and conspiracy theory oriented.
What personal &/or business connection does Obama have with the Saudis? The Bush connection goes far beyond any work on behalf of the U.S.
August 10, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I did google Friedman. And if I want to make a wisecrack I will. This is America, buddy. Why don’t you try saying something positive and constructive instead of the same old “Progressives are ruining this country” b.s. We are not all full of crap and actually have some interesting and insightful things to share, if you were open minded enough to listen without being on the attack all the time. You assume because I am liberal, I agree with everything democrat. I don’t necessarily, as I have a fine mind of my own and can make decisions and form opinions based on my own values. Thank you very much.
Libby, The reason I attack Progressivism vehemently is that I studied it thoroughly in college and have a degree in Economics. Progressive Socialism is insidious and is a massive failure everywhere it has been tried. Hand in hand with that theory is Keynsian Economics which trotted out the theory that excessive government spending actually helped the economy. That has also proven to be a massive failure and is right there before your eyes should you choose to open them. I was hoping against hope that a light bulb would light up over your’s and Planets head and you would see the light. However, I am inclined to accept Bob’s conclusion that you are both fools for believing that nonsense.
Libby,
Rush and Hannity tell America every day that liberals come from 1 mold and all think aliike. So, excuse Agent if he generalizes us. I’ve actually had some good discussions with him. We don’t agree on much, and that’s okay because we live in America and free exchange of ideas is encouraged. Bob made the comment “Bush was an above average President.” That tells me who I am dealing with so I know there is no way I am going to persuade him otherwise. So, what’s the point in addressing the figures? I’ll show him where he’s wrong but he won’t listen because I lean liberal. It’s okay, I have conservative friends that do the same thing. Then, we have a beer and move onto sports, movies, books, or something else.
And now, a quote about voting from the great Hunter S. Thompson:
“It ain’t much, but it’s the only weapon we have against the Greedheads.”
On voting, in “My 49er Habit” (4 November 2002), also published in Hey Rube : Blood Sport, the Bush Doctrine, and the Downward Spiral of Dumbness (2004)
Planet, You really need to google Milton Friedman and watch his discussion with poor Phil Donahue on greed. I have never seen such a complete destruction of a committed liberal. Friedman was a very great man and a brilliant economist. It is too bad you think like you do. So misguided and sad.
Making the statement that Bush was an above average president is accurate. You’re the one who has to prove Bush was bad. I’ve already shown how he did not cause this recession. I’ve already shown how his methods lead to the information which resulte in Osama bin laden’s death. I’ve already shown how he stoppe two recessions. I’ve already shown his tax deferred tax exempt accounts for people making under 90,000 a year, a combo which would have benefited the middle class. In the case of my father 150,000 dollars. I’ve already given the example of his private and public social security, as well as his increasing of coverage for Medicare part d which helped the elderly. You sir must point out why he was bad. The 2008 recession was indefinitely democrat created. No doubt. Look up the CRA ratings. Following his tax reductions for capital gains the stock market shot up and revenues went up as well. Those are good things. All Bush. Now make the bad please.
Haha. Other than you don’t know what you’re talking about regarding Iraq, Osama’s location of death, how the intel was obtained by Obama keeping gitmo open as per Bush’s legitimate reasoning to go after Osama im Iraq and Iran, thus showing he shared the reasoning of Obama not Saudi support, and other than me pointing out that Bush allowed you to make a choice outside of the government social security to retire, yeah I’m totally not proving anything. You are laughable. This is conspiracy theory all over it.
August 13, 2012 at 2:53 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You saying it doesn’t make it proof. I don’t care why Obama kept Gitmo open. Never mentioned it. Never mentioned Bush’s social security plan. You’re just blowing smoke with all your Bush trivia that no-one cares about. Nobody, including me, disputed Gitmo or social security. So you have “proved” nothing to me about anything I discussed on this blog. Blow hard.
August 13, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And regarding the costs of the Iraq war and the DOD budget, I find it interesting you didn’t address my comments about the use, and in the case of the Bush administration abuse, of supplemental appropriations to finance government operations, most notably the war in Iraq. What about that little factoid?
August 13, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby, when it looks like a duck it’s a duck.
The gitmo factoid is relevant as it shows two presidents knew the method of going after Osama involved the axis of evil.
The Iraq war was in response to a real situation which you have dispelled into a web of conspiracy. The facs are relevant. You’re just too ignorant to see why. I’m painting a picture of the real happening. Obama would have ended bush endeavours if they were fake. But they were not. Gitmo was a real attempt to get Osama. And it worked. Your link implied Bush let Osama go and had ties with that guy’s family. So my job is to show how he vehmently went after and killed Osama. Therefore, there were no ties there.
August 13, 2012 at 3:35 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
are you referring to the point where you amounteed 17 billion dollars of spending in Iraq? The one I replied with “Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
8
5And further: Calling you a fool (which you are being a fool) is not name calling.
You amounted 17 billion of the budget Obama spends to Bush, which is still his choice to send out and still part of the DOD budget.
Very bad way of trying to prove the point that Obama inherited a war deficit. He chooses to spend and it’s time you held him accountable.”
If so you have again lost track of this convo. If not, then you are not talking about when we were talking about the DOD budget. Overseas operations were 700 billion in my notes above regarding Obama. I put his 2012 budget up there. You mean the 700 billion used and abused by Obama? I would say I adressed it in the fact that every president has increased that amount, regardless of war. The over seas budget has steadily incresed and is higher now than the time period during Iraq. It’s part of the DOD. I already adressed it. You’re just too damn stupid to keep track of this convo. Side comment: I’m being an ass, but I do not tolerate smart ass-ism. Which you just pulled on me.
August 13, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Me saying it? How about you look it up yourself from a site whose goal is not to destroy the right?
Get it from a left side site if you choose. I showed you LA TIMES.
LA @#@ing TIMES. You do not get more liberal than LA times regarding Gitmo.
August 13, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
He had ties to the bin Laden family way, way before 9/11. I never said Bush didn’t go after Osama bin Laden. He did. He wasn’t at the wheel when he was caught (in Pakistan) but he did try to track him down. Not in dispute.
August 13, 2012 at 3:43 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
If he had ties with the family, then he would have actually had requirements with those ties that I don’t know, would involve not tracking the guy down to kill him.
Glad you agree on the other aspects, as they conflict with your theory that tie exist. No ties exist.
Also:
See below for the projected 2012 DOD budget without two wars:
DOD spending $707.5 billion Base budget + “Overseas Contingency Operations”
FBI counter-terrorism $2.7 billion At least one-third FBI budget.
International Affairs $5.6–$63.0 billion At minimum, foreign arms sales. At most, entire State budget
Energy Department, defense-related $21.8 billion
Veterans Affairs $70.0 billion
Homeland Security $46.9 billion
NASA, satellites $3.5–$8.7 billion Between 20% and 50% of NASA’s total budget
Veterans pensions $54.6 billion
Other defense-related mandatory spending $8.2 billion
Now Bush: In his FY 2003 budget, President Bush requested $10.1 billion for the Department’s baseline funding including $8.2 billion for acquisition and other requirements resulting from the Department’s experience in the global war on terrorism, $1.2 billion for increased air patrols in the continental United States, and $0.7 billion for implementation of the Nuclear Posture Review. Congress appropriated only $7 billion of the $10.1 billion requested. Congress did not appropriate the additional $10 billion the President requested as a contingency for FY 2003 incremental operations costs related to the global war on terrorism.”
The Iraq war was an extremely low amount of our global spending.
Here is the exchange where I mentioned appropriations:
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
7 6
See my above comment D. You’re wrong. The DOD spending is what covered the Iraq war. Prior years of DOD spending do not affect future years under Obama.
If we have X amount of military in Iraq getting paid in 2003, sending jets there and tanks, the cost goes in 2003. Not 2012.
It would be impossible to budget it 9 years in the future as you ignorantly suggest. You pay for it when you use it. The deficits back then did take the Iraq and Afghan war into consideration. It was part of the DOD budget.
Reply
August 9, 2012 at 1:08 pm Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
5 9
We continue to incur costs for both wars. Costs of returning vets needing care (estimated at $1 trillion), interest on loans used to fund direct costs, replacement equipment ($17B per year), and appropriations too numerous to mention.
August 13, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I just had to repost and add to said repost the section where I dealt with DOD spending regarding Iraq so it would get through your head.
Your credibility is extremely lacking.
August 13, 2012 at 3:50 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby:
I’m fully aware that was the area you were referring to. Now then, I already directed your 17 billion dollar comment.
17 billion which in most part was resigned and put into place in Obama’s budget. That is Obama’s choice. He did not have to do that spending. Now we are back to the arguement where you tried to state that those Bush funds were affecting Obama’s budget. Whereas I said Obama did not have to pass those funds. I already adressed this and will not a second time. Good to see how terrible you are at keeping track of the convo.
But apparently you are able to keep track of a Saudi conspiracy theory, which every president republican or democrat has been connected too, and then link it back to Bush. Good job on that genius detective work.
August 13, 2012 at 3:52 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Salem bin Laden, Osama’s older brother, was an investor in Arbusto Energy. – the Texas oil company started by George W. Bush. Arbusto means “Bush” in Spanish. When President George W. Bush froze assets connected to Osama bin Laden, he didn’t tell the American people that the terrorist mastermind’s late brother was an investor in the president’s former oil business in Texas. He also hasn’t leveled with the American public about his financial connections to a host of shady Saudi characters involved in drug cartels, gun smuggling, and terrorist networks. (Read BCCI)
August 13, 2012 at 3:58 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Deep Laden ties, so deep, that he’ll start a war to blow the guy up.
So deep that he’ll kill Laden’s family.
Ties so deep, that every president and member of congress including Rudy Guiliani, Bush, Obama, and several others shared these same ties, and somehow, all did business with Saudis in league with each other in conjunction with those bastards who had the nerve to sell real estate property to Saudis (Carlyle Group).
Yes, oh so very deep. Or shallow…business transactions that are normal between two countries going on between their country and our country all the time, not involving Bush, or Obama. You know, or that.
August 13, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Obama wouldn’t have to pay $17B for equipment repair if it was not for the war. That was my point, dummy.
August 13, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
A rich oil man, decided to invest into Bush’s oil company.
Wow. By that account if I buy stocks in Solyandra I must have Obama ties!
;)
The guy was after money of that I have no doubt. This does not make them in league.
August 13, 2012 at 4:01 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Obama does not have to pay for it period.
August 13, 2012 at 4:04 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
When I said going on between two countries even without Bush I meant there are others which have nothing to do with Bush or his profitablity.
There are thousands of businesses here doing business with Saudis.
I write an architect who has been doing architecture in Iraq since before 9/11. He’s had an uptick in billings (for obvious reasons) and Saudis love doing business with him. So…Is he in league with them? If he gave campaign dollars to Obama is Obama in league with Saudis? OH NO!!!
August 13, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
His bin Laden tie was with Osama’s brother many years ago. The brother was dead at the time Bush went after bin Laden. And of course he had to go after him. But that doesn’t mean that he did not try to protect Saudi’s by waging war with Iran. These were not normal business transactions when the 2 presidents, in the oil business, have personal and business ties with the same people involved in harboring and breeding terrorists. And waging war on a country that was a threat to their country. Not ours.
August 13, 2012 at 4:26 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’m referring to appropriations, not budgets.
On March 25, 2003, President Bush requested $74.8 billion in the FY2003 Emergency Supplemental for ongoing military operations in Iraq, postwar occupation, reconstruction and relief in Iraq, international assistance to countries contributing to the war in Iraq or the global war on terrorism, the cost of the
continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan, and additional homeland security. On April 12, 2003, the House and Senate passed the conference version of the FY2003 supplemental (H.R. 1559/H.Rept. 108-76/P.L. 108-11). It includes $78.49 billion, $3.7 billion more than requested by the President.
The largest fund proposed was $59.9 billion for the DOD’s Defense Emergency Response Fund that would cover the costs associated with the war in Iraq, the continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan, enhanced security at U.S. military bases, and postwar occupation in Iraq. The conference includes $15.7 billion in a new Iraq
Freedom Fund but distributes the remaining funds to specific accounts.
All not included in the budget. And that was just 2003. The costs of the war were higher than the budget indicates because of appropriations. I’m sure you will argue with me about it though.
August 13, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
An appropriation still shows in the budget.
And I want to see where it is. If the bill is paid, then the bill is paid. Show me your $1 trillion in veteran costs in our budget attributable directly to Iraq injuries.
I will not accept you stating aspects are not part of the budget without a link showing where they are.
August 10, 2012 at 9:37 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Hahaha. No. You don’t. You couldn’t even follow your own comments. The reasons you are liberal are based on fallacy. You are a joke.
Then we just let the military go to s*&t? Get real.
August 13, 2012 at 4:25 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The vet military healthcare and return comment you made was not in the military budget. And if you’re counting the entire cost of vets, that would include WWII, North Korea, and other wars. The trillion cost for returning vets I don’t even count considering it is not at one trillion for Iraq. You posted a clear and obvious lie and or untrue comment. You are claiming roughly 150,000 troops incurred 1 trillion in costs. 1/15th the cost of our entire health system, with .0004 the amount of total people. Yeah. That number makes sense doesn’t it?
So, when I gave you credit for 17 billion, I gave you credit for 17 billion that in no way lets our military go to 2#%$@#.
I did not make it up! In a hearing before the panel on Wednesday, Heidi Golding, an analyst with the Congressional Budget Office, testified that the annual cost of caring for veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would nearly triple or more in the next decade, rising to $5.5 billion to $8.4 billion in 2020, from $1.9 billion in 2010. And continue to grow after that. Estimating the long-term costs of those programs is a complex, contentious art, and no one inside the government does it beyond 10 years.
August 13, 2012 at 4:27 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I will continue to not count those numbers until you have a link showing those costs and where they are in the budget.
The trillion $ number was from a media source I found last week. I’ll track it down again if you insist. But regardless of the number, since no-one actually knows what it is, cost associated with vets from both wars will continue this year and for many years to come. The fact that they are in the budget does not discount the fact that they are costs incurred because of the war. Without the war, this money could have been spent on other things. That was the point being made and it’s irrefutable.
August 13, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So Bob, I see you are still having a running battle with Libby over our ties to the Saudi’s. I don’t remember seeing GW bow to his heels to the King, have you? We wouldn’t need a drop of their oil if politicians in this country ever decided to have a major push to develop our own enormous reserves. Instead, we get the failed green policy and have to fund numerous companies so they can fail a year later at taxpayer expense with few if any jobs created. We could have had 100,000 new jobs created by now if we had done Keystone and opened the permitting process on federal land, but instead we are trying to figure out how to get fuel from switchgrass, algae and cow manure. Somehow, I don’t think that will bring down the price at the pump which has been going up drastically the past 3 months.
There are pros and cons regarding both Friedman and Keynes. I am not an economist, as you are, but never professed to be one. From what I did discover per your advice, conservatives are turning away from Friedman and much of what he stated in his book you refer to is over 50 years old and not applicable to today’s society. And just let me clarify one thing. I am a liberal, not a socialist. There is a difference.
There are a lot of pros with Friedman and very few cons. On the other hand, there are a lot of cons with Keynes and very few pros. Friedman didn’t die until 2006 and actually, there has been a rebirth of his economic principles among Conservatives since the country started imploding with Progressive government programs and policies. There is a wealth of information on google about this outstanding economist and his theories are just as relevant now as when he wrote them. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and his writings shine the light on how bad Progressivism is and what it will do if we let it take over our country.
Well, I’d like to tell you I’ll read his book, but I know I won’t. Economics is not my forte. I just know I am not a socialist, so stop beating up on me.
It is obvious from your posts that Economics is not your forte. Friedman’s concepts are not that hard to understand if you keep an open mind instead of swallowing the Progressive positions hook, line and sinker. If you are not a Socialist, you are certainly a Progressive and more in line with Keynes positions of trying to spend our way to prosperity. The last time I checked, this country was in debt over $16 Trillion thanks to Keynsian philosophy and the pipe will have to be paid in the near future.
Honestly, I am a liberal in my thoughts on discrimination, pro-choice, and gay rights. I don’t follow Keynes position any more than I do Friedman’s. “Spending our way to prosperity” does not even make any sense. I certainly wouldn’t do it in my personal life so I don’t think the country would be wise to do it. I do, however, think our money could be allocated differently. Unfortunately, that is in the hands of the elected and most of them would not have been on my ballet. But, we are stuck with them for now.
August 14, 2012 at 9:38 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby, thank you for your thoughtful post. I don’t have a problem with your basic beliefs and you seem to have come around to now believe that big government spending is not the answer. You are right that money could be allocated differently and by the way, the government should live within its means like we have to do. This country has been on a disastrous spiral and Congress and Administrations think all solutions can be achieved by spending more money. It is absolutely incorrect. We have so many duplicative, overlapping, departments, agencies, programs wasting and spending our money unwisely, they could be cut entirely and we would never know the difference. They are also corrupt. One only has to look at the GSA and their 122 conferences they have had and all the bonuses they have paid themselves to see it and they are only one part of the massive Federal Government. That is why we have to change out the elected leaders of both parties and replace them with fiscal conservatives who will represent the interests of the people. With proper management of the budget ( which we haven’t had for 3 years)our resources can be used more effectively and we won’t have to borrow $.40 of every dollar from China.
August 14, 2012 at 10:01 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I don’t think I ever took the stand that big government spending was the answer. I am definitely for some type of healthcare reform and a program that will provide basic medical care to all people. I think it a noble and worthwhile use of financial resources. I agree there is fraud, corruption, and waste that if cut out, would leave resources for a health care program for those in need. From my perspective on this blog, because I am for some type of health care plan (don’t know what exactly), I have been labeled, insulted, and demeaned. I was so busy trying to defend myself from the barrage of accusations that I was not able to articulate my point of view. Now I know you are not pro-healthcare. And we can debate that issue or agree to disagree. But there is no need to make assumptions about folks or insult and name-call on this blog.
August 14, 2012 at 10:01 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Remember, this blog started because of an article about healthcare. It really took a nosedive along the line…
August 14, 2012 at 10:25 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby, most Americans including myself are for “some kind of Healthcare reform”. The disagreement between Liberals and Conservatives is what we ended up with versus what was needed. The Progressives decided we needed a massive 2,700 page one size fits all monstrocity designed to control our lives by government bureaucrats making life and death decisions. They also told us if we didn’t want it, we would be “taxed”. Does that sound like the America you grew up in? Do you really think that Healthcare will be more affordable? Reality is that rates have continued to escalate at an alarming pace. How about all those new taxes built into a Health bill? People need to wake up and realize the economic consequences of what just happened and hope the new President will repeal it and start over with real solutions. We need not waste trillions more on this boondoggle and yes I will say that only citizens of this country should receive our benefits.
August 14, 2012 at 10:29 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I think all people that pay taxes should benefit from the program, whether citizens or not. I won’t say this 2,700 page boondoggle is the answer, but it is a start. Let’s change it, modify it, tweak it, whatever. But don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. That doesn’t seem like a good solution to me. I applaud the efforts in trying to come up with something. This may not be the ultimate solution, but let’s explore making changes to it, not repealing it.
August 10, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Sargent Major says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The bottom line is I support helping the needy. I oppose funding the lazy and those not supposed to be in this country.
Hunter also said, “Fear is just another word for ignorance.” Oh, and these about that above average President George W. Bush (notice particularly The Big Darkness quote – right on the money):
“We are turning into a nation of whimpering slaves to Fear — fear of war, fear of poverty, fear of random terrorism, fear of getting down-sized or fired because of the plunging economy, fear of getting evicted for bad debts, or suddenly getting locked up in a military detention camp on vague charges of being a Terrorist sympathizer.
“Extreme Behavior in Aspen” (3 February 2003)
It is hard to ignore the prima facie dumbness that got us bogged down in this nasty war in the first place. This is not going to be like Daddy’s War, old sport. He actually won, and he still got run out of the White House nine months later.. . The whole thing sucks. It was wrong from the start, and it is getting wronger by the hour.
“Love in a Time of War” (31 March 2003)
What the hell is going on here? How could this once-proud nation have changed so much, so drastically, in only a little more than two years. In what seems like the blink of an eye, this George Bush has brought us from a prosperous nation at peace to a broke nation at war.
“A Sad Week in America” (10 March 2003)
But wow! This goofy child president we have on our hands now. He is demonstrably a fool and a failure, and this is only the summer of ’03. The American nation is in the worst condition I can remember in my lifetime, and our prospects for the immediate future are even worse. . . The Bush family must be very proud of themselves today, but I am not. Big Darkness, soon come. Take my word for it.
“Big Darkness” (22 July 2003)
The utter collapse of this Profoundly criminal Bush conspiracy will come none too soon for people like me… The massive plundering of the U.S. Treasury and all its resources has been almost on a scale that is criminally insane, and has literally destroyed the lives of millions of American people and American families. Exactly. You and me, sport — we are the ones who are going to suffer, and suffer massively. This is going to be just like the Book of Revelation said it was going to be — the end of the world as we knew it. ”
“The Nation’s Capital” (29 July 2003)
Planet, true to your nature and others of your ilk, blame Bush, blame Bush, blame Bush. Gee, I wonder how he managed to serve for 8 years if everyone hated him like you do. I see you managed to breeze over the facts that this country was attacked on 9/11 and the entire country expected him to take action including Democrats. Progressives are mad because we had to spend big money on the military to take out the evildoers and that meant their entitlement programs were put on the back burner. Speaking of plundering the Treasury, how much debt has been added in the past 3 1/2 years by your guy? Your Democratic Congress for the final two years of Bush and the first 3 1/2 of Obama has added more debt than all the President’s in the history of the country and what do we have to show for it? Who is the Goofy Child President in this scenario? We are well on the road to destruction due to what he is doing. He even proposed yesterday that we need to nationalize all manufacturing. This is from his lips, not propoganda. How is this in keeping with a free market society? This is Socialism 101 and it will not be allowed to happen starting in November.
“It would be easy to say that we owe it all to the Bush family from Texas, but that would be too simplistic. They are only errand boys for the vengeful, bloodthirsty cartel of raving Jesus-freaks and super-rich money mongers who have ruled for at least the last 20 years, and arguably the last 200 years. They take orders well, and they don’t ask too many questions. The real power in America is held by a fast-emerging new Oligarchy of pimps and preachers who see no need for Democracy or fairness or even trees, except maybe the ones in their own yards, and they don’t mind admitting it. They worship money and power and death. Their ideal solution to all the nation’s problems would be another 100 Year War. Coming of age in a fascist police state will not be a barrel of fun for anybody, much less for people like me, who are not inclined to suffer Nazis gladly and feel only contempt for the cowardly flag-suckers who would gladly give up their outdated freedom to live for the mess of pottage they have been conned into believing will be freedom from fear. Ho ho ho. Let’s not get carried away here. Freedom was yesterday in this country. Its value has been discontinued. The only freedom we truly crave today is freedom from Dumbness. Nothing else matters.”
George W. Bush has said that history will determine the greatness of his presidency. According to an informal poll by George Mason University’s History News Network, 98 percent of historians polled rated Bush’s presidency a failure. Sixty-one percent ranked him last among presidents, while only 4 percent placed him among the top two-thirds.
To which this “great” president replied: “As far as history goes and all of these quotes about people trying to guess what the history of the Bush administration is going to be, you know, I take great comfort in knowing that they don’t know what they are talking about, because history takes a long time for us to reach.”—George W. Bush, Fox News Sunday, Feb. 10, 2008
Priceless!
August 10, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Who cares about your poll of Progressive historians who teach their revised history and leave out the true history. The American People will judge each President. Jimmy Carter heaved a huge sigh of relief when he found out he is now second behind Obama as the worst of all time.
August 10, 2012 at 5:26 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Planet, does your wife know you harbor thoughts like these? If so, I hope she considers admitting you or at least getting treatment from a good psychiatrist. There is a lot of nasty stuff going on between your ears.
I don’t fear and loathe you or Planet, Libby. I fear and loathe the ideology you believe in. You have the right to believe what you believe, but it is a real shame you have been reduced to a true believer in Progressivism to solve this country’s problems. I feel sorry for you because one day you may wake up and not like our country very much if this ideology is continued. The Democrats pushing this agenda are the nastiest politicians on the face of the earth. All you have to do is watch their dirty tactics to try to win. Accusing Mitch Romney of murder is just the latest attack. What happened to civil discourse and debating the issues? I am sure it will get only worse in the next 90 days.
Love these ones, too:
Is it possible that he has already abandoned all hope of getting re-elected? Or does he plan to cancel the Election altogether by declaring a national military emergency with terrorists closing in from all sides, leaving him with no choice but to launch a huge bomb immediately?. . . Desperate men do desperate things, and stupid men do stupid things. We are in for a desperately stupid summer.
“Bush’s Disturbing Sleeping Disorder” (18 February 2004)
For myself, I would much prefer to be stuck with Kentucky in the NCAA Tournament, than stuck with George Bush in the White House. It is the difference between losing your wallet at a cock fight and losing all your credit cards forever, along with your job and your house and your ability to earn enough money to pay off your sports-gambling debts or even a six-pack on game day. . .
“What’s Better Than the Tournament?’ (18 March 2004)
The 2004 presidential election will be a matter of life or death for the whole nation. We are sick today, and we will be even sicker tomorrow if this wretched half-bright swine of a president gets re-elected in November.
“The Big Finale Was a Big Disappointment” (6 April 2004)
Planet, Your post is straigt out of the Democrat play book. Nasty and getting nastier. You obviously believe this crap or you wouldn’t post it. This country wouldn’t be sick at all if it weren’t for Progressive Socialists in leadership positions in our government for the past 30 years. The Democrats and the reach across the aisle McCains/Graham types have done great harm. Fortunately, we made a good start in replacing many of them in the 2010 mid terms with the well known “Shellacking”. The next time is sure to be a Tsunami. We have had enough of class warfare, race warfare, entitlement spending and need real leaders to emerge. Judging from recent success of Conservative candidates, I think we are on our way.
I will say this Planet, the crap you come up with in your posts proves you might be from a planet but it is not this planet. If you want solutions like you mentioned above, I have a few off the top of my head:
* Close the border. Station the national guard along with the border patrol on the border and keep them out. This should be a military coordinated effort and it will get done.
*Instead of hiring the 6500 or 8500 new government hires to collect the healthcare tax, hire the people in immigration enforcement, round up the illegals and send them back to Mexico or where ever. They could start picking them up at the welfare office and Walmart. If they come back send them to internment camps in the Mojave desert until they decide not to come back any longer. Let Sheriff Joe in Arizona be the head of US Bureau of prisons.
* while that is going on, cut off able bodied welfare and medicaid recipients and force them to do the work the illegals were doing in order to pay back the money they stole from welfare and medicaid. If Barry Soetoro/Obama can’t do that then have the able bodied work for their Welfare checks and have the employers reimburse the government for the work done. This gets rid of illegals and helps offset welfare cost.
* Barry Soetoro/Obama could stop alienating our best allies (Israel for one) and stop court our worst enemies(Several Arab Nations fit). He could also stop the security leaks. This president and his cabinet has the worse record of any president for security leaks, So much so many of our allies no longer want to cooperate on security matters.
Once back in favor with our allies we get them to help us substitute NATO troops for US troops in Afghanistan and Irag. Since we fund about 70 to 80% of NATO anyway, we save money by bringing some of our troops home.
Give me a little time and I can give you a few more
* He could kill this ridiculous healthcare bill that is so expensive even he does not know how to pay for it. And if you are one of those still under the ether and believe he can move the shells around to pay for it you are either in need of psychiatric help or are stupid. We can’t pay for it
* That will start the deficit reduction and the focus should be on creating jobs by creating job creators and letting the people who hire people do their job and not tax them to death.
You said Sherrif Joe should be in charge of, heck I don’t care, anything at all. That guy should be locked up. Let me ask you a question, Sgt – do you believe President Obama is a US citizen?
The “solutions” you present are not real-worldly. At least you are putting forth something. Were you a Reagan supporter by chance?
Planet, At least Sargent is coming up with some solutions that may not seem real-worldly as you put it, but compared to what is being done presently, they seem like common sense solutions. As you know, there is not a lot of common sense going on with government. Actually, I would have Sheriff Joe put in the cabinet for Homeland Security. I bet those leaky borders would be closed in short order. We would also keep the buses busy transporting all the illegal criminals back to where they came from. We could also disband the inefficient and intrusive TSA and privatize it so security could be enhanced.
Good one Sargent. About the only thing I disagree on is the number of hires the IRS are hiring to collect Obamatax. I have seen numerous reports that the figure is about 17,000. See, they are creating jobs afterall. They think creating more non-productive government jobs is helping the economy and all it does is add to the already outrageous deficit. They also think that more unemployment checks are a stimulus to the economy. One of their bright minions, one Nancy Pelosi uttered that pearl of wisdom.
Planet:
Yes, I was a Reagan supporter and saluted him more than once. As far as Barry Soetoro/Obama being a citizen- at this point it does not matter. As far as Sheriff Joe, I used him as an example. We need someone who will uphold the law and most Americans could care less whether prisoners wear pink or have public service announcements to watch on TV. They are real world solutions. The problem with the current administration is that Barry would rather waste billions courting anyone and everyone including the dregs as potential voters rather than do what is right for America and get rid of one of the biggest burdens on this country.
Planet, let me ask you a question. What do you think would happen if Americans were crossing the border into Mexico illegally? How about Americans working and not paying taxes and taking the pesos back to America. Where do you think an American would end up? A Mexican prison is not a nice place. Or what would happen in just about any other country outside the US.
We have a problem and it will take tough measures that Barry won’t take because he wants another 20 milion voters (or however many are now in the US) for the Democratic Socialist movement.
Sgt. –
(About Reagan’s stance on amnesty and immigration)
By Anthony Gregory
Senator Marco Rubio has proposed letting young illegal immigrants stay in the United States legally. This is seen as an alternative to the Democrats’ DREAM Act, although supporters of the latter welcome the Rubio plan as a way to reinvigorate the agenda of immigration reform.
Romney has so far taken no position. No doubt he fears being accused of defending “amnesty.” In Republican politics, an accusation such as this can be poisonous to a campaign. This dynamic might have hit its peak in 2008, when the GOP presidential candidates stumbled over one another to prove they were the least pro-amnesty of the lot.
George W. Bush’s seemingly genuine desire to liberalize immigration laws faced resistance within his own party. The 9/11 tragedy likely provided him the necessary political capital and party leniency, but ramping up attacks on civil liberties, rather than taming them, is always easier at wartime.
It was Ronald Reagan who last enacted significant immigration reform. Millions of conservatives seem to ignore this. He called the plan “amnesty.” This was not a dirty word back then. It was not a verboten concept, either. In a 1980 GOP primary debate, both Reagan and George H.W. Bush appear to be competing for the distinction as the more compassionate candidate:
Bush said, “The problem has to be solved. We have… made illegal some kinds of labor I’d like to see legal… We’re creating a whole society of really honorable, decent, family-loving people who are in violation of the law… These are good people, strong people.”
Reagan responded, “I think the time has come that the United States and… our neighbor to our South should have a better understanding and relationship than we’ve ever had… Rather than… talking about putting up a fence, why don’t we work out some recognition of our mutual problems, make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit… [A]nd open the border both ways…”
In the 1984 debate with Mondale, Reagan went further when asserting, “I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here even though some time back they may have entered illegally.”
As far as what other countries do, I don’t care. I live in this one and want to make this one a better place. Mexico and other countries can do whatever it is they think they need to do.
According to current figures from Immigration and Customs Enforcement — the federal agency responsible for deportations — Obama has removed 1.4 million people during his 42 months in office so far. Technically, that’s fewer than under George W. Bush, whose cumulative total was 2 million. But Bush’s number covers eight full years, which doesn’t allow an apples-to-apples comparison.
If you instead compare the two presidents’ monthly averages, it works out to 32,886 for Obama and 20,964 for Bush, putting Obama clearly in the lead. Bill Clinton is far behind with 869,676 total and 9,059 per month. All previous occupants of the White House going back to 1892 fell well short of the level of the three most recent presidents.
Agent, you are right and if the number is 17,000, I am sure he will take credit for “creating” jobs. The problem is they are government jobs where the net gain is a negative number as they are a drain on the economy not a gain like private industry jobs. So let’s chase a $700 tax on a kid not buying healthcare while billions in tax fraud head south of the border. Maybe Barry can move some of the postal workers from the bankrupt post office over to the IRS so they can go door to door and collect taxes rather than deliver mail. That way Barry can take credit for reducing government jobs and also credit for creating 17,000 new ones.
Sargent, the narrative for 3 1/2 years has been it was all George Bush’s fault. They downplay the role Pelosi/Reid had when they were in charge of Congress spending at a record clip, not reigning in Fanny & Freddie which led to the housing crisis which the result has been this onerous recession. Then, instead of doing incentives to small business to create jobs, they ignored the economy in order to pass the worst piece of job killing legislation in history. On top of all that they passed the Stimulus which was nothing but political paybacks and didn’t create any new jobs and ran up more debt. The big spender Progressives said it didn’t work because it wasn’t big enough. Somehow this was all George Bush’s fault that we are in this financial condition. The Green Technology push was a disaster as well since almost all of the companies getting our tax dollars have gone belly up. How did that Cash for Clunkers program work out for us? More cost to the taxpayers. I have looked long and hard at everything that has been done and cannot find even one thing I can agree on that was good for this country.
Agent, who is “they”? I can’t speak for anyone else, but there is enough blame to go around on both sides. Instead of pointing fingers, why not try to come together with solutions? This is a classic example of what is going on Washington and why nothing is getting done. It is not productive and is very destructive. I’m sure we can agree on some things and move forward in a positive direction instead of continuing to beat up on each other. I don’t think deep down, “we” are much different from you in what we want and desire out of life. Let’s find our similarities and not focus on our differences. We might just find solutions!
Libby, “They” are the cadre of Progressive Liberal political operatives in the media, the administration, the Democratic Party. You know who I mean, the ones who blame Bush for anything and everything and have never made a mistake in judgment or policy. I remember our President early in his term saying the economy was the last thing on his mind when he went to bed at night and the first thing he started thinking about when he got up in the morning and he was going to focus like a laser beam on restoring the economy. What did he do but focus on Healthcare for 18 months and let the economy slide? The reason nothing gets done in Washington is that we have a party in power which is ruling by executive order, it is their way or the highway and they think they are smarter than Conservatives so they reject ideas put forth by Conservatives automatically. Just look at how they have treated Paul Ryan when he came out with a reasonable budget plan. He was demonized and called crazy. Does that show a willingness to compromise and find solutions to our problems. The answer Libby is that these people need to be sent into retirement so we can focus on solutions.
I’d say there is an unwillingness to compromise and find solutions on both sides. Just as the “progressives” blame Bush and the republicans for everything, “conservatives” blame Obama and the democrats. It is a two-way street. Again, there is enough blame to go around for everyone. No one is blameless. However, laying blame does not solve anything. It only creates hostility and defensiveness. We really need to get away from this “us” and “them” mentality. I don’t follow Paul Ryan, but “demonized” is a strong word. I believe many did not think his budget viable (including a few Republicans), but I don’t think he was demonized. It is use of such outlandish language that incites anger. Instead, debate the merits of his plan. And there have to be merits, just as there are probably things that could/should be changed. Or is it just a perfect budget plan because he proposed it? I am certainly for fiscal responsibility and Romney does have a track record in that area, however I can not with good conscience vote for a party that will take away women’s rights, gay rights, and other areas the government has no business controlling. If “they” would just back off on some of those issues, I’d be more inclined to listen to them. Until then, I can not abide old, white men trying to legislate morality. It is NOT American.
Libby, it shouldn’t be necessary to compromise on the Constitution and doing the right thing for the people. When the Democrats contolled the House and the Senate, they were not in the compromising mood about anything. Even though they had the super majorities, they had great difficulty passing Obamacare because of their own party having reservations. The Blue Dogs and many Democratic leaders in the Senate had to be bribed, coerced, browbeaten into submission by the far left that was in control. The Party of Truman & Kennedy no longer exist and the party should rename itself the Progressive Party because that is what it is now. There will not any meaningful thing done to correct our problems until the Senate changes hands and we get a new President. Harry Reid has tabled every bill the House has sent over this year to help the economy declaring they are DOA. How is that for the spirit of cooperation and compromise? He would rather be the attack dog for Obama on the Senate floor.
August 14, 2012 at 11:31 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
How could you “dislike” my comment? It was totally unbiased, placing blame on both parties and calling for compromise and cooperation. I even complimented your candidate. What is to dislike about that?? Or do you just automatically dislike anything I say? That really is not in the spirit of my message and I see you will continue with your “us” vs. “them” theme regardless. The Supreme Court ruled on the constituionality issue and “your side” lost. Sorry. Deal with it. I am beginning to think you may just be a one-note tune. Blah, blah, blah. It’s really not interesting.
August 14, 2012 at 12:31 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby, I wasn’t the dislike on the prior comment, but I do dislike this one since you still don’t “get it” after I patiently explained why there was no spirit of bi-partisan cooperation or compromise when this bill was forced through by the minions in the Democratic Party. Perhaps you don’t remember the famous Blair House meeting on Healthcare where the Democrats led by Obama was on one side and the Republican leaders on the other. It turned out to be a dog and pony show and Democrats didn’t want to hear any suggestions, solutions or compromise from Republicans. Their attitude was – We won, you lost so get on the back of the bus. It isn’t over yet on this bill. The Supremes are leaving it to the people to vote these people out and it will be repealed and you and Planet might be surprised to learn a new poll is out now and 58% of the people want it repealed to 38% wanting to keep it. You and Planet are among the 38%.
I do “get it”. I know there isn’t cooperation or compromise on the hill. That was my point. I don’t think we should foster and encourage it on this blog. It is the epitome of why things aren’t working in Washington. I think our leaders need some leadership from the people, that we aren’t going to put up with this BS for much longer. We’ll vote them all out and start over for all I care. They are all croooked. All stuck in their bi-partisan rhetoric. All responsible for the failing of this country. There is no one side that is any better than the others in that regard. What I don’t want is for that to become the spirit of the American people, too. We need to band together and tell all of these creeps that we will not tolerate their nonsense any longer. That starts by coming to some common ground amongst ourselves. Is that not possible to do???
Now you’re talking. The citizens need to band together and vote these misguided idiots out of office. They are the ones who have been in their too long, are corrupt, beholden to special interests and obviously have the wrong ideas on how to fix our economy and heal our country. The Republicans have a lot of RINO’s who have forgotten why they were sent there and have gone along to get along and reached across the aisle to sell the country down the river. The Progressives are worthless leaches sucking the very life blood out of the country. They all need to go if they are up for re-election. It is past time to make a change in direction.
I think there are worthless leaches on both sides of the aisle. I will vote my choices based on their records, not on their party affiliation. Each person Republican, RINO, Democrat needs to be accountable for their record on the issues that are important to the voter. Again, the pro-life, anti-gay, bible thumping candidates WILL NOT get my vote. I have to vote for things more important than money and economics. Not that those are not important issues, but the others are more important to me. If I could be assured they would be left alone by the government, then my choice of candidates would double…
Libby, the issues you are passionate about may be important to you, but the American People are much more concerned about the economy, jobs, gas prices, being upside down on their mortgages and how their net worth has fallen 25% in the past 3 1/2 years. That will determine this election, not whether gays can get married or abortion will be made illegal. Politicians have tried to make these issues, but these issues will not change voters minds. A candidates religion or lack of one will also not sway voters. The question is who has the best vision for America for the future. We have seen what radical Progressivism has done to our country. I don’t want anymore of that and you shouldn’t either if you care about your country.
They will sway this voter. And I know many others that feel just as passionately as I do. The best vision for America’s future includes these issues. Just as much as gas prices and jobs. I have been one of the laid-off and unemployed and believe me, that’s very important to me. But I don’t think either side has a silver bullet solution to the economy, so for now I will stick with the issues that are most important to me. I don’t share the view that radical Progressives have run the country in the ground. If it were that simple, I certainly would vote in every conservative on the ballot. It’s more complicated than that. Again, BOTH sides are responsible. But I don’t want to play tit for tat on that, it won’t get us anywhere. Find me someone that will not try to legislate morality, has a viable healthcare plan, and a strong record of fiscal responsibility. Romney has done well in 2 out of 3 areas. Unfortunately, he fails in the one that is most important to me and should be important to any American that wants to keep their beloved “freedom”. We can survive together with less money, but not without the very thing that made this country great.
Find me someone who will not legislate immorality and will defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights our wise founding fathers wrote as the law of the land. We can’t have politicians in office who disregard the Constitution and rule by executive fiat. Our country is a Constitutional Republic and we have 3 branches of government, Executive, Legislative and Judicial created separate but equal. It seems the current President thinks the Executive branch is more equal than the others and does his own thing. If a Republican had done half the things he has, impeachment proceedings would have been well underway. He has made Nixon and Clinton look like choir boys by comparison.
I thought this was a hilarious article that shows what’s wrong with both parties:
The Difference Between Republicans and Democrats
away all the advertising and you can think about the difference between the two parties, and the way that gap has changed, by envisioning a simple allegory.
Imagine that the public needs a box moved from point A to point B. Nothing more politically or culturally interesting than that, just a basic challenge of execution. Now ask yourself this question: Which party would I choose to complete that task?
Take the scenario back in time just a generation or so and the answer would be nearly unanimous. If all you cared about was getting a particular task accomplished, you would pick Republicans to do it. Sure, if left to complete the project without supervision they might pave the Everglades, build an eight-lane freeway through Yellowstone, and hire thousands of Malaysian 8-year-olds for the labor, but you could count on them to complete it, on time, under-budget, without a lot of fuss.
And the Democrats? They would get it done, maybe, mostly, after taking care of more important matters. First there would be eight years of environmental studies to assess the impact of moving the box on all the sensitive creatures along the route. Each effort to reach a decision on the project would be delayed by a three hour speech from Sheila Jackson Lee, reminding us that America never moved a box for black people.
The box could only be moved by union labor, at an absurd markup, with appropriate “donations” to the “leaders” of underprivileged communities along the route. The move would be halted multiple times as possible historical artifacts were discovered or a new species of beetle was found.
Before any work could begin, we would have to wrestle with the basic fairness of moving the box. Why do we move a box for some, but not for others? We would pause to remember the poor who each day must move their own boxes. The actual work might be temporarily interrupted by anti-globalization protesters who ask why the box has to be moved at all. Why can’t all our boxes remain local and sustainable?
Only green energy could be used for the move, meaning work could only be conducted in the daytime. The green technology required would be purchased from a major political donor and its pollution-laden manufacture would ruin a pristine coastal habitat.
By the time the public gave up on having the box moved, the project would have cost billions and the box would be 87% of the way to its destination. It would be covered in anti-capitalist graffiti and a portion of its contents would be missing.
Though the Democrats are still pretty much the same, changes in the Republican Party have made that old characterization less accurate. Despite all the partisan rhetoric, the gap between them has narrowed dramatically in terms of their ability to actually accomplish something. Perhaps that’s why the angry bickering has become so important.
Today’s Republicans would start the whole effort with a prayer…to Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ himself, not some namby-pamby “Creator” or “Father in Heaven.” The project would be outsourced to Halliburton and insured with a suite of complex derivatives issued by Goldman Sachs based loosely on the value of the box, along with a basket of currencies, two tranches of mortgage CDO’s, and a peg to the price of a human kidney on the Chinese market.
Approval would be delayed for months while Ron Paul demands to see the Constitutional authority for moving the box. Once work begins, the first sub-contractor would be fired after right-wing bloggers uncover that the company’s insurance covered domestic partners. Work would stall again when Sarah Palin suggests that the box may have been painted by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Crowds would demand the destruction of the box after Glenn Beck implies that it was constructed by our first Communist President, Woodrow Wilson, and that it contains both Communism and Fascism living together miraculously in harmony. Several Congressmen would demand to see the original bill of sale for the box…the real one.
Michele Bachmann would claim to have proof that the box was in fact being moved to a Socialist re-education camp. Overnight she would receive a million dollars in campaign contributions.
Republicans would launch preemptive wars with three “rogue” states that could potentially threaten the box. The box could only be secured by the use of enhanced interrogation techniques and the indefinite detention of evildoers who hate our way of life. Nothing you need to concern yourself with.
Once Republicans, at long last, transport the box to its destination, a block of Tea Party freshman in Congress would block it from being released. The box would only be wrested back from government hands after abortion was outlawed and funding for NPR was cut off. All of the undocumented workers they had quietly hired to do the work would then be rounded up and deported.
By then, the derivatives issued by Goldman to insure the project would have collapsed, threatening a global financial meltdown which could only be halted by a trillion-dollar relief package to the bank. Goldman partners would then claim the government forced them to engage in the deal in the first place, while retaining the bonuses which were due to them under the original contract. Republicans would defend Goldman from irresponsible leftist “class warfare,” and blame the whole mess on Liberals.
Under a representative government you always get the leadership that you deserve. Pick your poison.
I’m so old, I remember when these GOP governors were saying they didn’t want a government take-over of healthcare. Ba-dum chish!
I’m so old that I remember the anti medicare backlash in the late 1960s. Even Ronny Reagan got into the act as he recorded a spot where he said “if congress passes this bill (medicare), we are on the road to communism”. It’s the old same $#!! different day scenario.
Sounds like it could actually work despite all the Nervous Nellies and Chicken Littles out there… Wouldn’t that be amazing?
The government improving upon a private system? Yes, that would be amazing.
I’m so old I remember Ronny saying to cut back spending on school lunches by removing veggies. No worries, the kids have their ketchup packets. Did he mean by removing fruit? I don’t know. Then, you had some guy talking about putting food on his family.
Planet, you must be having a bad brain day. Read your post. It is as goofy as I have seen on IJ. It kind of reminds me of some of Nancy Pelosi’s statements. She gets up there and waves her hands and utters no coherent sentences. I did understand one of her statements. She said that they had to pass it so we could see what was in it. I think we now know what is in it and that is why there is so much opposition to it. We will see what November brings and if the exchanges survive repeal of the law.
It makes perfect sense. Tomatoes are a fruit, not a vegetable. And George Bush made the comment “Workin’ hard to put food on your family”. You need to change the channel from Fox once in a while, Agent.
Is Libby short for Liberal? Perhaps you are from the SEIU public school system which doesn’t teach much but Progressive ideology. Apparently, proper English is not being taught. I see you couldn’t waste an opportunity to bash Bush just like your heros are still doing almost daily. You need to change your channels from MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NPR or NBC. By the way, their viewership is declining as more people wake up to their lies and lack of real reporting of the news. CNN’s President had to resign because the ratings are in the toilet. I wonder what brought that on.
I didn’t bash Bush. Captain Planet mentioned the quote in his post and you didn’t know what it meant. I was merely explaining the post to you. What is an SEIU school system and what was wrong with my English?
And since I have to change my channel from MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NPR or NBC then all I’m left with is Fox. I guess you are trying to make me believe all six networks are wrong and only Fox is right? Doesn’t really compute.
Amazing and only $860 million for start up. What a deal.
Libby, I am not sure there is hope for you unless you wake up and smell the coffee. You haven’t heard of the now infamous Service Employees Union??? They are one of the biggest unions in the US and control many of the school systems in this country. It is easy to identify the failing schools because they reign supreme in them. As far as Fox, I don’t agree with a lot of what they do, particularly when they let Progressives dominate the conversation on interviews and opinion, but at least it is not all left wing all the time like the other networks. They report no news at all unless it fits the agenda they have adopted. If there is a story out there detrimental to this President or his administration, they don’t report it at all. Is that what this country is all about now? Investigative reporters have all but disappeared from the landscape unless they think they have a damaging story on a conservative and then they go after it like a shark even if it is not verified or fact checked.
“Today I am announcing that all auto insurance can only be purchased through the government.”
You work in casualty insurance.
Would you agree?
Disagree! I can’t believe there are insurance people who post on this site! Dude. Read the law. If this is not the best thing that ever happened to the private insurance market I don’t know what is. The law is packed with Republican ideas, like the individual mandate for example. Typical right wing point of view. Don’t go with facts, just make things up to prove your point. Make up things like “death panels” to scare the public. And, don’t one of the favorites terms of the lunitic right wing, “rationing”, which is just another word for “underwriting”.
That’s not what the law says. You can buy your insurance anywhere you want. There will just be governmental exchanges in place for those that can’t/don’t procur it privately. The law already states we have to buy car insurance if we own a car. Now it says you have to carry health insurance. No difference.
Libby, slow down and read my post again.
You can only buy through the government which is set up by whom? The government.
If you want to sell your auto insurance, you have to go through the exchange. What is wrong with that?
Oh by the way your commision…
… will be determined by yours truly.
So?
I don’t understand your post then. No-one is saying you must buy health insurance through the government. There will still be private insurance carriers offering coverage through the traditional system.
So if I don’t have to buy through them, why are they setting this up?
As a capitalist, couldn’t I set up a “priceline” type of website?
Or is it because the exchange will dictate coverage and pricing and commisions and …..
My point is … I believe we all do better with the least amount of government involvement. I would think a website dedicated to serving the casualty agent would be as well.
I would also think the workers in our business would be too?
Of course I have been wrong in the past…
The exchanges are being set up by the state as an on-line resource where individuals can obtain coverage through competing private insurance programs. The federal exchange is being put in place for those states that won’t on don’t follow the guideline and establish a state exchange. The exchange system is designed to increase competition and participation, therefore driving costs down.
Thanks for your honesty in thinking the government can solve your problems better than the market.
We can agree to disagree.
OK. Time will tell.
….And there continue to be persons dedicated to obstructing what is obviously a win-win solution for all. I am doubtful the shrieking tantrums or cynical political manuevering will cease so I say ‘good for you’ patriots – keep moving ahead for the greater good – that’s what we need from our elected and appointed public servants.
This boils down to an issue of economics. If the states set it up, the states get to run it and the fed will’subsidize’ the expense. If the fed sets it up, they absorb all the costs.
I would bet that the federal subsidy will be decreased or eliminated in the future due to deficit reduction constraints so leaving to the fed may be the wise solution.
And ‘D’, I wouldn’t hang my hat on a failing program that the government is using as a model for a future run at universal healthcare.
I used Medicare as an example that the argument has not changed, even though we have a program (medicare) that has improved the lives of millions for almost 40 years. I would not call a program that has lasted that long and has helped to increase the average life span of all Americans a failure. The day-to-day management needs plenty of work to eliminate fraud and abuse. But, it’s not a failure. Maybe you should take it away from your parents or grandparents, or yourself when the time comes to make use of it? I’m waiting for one of you right-wing genius’ to do that. The republicans sure did not help when they passed Medicare Part D, an unfunded nightmare of a program that could actually kill it. Thankfully, the new law has elements in it to address Medicare Part D’s abysmal mistakes.
$860 million, at least????? For setting up a computer system??? I wonder how facebook was able to do it or any other business starting out. I think someone that is related to our government is getting a nicely over-inflated contract. I can’t believe no one commented on this. Just shows in todays world nobody bats an eye over hundreds of millions of dollars. Maybe a billion would have rattled some feathers. This is just sickening.
Baxtor, You fail to take into account that Facebook and other systems like that were built slowly, from the ground up and with a fair amount of trial & error. Odds are pretty good that if you look at the overall development cost and expenditures for newer/better tech, that Facebook and others have spent that much or more for their systems.
The federal exchange has to hit the ground running right off the start without a slow gradual build up. They are going to be hit with use the second it goes live.
I think this is a classic example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Yes they are running with this so that even if Obamacare fails, they can stick the next administration with all the debt. Get it now, let the taxpayers pay it later when the debt comes due.
Oh, like the 2 credit card wars, got it.
*buuzzz* wrong.
DOD Spending, does not increases during a war. It’s at a set amount. This is why during Bush’s presidency, there were several years where even including Iraq and Afghinstan wars the DOD spending was 300-400 billion. Counting the past DOD amount, which Bush continued at a similar rate to that of Clinton who had no wars, actually shows Bush spent better then by your logics correct?
See below for the projected 2012 DOD budget without two wars:
DOD spending $707.5 billion Base budget + “Overseas Contingency Operations”
FBI counter-terrorism $2.7 billion At least one-third FBI budget.
International Affairs $5.6–$63.0 billion At minimum, foreign arms sales. At most, entire State budget
Energy Department, defense-related $21.8 billion
Veterans Affairs $70.0 billion
Homeland Security $46.9 billion
NASA, satellites $3.5–$8.7 billion Between 20% and 50% of NASA’s total budget
Veterans pensions $54.6 billion
Other defense-related mandatory spending $8.2 billion
See the post Iraq war 2003 budget:
http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=3615
I realize different years were different amounts but I call B.S. on your bull Captain Planet. I don’t blame you. Liberals have been parroting two unpaid for wars forever as if it was additional spending. It wasn’t. The DOD was in no way modified for the two wars. It was kept at it’s constant rate that it’s been at for over 20 years. Moron.
I swear it’s like you believe the people in the military suddenly get paid and that the tanks suddenly appear.
We build tanks at a constant rate. We build planes at a constant rate and then guess what? We use them. Military personell are paid at a constant rate. We didn’t draft anyone into this war. It was all from existing military. We didn’t hire new people on new payroll. Do you have any idea how stupid you sound when you claim that the Iraq and Afghan war caused spending increases when the spending without the war is the same? It’s called DOD spending and you appear to know nothing about it.
Hey Getreal. There used to be an old saying that we are robbing Peter to pay Paul. That is what the Progressive agenda is all about. Deficit spend to the tune of $1.4 Trillion + each year. We can’t possibly run a Federal Government on the measley $2.4 Trillion in tax receipts. Instead of creating new taxpayers, they are busy creating leaches with more food stamps, disability recipients, unemployed people to 99 weeks. They go after the job creators with more taxes and just perpetuate debt because no new jobs will be created under that approach. More people keep leaving the workforce every month to get on the government dole. It is a very nasty agenda which is designed to make more people dependent on government and there just isn’t enough money in the till to do it. What happens to this country in the near future? The short answer is a bigger version of Greece, Spain, France, Great Britain and some others who have chosen this path and are going down like the Titanic after hitting the iceberg of debt.
Job creators? That’s me and you. We are the job creators when we spend our money for services. We have a demand issue in this country. The Republicans got their way for at least the last year (extension of Bush Tax Cuts that were supposed to end according to, oh I don’t know…George Bush himself) and how many jobs have been created? Why? Because demand is down. Increase the velocity of money in the country and you’ll see job creation. Pro tip – the 1% is not trickling it down, they’re holding onto it as they always have. Why make more product if no one is going to buy it? So, if you don’t need to make more product, don’t really need to hire anyone do you? Don’t give us that “job creators” lie.
“Busy creating leaches with more food stamps, disability recipients, unemployed people to 99 weeks” – you sound more and more like the old Frank Meeinks every time you spit these comments out, Agent. I know you’re not that way, but the rhetoric sure sounds like him and his old ways. Thank God he came around and saw his errors. Now, he’s doing good and seeking redemption of sorts. No, I did not watch “Hardball”. Frank is good friends with Chris Bradshaw and has been on his show in the past on 98.3 Wow FM here and was just on webcastonelive.com the other day. Feel free to tune into Bradshaw, he’s usually on from 1 – 3 but lately, has been more 1:30 – 3 as they are making changes in the studio.
Question – if liberals don’t want to work, why do I go to work every day and why do I have a side job? Why don’t I just take this AWESOME handout from the gov’t. You make it sound like I can get steak, lobster, and BMWs from the gov’t if I just stay home. Why don’t you actually try going to a soup kitchen or the dreaded projects of an area and tell me how good they have it down there. Take a poll while you’re at at and ask how many of the unemployed in that area would like to have a steady job. Most people, a strong majority, want to work in order to improve their quality of life. This fantastic handout you speak of isn’t even a bare minimum to keep those who need it sustained. Now, those that are out there that truly are lazy and don’t want to do anything except sit on a couch all day. Okay, you and I agree there. But, that percentage is awfully low.
Planet, I enjoy a lively debate and shooting down your Progressive theories. Apparently, you don’t look at reality in your assessments of what is going on. Are you listening to your leaders? Nancy Pelosi infamously said that unemployment checks were job creators and a stimulus to the economy. Hmm! The reason demand is down is that people are afraid of what this administration will do to them next so they aren’t buying as much. There was a story yesterday about the rise in gasoline prices again. People in several states were spending over 10% of their income just on fuel. Your government keeps doing things that discourage production, won’t allow the Keystone pipeline which by the way would create 50-100,000 jobs and are busy shutting down coal in West Virginia and Ohio. In addition, 47 million are now on food stamps and the government advertises to apply for them. I didn’t say that all liberals do not want to work, but there are millions of freeloaders out there who would rather get on the dole than work. Every month, there are as many dropping out of the workforce and applying for Disability as there are entering the workforce. The country needs to have a net gain of 200,000 jobs each month to stay up with population growth. Instead, the country is slowly going backward into the abyss of debt and entitlement. Your solution is to tax the job creators more in hope they will hire more. Most smart businessmen will continue to wait until we have a friendlier government in charge before thinking about expanding and hiring. If you want more revenue to fund the government, the way to do that is to create more taxpayers with productive jobs. By the way, the 50% who pay no Federal Taxes should also have some skin in the game and pay at least some minimum tax instead of depending on the top 10% to pay 70% of the taxes. The Tax Code needs to be thrown out entirely and a flat or fair tax implemented with no loopholes for the big boys and their tax attorneys to manipulate. As a small businessman, I am very tired of Progressive Socialism expressed by the left and RINO politicians. It doesn’t work. I recomment you read any of Milton Friedman’s books comparing Capitalism and Socialism. It may enlighten you.
If you have been in Washington state, and more particularly Gold Bar, or north of Marysville, or Everett, etc you would know that a substantial amount of women get pregnant for government assistance.
There are day care centers which only have publicly funded children. My child’s mother works at one. They rarely have private clients.
Men here do the same. Regarding social security: I was just talking with another such guy who is getting child care support (as my wife works in the day care field, which oddly enough most the demand comes from public funded clients, she sees this all the time) who was getting social security disability. Guess how old he was? In his 20’s. His injury was not even an issue any longer. He had no teeth (wonder why? Drugs?) He was still receiving disability which counts against our social security budget. His “wife” is not only getting darcare assistance, she is also getting free college funding and assisted housing funds. I make $75,000 a year, I do not enjoy paying $950 a month for day care, $3,000 a quarter for my Wife’s college tuition, $1,500 for my house but let’s use They are spending: $750 a month for college, $850 for housing, $950 for childcare, he’s getting about $500 per month, that’s $3,050 a month, $36,600 a year they receive for NOT working not including food stamp assistance. If we apply standard taxes, they are receiving more like $43,000. Like it or not, many Americans do this and it’s why our budget is breaking.
If people were not riding off the government budget, we would not have the deficits we do despite taking the amount of taxes we do.
Also: Reagan did not have a taxing problem. He had a spending problem. Despite cuting the rates as much as he did, the rates began to rise again after we got out of the recession. If this were not true, than why would only a small increse during Clinton’s presidency suddenly cause a surplus? Trickle down works. We did not return to the pre Reagan rates and we had a surplus. Don’t preach to the choir about tax rates. Our highest per gdp percentage during Clinton with a 36.9 top rate was the same as a 95% top rate. Trickle down by those logics is automatically correct by default.
Ok. Follow along here. This might be a little over your head.
But, since you brought up deficits, I will comment on your post:
The current administration was “stuck” with the debt from the Iraq war. The prior administration didn’t even put spending for that war in their budget. Yet, they still ran a deficit. Iraq’s oil money never paid the bill for that war like Cheny said it would. The prior president NEVER vetoed a spending bill. Add the inherited Bush deficit to the increased deficit when the current administration did the only responsible thing and included Iraq war spending in their budget. Oh yeah, that former administration inherited a surplus. And the republicans are the fiscally responsible ones? History has not shown that in the last 50 years. Please show me a republican president who managed to create a surplus. Name one!
See my above comment D. You’re wrong. The DOD spending is what covered the Iraq war. Prior years of DOD spending do not affect future years under Obama.
If we have X amount of military in Iraq getting paid in 2003, sending jets there and tanks, the cost goes in 2003. Not 2012.
It would be impossible to budget it 9 years in the future as you ignorantly suggest. You pay for it when you use it. The deficits back then did take the Iraq and Afghan war into consideration. It was part of the DOD budget.
We continue to incur costs for both wars. Costs of returning vets needing care (estimated at $1 trillion), interest on loans used to fund direct costs, replacement equipment ($17B per year), and appropriations too numerous to mention.
Libby: Don’t be a fool. War spending under Bush was 300-400 billion per year. That’s DOD budget.
We do have interest on past wars, not only Iraq and Afghanistan. With that logic I can state that the 700 billion exact numbers I put above for 2012 are Obama’s, and the DOUBLE interest on that is being paid for by the next president.
Your logics are ridiculous. The DOD budget was not affected by Iraq and Afghanistan. It was at it’s normal percent of the budget. The wars came out of the normal DOD budget, it was not in addition to it. In other words the DOD budget would have been the same without the Iraq and Afghan “spending” you talk about. There was no dedicated Iraq and Afghan spending. How many different ways do I have to say it?
I did not say the DOD budget was affected. You said the spending was done in the year it was incurred. I say we continue to incur expenses today. Why do you find it necessary to name call and insult people to make a point?
And the spending was done in the year it was incurred. Replacement equipment is part of the DOD annual spending. Interest is part of the annual spending. You are stating that Bush’s wars are the reason for Obama’s deficit. They are not.
Obama has failed to change the annual DOD amount. He has continued to increase it.
Do not back petal. I feel the need to name call because your facts that you present are done so with the usual liberal “this was some one else’s fault” mentality. You are ignorantly choosing to dislike one president and are twisting reality to do so. At the same time you are attempting to twist other to the same lie.
Wake up.
And further: Calling you a fool (which you are being a fool) is not name calling.
You amounted 17 billion of the budget Obama spends to Bush, which is still his choice to send out and still part of the DOD budget.
Very bad way of trying to prove the point that Obama inherited a war deficit. He chooses to spend and it’s time you held him accountable.
I never mentioned Bush in the same breath as DOD budget or deficit. You are right about one thing. I do dislike Bush. For lying to the U.N. and the American people about WMD’s in Iraq for one. For turning the entire world against the U.S. For being an international joke and buffoon attempting (badly) to represent the best country in the world. He was not a good president, as you stated. In fact, he shouldn’t have been annointed president because he didn’t win the election. I am not a minority regarding this sentiment. Maybe it’s you that is the fool.
He did not manipulate the world. I’m sorry Libby you either believe that a man like Bush could convince every democrat to go to war (intelligent people as you suggest) or they are lying. The more likely is that they are lying.
Why do I say this? Would you believe that crap? No. Bush presented the information given to him. He’s not a king. He does not gather information. He presents it.
Further: You were replying to a post about DOD spending and how D stated that the deficits Obama had came from Bush. So nice try on the back petaling. You were wrong. Pony up.
Also: Being in the majority does not make you right. Having numbers and common sense like all of my posts makes someone right. See talking points 101.
Just in case you couldn’t understand:
“Further: You were replying to a post about DOD spending and how D stated that the deficits Obama had came from Bush”
This means you did once, and in your primary argument link Bush’s deficits to Obama.
First of all, Bob, I was responding to your post – not D’s. I agree with D. And yes, I do believe Bush (as Cheney’s marienette doll) lied to the American people. They knew Janabi was unreliable when they “presented” the so-called evidence. That is lying. Colin Powell embellished the truth. That is lying. And I think it should be grounds for treason. And your version of “common sense” doesn’t make you right. It makes you opinionated. That’s all. We all have one, you know.
You were replying to my reply to D, thus you WERE addressing the issue at hand with D regarding Bush and Obama.
You are the type who doesn’t like admitting when you have been backed into a corner. Don’t talk with me as if I lost track of this convo. You have tried to imply I’m attacking you already. You are passive agressively encouraging me to, which is not classy Libby.
Now moving forward: Every foreign intelligence presented. Not just the person you quoted. He did not lie to the people. It is impossible for one man to fool an entire league of democrats. They reviewed a total of every UN nation’s foreign intelligence and they agreed there was cause to go to war.
The WMD’S were NOT the reason quoted for the war in the speech on the day of the war. Bush quoted 16 UN sanctions. Therefore, Bush being wrong about WMD’S is irrelavent, as the democrats even agreed the WMD’s were not the reason we went to war. It was certainly a concern.
Making up facts like you did is not a version of an opinion. It is insanity partisan politics. I am actually not a republican. I would like a two way system. An assisted universal care, as well as private care rather than one or the other. Integrating the private with the government defeats the purpose. I am for private and government social security.
Of the two of us, I am not biased. Of the two of us, I have presented the most logical facts. If your argument is that democrats did not know what they were doing because Bush was able to state on his own there were WMD’s you are grossly innaccurate or democrats or grossly stupid and should never EVER ever be in office. If I were to believe you (and the facts in no way point to you being right) I would definitely change my position and rather than prefer republicans, I would never vote for a democrat in my entire life for fear of them being so stupid that they would invoke world war 3 as soon as they thought Iran had nukes.
Now moving forward: You were wrong as well as D regarding DOD spending. That’s not an opinion. You were wrong about why we went to war. It was the 16 un sanctions. That’s not an opnion. You were wrong about what intelligence sent us there. It was every UN nation who gave us intelligence. That is not an opinion. You are wrong about the WMD’s. Your facts are so crooked it’s ridiculous and laughable. Your bias is showing. Cover it up and get out of partisan politics please.
I guess I am too foolish to know I was backed into a corner. The U.N. sanctions were in place because Saddam would not comply with investigations into WMD’s. The Iraq Resolution stated that the intent of the war was to remove “a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world”. I, too, have facts a figures. And seem to be able to make my point in 100 words or less. Of the two of us, we are both biased. As for your assumption of my political party, you are WRONG. I am not a registered democrat. But my ideals lie more left than right, just as yours lie more right than left. I do not back pedal.
Libby, apparently you didn’t study math in school as well. Where did you get the amount of $1trillion for the cost of vets care? Do you have any concept of what $1trillion actually is? Do you even know what $1billion is? I have followed costs on military and budgets and have never seen a report that says the cost would be the amount you just made up. I am inclined to think the government could fund the entire Veterans Administration for 50 years and it wouldn’t cost a trillion dollars unless Progressives were spending the money and diverting funds to their pet projects.
I got it from the same source you get your information, the internet. And yes, the number surpised me, as well. I didn’t say $1 trillion in a year. I believe that number includes care for all Iraqi and Afghan war vets over the years and into the future.
Libby: Your name is most likely based off of “liberal”. Don’t play the “I’m not democrat” while siding with Democrat beliefs.
Further, yes. You were backed into a corner. We already proved you did in fact comment regarding Bush and Obama, regarding my comment to D. I’m glad you finally admitted that rather than continually try to argue about it when it made no sense doing so. I’m also glad this shows you argue for the sake of winning rather than facts.
Moving forward: Your quote below included WMD’s and even your quote below showed it was not the primary reason. If you are foolish enough to not have known that WMD’s were used by Saddam in the past you are quite foolish in not knowing why every statement in your factual evidence was fact. Are you trying to state there was a lie in your quote? I certainly am not. In fact, I’m using your same fact source. WMD’s were not the only sanctions of the 16. I’m gald you qouted some of the others, including cruelty to his on people thus proving yourself wrong.
Why should I debate with someone who continually proves themself wrong? This is hilarious. Love it.
Further: You did back petal in trying to state that you had no intentions of making statements you clearly made. See above regarding your very entry into this debate as a reply to my response to D. Then you stated you weren’t making a link between Bush and Obama and the DOD. That’s just purely not true. The whole comment to D was in reference to relating Bush and Obama war spending and Iraq and Afghanistan and his disregard of DOD numbers.
Further: I am not more right than left. That is a bullshit comment. Pardon my french. I have quite clearly shown how gay rights can be done non-invasively and pointed out how healthcare can be done with a private and public system. I have clearly stated things which Obama, a liberal techincally agrees with. However, I unlike you realize he’s lying trash, I know what happened with the Iraq war, I don’t accept a poilticians answer of being confused at something which in no way confusing or vague, and which Bush had no way of making confusing or vague, and I do not listen to bull crap. Whether you like it or not, the democrats lie, and lie, and then lie some more. Republicans like Bush, were not even republicans. That’s why his rating was so low. Republicans hated that he was a moderate. No child left behind, along with expansion of medicare D, along with privitization of social security while keeping in place social security through incentives, as well as many other areas are all moderate issues. Not far right. Whether or not they worked is opinion based. The problem is you like Planet, are too dumb to see that Bush was a moderate which is why he was hated. Not an extremist.
I should also point out that bush also pushed for new regulatory systems for housing in 2003, 2005, and 2006. Also things that Obama claims “republicans” don’t support.
So he pushed for a double system for retirement, medicare part d, no child left behind, housing regulatory reform, delt with two receissions, one blew up the world freaking trade center libby. I’m not sure you realize how big that is, while at the same time dealing with the dot com bubble burst. We got out of that rut. We got out of the 2003 rut. We are still in the 2008 rut. Blame it on Bush all you want (though it was not his fault) recessions typically end quicker than they have this time (the deeper the recession the quicker it ends, in all cases except for the great depression). Bush was an excellent modern president. Don’t talk about Clinton. He was in place during a world boom. The whole world literally was in boom. And he raised taxes. Canada cut taxes. Their corporate tax rate was cut to 15%, and lower than that later on. Yet they paid off a portion of their DEBT. We aren’t talking just a few surpluses, which Clinton did not use to pay down the debt. We are talking bringing their debt down. They are the only G7 country to have ever done this. Clinton is nothing when comparing how to cut debt and pay of surpluses. Canada is a different story. They went the route Bush tried and paid off their debt for ten years. Did it just magically happen?
Wow. Where do I start. First of all, I know what I was responding to and what my words meant. Not you. I will no longer try to explain myself to you, as you are too fond of trying to interpret my words to suit yourself.
You are more right than left. Period.
It appears to me you are the one that likes to argue. And you get nastier by the post.
Everyone lies. Men, women, whites, blacks, Republicans, and Democrats. But Mr. Bush lied to the U.N. and the American people, including Congress. You will not convince me otherwise, no matter how many names you call me.
You are neither logical nor unbiased in your posts. Some of them don’t even make sense as you are probably foaming at the mouth during your neverending rants.
Coupled with 9/11, the fear of WMD’s was a driving force for shoving the Iraq war down our throats. There was no worldwide threat. Bush and Cheney made that up for their own purposes. We (everyone) bought into it because they scared us. Now the truth is being revealed (stay tuned) and they will be exposed for what they are. Treasonous bastards.
So you wiped the saliva off and came up for air, huh Bob? I don’t recall blaming Bush for anything other than the Iraqi war in this blog. And Clinton’s name was never mentioned. I think Bush was a terrible president and certainly not very bright. Cheney, on the other hand, is the devil.
Libby:
Here is D:
“Ok. Follow along here. This might be a little over your head.
But, since you brought up deficits, I will comment on your post:
The current administration was “stuck” with the debt from the Iraq war. The prior administration didn’t even put spending for that war in their budget. Yet, they still ran a deficit. Iraq’s oil money never paid the bill for that war like Cheny said it would. The prior president NEVER vetoed a spending bill. Add the inherited Bush deficit to the increased deficit when the current administration did the only responsible thing and included Iraq war spending in their budget. Oh yeah, that former administration inherited a surplus. And the republicans are the fiscally responsible ones? History has not shown that in the last 50 years. Please show me a republican president who managed to create a surplus. Name one!”
Here is me:
“Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
4
5See my above comment D. You’re wrong. The DOD spending is what covered the Iraq war. Prior years of DOD spending do not affect future years under Obama.
If we have X amount of military in Iraq getting paid in 2003, sending jets there and tanks, the cost goes in 2003. Not 2012.
It would be impossible to budget it 9 years in the future as you ignorantly suggest. You pay for it when you use it. The deficits back then did take the Iraq and Afghan war into consideration. It was part of the DOD budget.”
Then you:
“We continue to incur costs for both wars. Costs of returning vets needing care (estimated at $1 trillion), interest on loans used to fund direct costs, replacement equipment ($17B per year), and appropriations too numerous to mention.”
His comment was saying “The current administration was “stuck” with the debt from the Iraq war. The prior administration didn’t even put spending for that war in their budget”
I replied with “See my above comment D. You’re wrong. The DOD spending is what covered the Iraq war. Prior years of DOD spending do not affect future years under Obama.”
You replied stating we still incur costs. I replied stating those are part of the DOD budget. However, you replying at stating we still incur costs is you trying to state those costs are from the Iraq war, and are thusly attaching Iraq and Afghan costs from Bush to Obama. You said it, get over yourself.
I recall you calling me more right than left.
I have to assume the reason is me being pro bush. It is a resonable assumption considering my other posts clearly made mention of my clearly not right side political beliefs regarding social security, healthcare reform, and gay rights issues.
Should I then just assume you are an ass or are ignorant and don’t understand that those issues are moderate issues not leaning right in any way?
Ready to continue the path you’re going on Libby? I think not. Get your head on straight.
When you go foaming at the mouth making a statement like Bush (someone who doesn’t have the power to present UN nation’s intelligence) sent us to war, when every democrat begged for it, I of course will slap you across the face and tell you to shut the hell up, like a father would a dumb son.
Obviously democrats are not stupid. They knew what they were presented. That is where you and I differ. It’s that I KNOW they aren’t stupid that makes me realize they were not fooled. Bush presented what he was given, and other presented information as well which Bush had no control over. Bush stated they had used weapons in the past and were pursuing them. They had weapons in the past, and were pursuing them. He stated they had them now, based on intelligence given to him. Every other democrat stated Iraq had them now based on the same information. Yet somehow you believe it’s ok to call Bush a liar for believing information he had no control over and democrats just stupid for believing the same information.
Get it now? You are unbelievably stupid. Hold consistent logics. Bush doesn’t gather intelligence for the CIA or the MI6. If that information says they have WMD’s and he goes off their statement as well as democrats you can’t suddenly state that he lied, and the democrats didn’t. I am logically consistent. I believe the information was wrong, Bush’s statement was therefore wrong, and therefore the democrats were wrong. Bush owned up. The democrats are trying to create a conspiracy theory where it’s all Bush’s fault. That information was not Bush’s. Again, it was CIA, MI6, and other agency intel prepared by them not us.
And juuuuusttt in case you’re still too stupid even after my last post:
“I did not say the DOD budget was affected. You said the spending was done in the year it was incurred. I say we continue to incur expenses today. Why do you find it necessary to name call and insult people to make a point?”
Now then, when I talked to D I clearly stated it was a part of the DOD budget. This budget is passed and increases automatically at a set amount. If your goal is to state that those are carry over costs, then you are disregarding two things: Those costs are part of the DOD budget. The DOD budget is passed by Obama year to year. He does not have to send more to Iraq.
Further: If the DOD was not affected, then Obama had nothing to pay for. So you were stating the DOD was affected which Obama then ended up paying for. Costs for the DOD are set at a rate. They would spend that same money for maintaining the Iraq war in other areas were it not spent there. Therefore, as the DOD is set, and Obama has the choice to lower it, or remove the Iraq war costs, or both, those are Obama’s costs.
You made the argument. You made the comment. I choose to not believe that you didn’t know what you were saying. That is because I usually respect debators. Unlike you.
“D” might just stand for dope.
Let me get this straight, We are spending “at least” $860 million dollars for a computer system to run an exchange that looks an awful lot like the one they have in Taxachusetts, the most costly healthcare state in the US. Why not borrow the one they have in Taxachusetts? Then HHS will need to hire who knows how many thousands of people to “manage” the exchanges complete with government benefits and Gov pensions. Then we are supposed to believe they are going to have this “fine oiled and efficient machine” provide wondrous healthcare to us better than we have now. Anyone that believes that is on dope. If the federal government can’t run the post office (It is broke according to the WSJ) can’t run Social Security (it is going broke) and can’t balance a budget, what makes anyone have enough confidence that this will be any better. What a farce
Here is a lesson on Social Security:
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,
It is no longer Voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,
Now 7.65%
on the first $90,000.
3.) The money participants elected to put
into the Program would be tax deductible from
their income for each year,
No longer tax deductible
4.) That the money would be placed into an
independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the
general operating fund. The money would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program.
Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent.
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed
as income.
Under Clinton & Gore- Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed
Many have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month —
and are now getting taxed on 85% of the money they paid to the Federal government.
This is just one reason I have no faith that federal involvement in healthcare can produce a good long term result.
Sargent, as usual, you have your facts correct about what went down on Social Security. I am sure Planet will come out and say it was s Republican idea and specifically George W. who implemented it. You remember the saying – Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. These Progressives are adament that we can spend our way to prosperity. They say that the reason the Stimulus didn’t work was that it wasn’t big enough. Debt doesn’t mean a thing to them and let future generations deal with it. We Conservatives say no, we don’t want that for our children and grandchildren and future generations and we certainly don’t want our country descending into some form of a banana republic in the next 20-30 years.
Yeah, conservatives are all about the deficit, huh?
Reagan Proved Deficits Don’t Matter*
By Jon Perr
Credit: Gallup
“Reagan,” Vice President Dick Cheney famously declared in 2002, “proved deficits don’t matter.” Unless, that is, a Democrat is in the White House. After all, while Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt and George W. Bush doubled it again, each Republican was rewarded with a second term in office. But as the Gallup polling data show, concern over the federal deficit hasn’t been this high since Democratic budget balancer Bill Clinton was in office. All of which suggest the Republicans’ born-again disdain for deficits ranks among the greatest – and most successful – political double-standards in recent memory.
The triumph of the GOP messaging machine is reflected in a new Washington Post/Pew Research poll. In just the four months since the Republican majority took control of the House, the percentage of Americans believing the budget deficit is a major problem which must be addressed now catapulted from 70% to 81%. But even more revealing is an April Gallup survey which showed the deficit (17%) rivaling the unemployment (19%) and the overall state of the economy (26%). And as it turns out, those cyclical swings in budget angst reflect the complete victory of the conservative deficit narrative.
As predicted at the time, Reagan’s massive $749 billion supply-side tax cuts in 1981 quickly produced even more massive annual budget deficits. Combined with his rapid increase in defense spending, Reagan delivered not the balanced budgets he promised, but record-settings deficits. Ultimately, Reagan was forced to repeatedly raised taxes to avert financial catastrophe, including the last major bipartisan tax code overhaul in 1986. By the time he left office in 1989, Ronald Reagan nonetheless more than equaled the entire debt burden produced by the previous 200 years of American history. It’s no wonder the Gipper cited the skyrocketing deficits he bequeathed to America as perhaps his greatest regret.
Of course, President George H.W. Bush would come to lament them even more. Despite his legendary 1988 campaign pledge of “read my lips – no new taxes,” Bush the Elder just two years later was forced to break his promise. As PBS recounted:
This “could mean a one term Presidency,” he confided to his diary, “but it’s that important for the country.”
Bush 41 was right on both counts.
For his part, Bill Clinton faced a double-whammy on the deficit issue. He was, after all, a Democrat. And in 1992 and again in 1996, Clinton was confronted with the third party candidacy -and the pie charts – of Ross Perot. But when President Clinton proposed boosting the top tax rate to 39.6% to help close the yawning Reagan/Bush budget gaps, every single Republican in the House and Senate voted no. While then Rep. John Kasich (R-OH) told Clinton and the Democrats, “your economic program is a job killer,” Dick Armey looked into his crystal ball to claim:
“Clearly this is a job killer in the short run. The revenues forecast for this budget will not materialize; the costs of this budget will be greater than what is forecast. The deficit will be worse, and it is not a good omen for the American economy.”
Most dramatic of all was Texas Senator Phil Gramm. The same man who led the 1990’s crusade to gut regulation of Wall Street and the IRS and later called America a “nation of whiners,” boldly – and wrongly – predicted:
“I believe hundreds of thousands of people are going to lose their jobs…I believe Bill Clinton will be one of those people.”
As it turned out, not so much. In 1996, Bill Clinton buried Bob Dole. Then in his second term, he buried the budget deficit as well.
Then came George W. Bush, who promised in his 2001 message to Congress:
At the end of those 10 years, we will have paid down all the debt that is available to retire. That is more debt repaid more quickly than has ever been repaid by any nation at any time in history.
Instead, President Bush produced red ink as far as the eye can see. After inheriting a federal budget in the black and CBO forecast of a $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years, President George W. Bush quickly set about dismantling the progress made under Bill Clinton. Even with two unfunded wars and the similarly unpaid Medicare prescription drug benefit, Bush’s $1.4 trillion tax cut in 2001, followed by a $550 billion second round in 2003, accounted for half of the yawning budget deficits he produced. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explained, if made permanent those Bush tax cuts if made permanent, would add more to the national debt over the next decade than the impact of Iraq, Afghanistan, the recession, the stimulus and TARP – combined.
During his presidency, Republicans in Congress voted seven times to raise the debt ceiling, the last to $11.3 trillion. By the time George W. Bush ambled out of the White House, he left his successor a $1.2 trillion budget deficit for 2009.
Barack Obama inherited two wars, a doubled national debt, and that $1.2 trillion deficit from George W. Bush. (As Orrin Hatch described the Bush years, “it was standard practice not to pay for things.”) But one thing was new: Republican concern about the budget deficit.
“President Obama’s agenda, ambitious as it may be, is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits, despite what many of his Republican critics are saying,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt explained in 2009, adding, “The economic growth under George W. Bush did not generate nearly enough tax revenue to pay for his agenda, which included tax cuts, the Iraq war, and Medicare prescription drug coverage.” That fall, former Reagan Treasury official Bruce Bartlett offered just that kind of honesty to the born again deficit virgins of his Republican Party. Noting that the FY2009 deficit of $1.4 trillion was solely due to lower tax revenues and not increased spending, Bartlett concluded:
“I think there are grounds on which to criticize the Obama administration’s anti-recession actions. But spending too much is not one of them. Indeed, based on this analysis, it is pretty obvious that spending – real spending on things like public works – has been grossly inadequate. The idea that Reagan-style tax cuts would have done anything is just nuts.”
Which is exactly right. Thanks to the steep recession, as the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and others have documented time and again, the overall federal tax burden as a percentage of GDP is now below 15%, “levels that low have not been seen since 1950.” And as Jonathan Cohn and Paul Krugman each explained, it is not a mythical Obama “spending binge” but the drastic loss of revenue combined with automatic increases in mandated safety net outlays that is producing the current budget gaps.
Nevertheless, only now – with Democrat Barack Obama in the Oval Office – Republicans like John Boehner warn Americans that “unsustainable debt and deficits threaten the prosperity of our children.” But despite their fear-mongering, the GOP would make the situation much, much worse. December’s two year tax cut compromise will add $800 billion to the deficits this year and next. And by making the Bush tax cuts permanent and lowering the top rate to 25%, the Ryan budget just passed by the House would drain over $4 trillion from the U.S. Treasury.
Back in June, Rhode Island Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse lamented the double-standard at work in the Republicans’ posturing on the national debt:
“I understand the point about the debt and the deficit and the spending,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). “But to me, that doesn’t have an enormous amount of credibility, because when President Clinton left office, he left an annual surplus… At the end of [George W. Bush’s] term, we had $9 trillion in debt.”
“We would have none of this if it hadn’t been for the Republican debt orgy that they went through,” Whitehouse said.
Apparently, Sheldon Whitehouse and his Democratic allies don’t understand how this game works. As Cheney said, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”
Unless, of course, a Democrat is in the White House.
As usual Planet, you jumped to conclusions about Reagan and what he was facing. If you remember, he followed the now infamous Jimmy Carter and an economy that was completely stagnant and in serious recession, skyrocketing interest rates, business malaise of historic preportions, an energy crisis, gutted military capability and a Democratic Congress which refused to cut spending. His deficits were inherited and he couldn’t get Congress to go along with spending cuts. They welched on the deal he made with them to cut the budget. You rave about how Bill Clinton, the serial liar was so wonderful. He wanted to raise taxes, install Hilarycare and the Republican Congress stopped him in his tracks and forced him to sign a balanced budget and end Welfare as we knew it. Now, you think he was such a great President and did such a great job on the economy. The fact is he was threatened with a government shutdown if he didn’t get his act together and he capitulated. George W really didn’t have a chance since 9/11 and he had to respond to being attacked. You Progressives probably would have apologized to Al Quida and begged them not to attack us again. He also faced a hostile Democratic Congress who again refused to get the fiscal responsibility house in order. Bush’s big mistake, particularly in the last two years was not vetoing much of the Pelosi/Reid big government spending legislation sent over. I hold him completely accountable for that. I do agree with you on one thing. Any President who does not get a handle on the economy of this country and make the kind of changes necessary to restore fiscal responsibility and cut out all this entitlement nonsense does not deserve a second term. Your President admitted that if he doesn’t get the fiscal house in order, it is a one term proposition. He will find that out in November. Enough is enough.
Too bad Bush didn’t go after Al Quida, but went after Iran. A little payback for the job his daddy botched.
Libby, your ignorance is astounding. Is the brainwashing you received in school that bad? How about these for facts! Bush did go after Al Quida and the Taliban who supported them in Afghanistan. He never went after Iran as no other President has as well. There is a difference between Iraq and Iran by the way. There were 17 different resolutions in the wonderful UN that said WMD’s were in Iraq and Sadam intended to use them. Every major intelligence agency in the world said the same thing. By the time action happened, they gave Sadam enough time to squirrel them away into Syria who now has them and is threatening to use them if they are attacked. You must be related to Planet in some way to just spout off untruths like they are gospel. Wake up.
Of course I meant to say Iraq. I won’t bother to respond to the rest of your post. It’s too preposterous.
Libby, your brain is so muddled that you can’t recognize the truth when you see it. Your apologist President would have kneeled to Al Quida and begged them not to attack us again. They killed over 3,000 of our citizens and we aren’t supposed to retaliate for that atrocity????? He had every right to go after these subhumans. Actually, the Democrats did step forward and join hands with Republicans to go after the evildoers. That didn’t last very long, but we had a brief period of national unity and patriotism when faced with this threat. Wake up and smell the coffee.
He didn’t go after the people responsible. They were mostly from Saudi Arabia, with which he had/has strong ties through oil. Saddam Hussein was a terrible despot, but Bush misrepresented information in order to justify a war with Iraq because he had his own agenda. Iraq was not responsible for 9/11. My brain is not muddled at all.
Libby, Are you getting your opinions from The View or Rosie O’Donnell and her Truther crowd? Al Quida was responsible for 9/11 and they were holed up in Afghanistan and supported by the equally evil Taliban. Iraq was an entirely new problem with the evil Saddam and his sons threatening every country in the area. He had already used WMD’s on his own people (Kurds) and in a prior war with Iran. The mistake we made was not taking him out in the first Gulf War. There was a great amount of debate about what to do with Iraq with the UN, intelligence services all over the world. They passed resloution after resolution, somewhere around 17 condemning his regime, imposing sanctions and demanding inspection of his facilities, all met with defiance. Bush did ask for Congressional approval to act and your Democratic friends in Congress signed off on it so don’t tell me he was acting just on his own agenda. Your President did an Executive Order to act without Congressional approval in Libya to take out Kadafi so Europe could reclaim their oil supplies. Meanwhile, he does nothing about Syria who is slaughtering thousands of their own people to keep the evil despot in power. He has supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt who has the chief goal of wiping out Israel. How do you think that will work out for peace in the area? This is my history lesson for the day. I know you won’t believe it, but if you did basic research, you can verify it.
Here’s my history lesson for you: During a speech in a special joint session of the U.S. Congress given on 11 September 1990, U.S. President George H. W. Bush summed up the reasons (for the Gulf war) with the following remarks: “Within three days, 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then that I decided to act to check that aggression.”
The Gulf war was only an attempt by Bush to support his good buddies in oil, the Saudis. Saudi Arabia paid over 1/2 of the entire expense of that war.
The only reason Dubya invaded Iraq is to finish what his daddy started and didn’t quite finish. He used misleading (untrue) intelligence (propaganda) to coax the entire world into supporting his agenda.
Unfortunately, there are many atrocities going on all over the world and yet the U.S. does not declare war with those countries. Iraq was no great threat, with or without WMD’s, to the U.S. (That would be Iran &/or North Korea.)
Wake up yourself!
Funny Libby, remind me where Osama Bin Laden was found. (Here’s a hint, it was in the Axis of Evil Bush talked about)
Our intel was correct on where Osama was, and when later checked into, several countries did harbor the people responsible for 9/11 and we could have caught Bin Laden sooner.
Saddam did harbor terrorists. Saddam did refuse to allow us to check for those terrorists. We asked him if we could check, and Saddam would not allow us. We asked Saddam to allow us to check his weapons program and he would not allow us. He literally said it would be an act of war if we did. So we told him we would check, we would check into his acts against humanity, and if he so chose to have that an act of war then it was an act of war. When we reply to an ultimatum direclty from Saddam that does not make us the ones at fault.
I feel I must reiterate: Bush was not going after and finishing a war his daddy started. It was not for oil.
I know what happened and how it happened. How does anything you just said refute it? Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, where the majority of Al Quida responsible for 9/11 were hiding. What does that have to do with the war on Iraq? I know what I said and I stand by it. You may find it funny if you like.
Libby,
British Media:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/8453868/Mass-Iraq-grave-found.html
When we later checked into it, there were over half a million mass graves in Iraq.
This is not a reason to go to war with Iraq? When Bush says this is one of the reasons he went to war with Iraq you would rather somehow link him to oil? You are literally insane if you think a president would ever to go war for Oil or Energy, democrat or republican. I know Al Gore has energy tendencies. Same with Obama. I know Al Gore has ownership in green energy companies. I am however not dumb enough to state that he would start a war to go after China who has the world’s most precious metals which would be used for green energies which we don’t have access to.
Just because a link exists, does not mean the link was used. You have to prove the link was used. You have not.
You have to show there was no reason to go to war with Iraq. There was. Half a million worth of Iraqis, and a dictator telling us we couldn’t search his country for terrorists which we had intel (which was correct) detailing where those terrorists were. You’re absolutely right, the war wasn’t directly about Al Quieda. Saddam made damn sure that we could not directly pursue Al quieda, and we made damn sure he went down.
Libby:
No. You don’t know what happened:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/05/osama_bin_laden_found_in_a_man.html
Osama was not found in Afghanistan.
Osama was found in the Axis of Evil, and intel Bush had, showed that he was likely in Iraq, and than Pakistan. Guess what? The intel was right.
What do you know, Bush’s intel was right, therefore your attempt at stating he had no reason to go after Iraq, and no reason to declare Pakistan part of the axis of evil was incorrect.
When the intel went along and was accurate and Bush followed that intel, we see that he didn’t use the intel. The intel used and lead him.
Also note that further showing the consistency of Bush going after Osama, note that Bush resfused to close Guantanamo, and said the terrorists there were leading him to Osama.
Note this line in the article I showed you:
“The U.S. learned four years ago that Bin Laden was hidden with the help of the courier and his brother. It took two more years for the intelligence community to get the couriers names, senior administration said–and where they lived. One of the couriers was a “protégé” of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a mastermind of the 9-11 attacks. He is being held in the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba”
When it looks like a duck, leads to the capture of Osama, and the ultimate plan works, it is what it is. You are twisting reality.
There were as many deaths at the hands of Idi Amin and I did’t see us going to war with Uganda. $100,000 in Bosnia and no war. I could go on. So, no, I do not support that was the reason for the war. You blindly believe your idiot Dubya. I’m just glad he’s finally gone.
Libby: I am glad we finally proved you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I do not ever make a statement which was not heavily researched with common sense, and with a painstakingly large amount of research.
I know when I’m debating with someone who has not done the same. It becomes clear, because they don’t get the big picture. When you cannot even correctly name the country of which Osama was found, the most basic of details, the intel which lead to that capture, the name of the person and his location who gave the intel, and the intel surrounding the capture, as well as why we went to war with Iraq (which is tied to said info) then no, you didn’t do your research, and no, you do not know what you’re talking about.
Before my father died he would commently proudly of the fact that no one, and I mean no one, does as much unbiased research into this as me.
I actually walked into a research more recently going from Politico, MSNBC, as well as NY Times comparing info regarding an action made by Obama I agreed with. My father was proud because I did not walk in assuming what I wanted to believe.
You have assumed what you wanted to believe regarding this war, and it has influenced your ability to research it.
Don’t debate on a topic if you do not know the details.
Thank you and good night.
You keep bringing different topics into the conversation as if we were talking about them. We weren’t talking about Osama bin Laden or Pakistan or the Axis of Evil. They are not pertinent to the discussion?
They are pertinent to the bigger picture.
They are the reasons we went to war. You stated Iraq had nothing to do with the war and we went after the wrong people. You stated Bush went to war regarding oil and didn’t have a reason.
I showed why Iraq was the right country to go after. I showed that they issued an ultimatum when we chased after Osama. The intel showed Osama was in Iraq before Pakistan. We had intended on chasing him there. Saddam not only stopped us, he demanded we go to war if we wanted to inspect. So we did.
Big picture Libby. Big picture.
And further: The reason I must debate with you like this is because you are clueless to most these facts.
In order to believe Bush went to war for Oil you must first prove he did not go to war for the reasons I listed. You must show we truly were duped and had no reason to go to war. You must prove his intel was wrong, which you said he was wrong and lied about. But he was right about Osama, which is one of the reasons we wanted to inspect Iraq. He was right about the mass graves we found, another reason we wanted to inspect Iraq. He was right on all but the WMD’s, which were in development (which means half right). The intel was correct and he acted on it. Yet you state he lied, he lied, he did an unfounded war, it wasn’t about Al Queida (despite intel showing that it was very much so about getting Bin Laden) etc.
Your credibility is moot.
I am not debating you. I am stating my opinion. I am happy your father was so proud of you. Would he be proud of the way you have conducted yourself in your exchanges with me? Doubtful. There is way to impart knowledge in a way that is going to get someone to listen to you. You do not have that skill. You are a smarty pants know-it-all that gains satisfaction from trying to humiliate and demean people you believe are below your above-average intellegence. There is nothing to be proud about that. So you know your shit? So what? There is more to dealing with people in this life than regurgitating facts and figures and insulting others that may not be as knowledgable. I can still have an opinion. I do not need to substantiate it to you what you call research. I would rather have a thoughtful exchange with someone that respectfully presents their argument in a polite manner and allows me to respond. You are a jerk.
Wrong. I have acted pretty well in this convo, considering you presented yourself as someone who was a know it all and presented me as someone putting words in your mouth every time your misspoke.
Coming into a conversation believing you are right regardless of facts (you) and mistating information and believing it’s ok to do that (you) is not a proper way to debate.
I’m not a “smarty pants” and the one who debates like a child throws out the phrase “smarty pants”. Yes. I do know my shit. Calling someone who doesn’t make me a jerk. You barging in stating comments that are not researched does however make you a jerk.
And believing those unresearched beliefs, and hating another to the point of calling them bastards for making the action (which you have not researched, ergo unfounded hate, comparable to racism) is not any more ok just because it’s against Bush and not a black man. Hate with unfounded facts are not ok. And I will defend Bush from your “hate” crimes until the day I die. As I would a black man from hate crimes.
I see you and most democrats as no different when it comes to hating bush for unresearched info.
For some reason my comment did not post regarding Uganda.
Uganda did not have 16 un sanctions which were specifically put in place for said killing, and to allow us to inspect their country. We had the right to inspect to see if he was killing his own people. Clinton passed that right. We had the right to inspect for the terrorists. Saddam threatened us with war if we came in.
We didn’t start the war. We said we were coming in. When we came in he fought with us. He didn’t have to. He could have said, I cave, go ahead and search.
If you have a problem with the sanctions that allowed for the war go complain to Clinton who put them in place.
You’re right. I’m wrong. Happy now? Then shut up, please.
Hey Libby, If Bush went to war with Iraq to get their oil, how come not one drop of their oil has been sent to this country for payment of our blood and treasure? Had Donald Trump been in charge, he said he would have demanded payment for our sacrifices. We have kept on buying that expensive middle east oil for decades, meanwhile sitting on the largest reserves in the world and not being developed. I am afraid our politicians on both sides of the aisle have IQ’s in the 50’s which is somewhere between and idiot and an imbecile. This country should never have a balance of payments deficit when it comes to energy. We also shouldn’t be into using up our depleted corn crop to produce ethanol which is far less efficient and certainly more expensive. We should also not be funding any more failed green energy projects which have cost the taxpayers dearly. Wind and Solar was never expected to produce more than 5% of our energy needs. If this country ever wakes up and realizes we need to be energy independent and makes it a national priority like we did in the 60’s with the moon landing, we could do it because we are America and all things are possible for men and women of good will.
I never said he went to war with Iraq to get their oil. I said he went in to finish the job his daddy started, which was to protect the Saudis from Iraq since they have been and continue to be in bed together.
Protecting what’s his. Not ours. Plain and simple.
And I qoute:
“The Gulf war was only an attempt by Bush to support his good buddies in oil, the Saudis. Saudi Arabia paid over 1/2 of the entire expense of that war.”
Yes you did Libby. I have to assume that you know that Saudi Arabia is our number 2 or 1 provider of oil depending on the year (Switched between Canada, which Obama denied the Keystone Oil Project therefore ensuring we rely on Saudi Arabia for oil, so who is friends with Saudis Libby? You need to start seeing the Big Picture.) so I have to assume you meant it was for oil.
Libby, we would debate with you more friendly as you desire if you were not so clearly making statements that were questionable when you were cornered in debate.
Agent: I kind of feel sorry for her at this point. I don’t doubt her intentions. Clearly she is trying to be against people she perceives as wrong. Maybe we can make sure she knows we don’t hate her. We just don’t like the bad situations.
“Protecting what’s his. Not ours. Plain and simple.”
You have absolutely no evidence to substantiate this claim.
And more importantly: The oil isn’t his. He gets no money for it. None. Zip. Nada.
Oh! And let’s not forget Cheney’s ties to Haliburton. Don’t even get me started on that old crook.
Two words Planet: Mathmatically, impossible.
$800 billion in 2 years? That’s 400 billion a year. Another $4 trillion in 2 years is 2.4 trillion in two years. That is as much as the total revenues we brougt in was 2.3 trillion in 2011.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/yearrev2011_0.html
Are you trying to state that a bump up of a few points is going to make our revenues go up in double?
Tax revenues in 2000: 2 trillion Tax revenues in 2007: 2.56 trillion.
Now here is why the numbers are relevant: 2007 tax revenues of 2.56 trillion are higher than 2011. Why? The economy. The tax revenues compared to GDP is an irrelvant stastic due to this comparison. We clearly see that similar GDP amounts can produce different results depending on the overall strength of the economy and the amount of employed persons. This is clearly proven in that the GDP numerically is stronger now than during 2007 (literally higher) and yet the revenues are considerably below 2007 levels with a lower GDP numerical aspect.
The CBO has been wrong in nearly every projection they have ever had, including Bush’s estimates. Bush’s tax cuts did not cause revenue drops. The economy did. It is clearly visible that when the economy improved so did the revenues.
Bob, It was pretty excruciating to see how you dismantled all her arguments until she screeched that you were right and she was wrong and now you can shut up. Oops! You will have a tougher time with Planet since he is now busy posting all the vile hate against Bush stuff he can find. These are the same people that are calling Romney a murderer. It is abominable and way beneath Planet to do this, but he can’t win the argument so just resort to hate rhetoric.
And more importantly why those numbers are relevant: 2.0 as compared to 2.56 is actually a 25% increase in revenues in comparison to before. As shown in my last numbers, revenues do not always increase proportionately work out. If they did, Obama’s revenues would be equal to 2007 levels, considering the taxes and the GDP are nearly the same, and yet there is a substantial gap. CBO estimates on missed out taxes are always false, should never be listened to, and are stastics you should not be using. Ever. At all.
I find it concerning that we are copying Taxachusetts healthcare system which is a huge burden for the state and full of fraud. It is not nicknamed “Taxachusetts for nothing. I also find it amusing that D uses medicare as a success story when Barry Soetoro/Obama is going to take at least $500 Billion out of Medicare to pay for Obamacare while shifting money to medicaid to take care of the deadbeat illegals and other malingerers.
I’m so tired of the illegals and medicare/medicaid argument. Illegals are not eligible for medicare or medicaid except in an emergency situation, which is humane in the least. And as far as deadbeat goes, most illegals are here in this country to work so they can send money home to their families. They end up doing all the work most Americans will not do at wages most wouldn’t accept.
If you look at the problems in Europe it is a tell tale sign for the US. Those countries moved to big government controlling big spending on socialized medicine, pensions and other socialized programs (medicaid, wic, adc etc) and many are on the verge of bankruptcy because of it. So what happens? The country gets to a point where they can’t fund the freebies. They have to cutback or stop some programs. Then the Tattooed, body pierced, dope smoking, I phone and medicaid receiving throng, protest, riot etc because those that work can’t give anymore or have quit giving or moved their money offshore or moved to a country that is more work ethic oriented.
Sarge, did you take some shrapnel to the head in Nam? Which system are we copying? Taxachusetts or Europe? You really can’t have it both ways.
Planet, I see you found a “its Bush’s fault” article, Good Job.
Truth hurts about Bush, I know. Actually, I’d go further and say it’s Reagan’s fault.
On another note, I see your comment about service for the country and I would like to thank you for it. We may not see eye-to-eye on many topics, but I think we can agree on that one. My dad served, too. I also have some very close friends who have served in various branches. God willing, they are all healthy and doing well these days. Well, my dad has been battling skin cancer for a number of years but he’s on the up-and-up these days.
Captain: I’m going to debate with you about Bush, and I’ll guarantee you I know more about him and the collapse. Here’s a hint: Look at the CRA ratings for Leahman Brothers, WAMU, Country Wide Financial, Goldman Sachs, and the main institutions which failed. Look at their 2007 (or 2006 when 2007 is not available, not all have a 2007 rating) CRA ratings and more importantly the WHY THEY WERE GIVEN THE RATING. Leahman brothers gave out almosst 15% of their loans to people at poverty level with “little to no proof of income documentation” with a median loan of $212,000. They were praised for it in their rating, because they were giving low income loans. It was not about race, or discrimination, it was about giving low income high risk loans with little to no income documentation You tell me what’s wrong with those numbers. Obama sued citibank in the 90’s for red lining against low income borrowers. Then they collapsed in the future for giving those loans. Democrats tripped this whole nation into the gutter and you constantly blame it on republicans, because of class warfare tar. Not all loans are CRA loans, but every company was pushed for a high CRA rating. WAMU exploded by 20 locations in 7 years because you could only operate as certain types of banks (due to democrat regulations) with a high CRA rating. It was not only documented in their online government CRA rating, (look it the @#%#@ up for every company who failed or almost failed and see what you think about the read) and then tell me Bush caused the recession. When you finally do some actual research, you will then find that Bush sought to set up a program which would allow for private and government social security. The only president who was moderate enough to do so. You will also find he did quite a bit in many areas, and stopped not one, but two recessions with his tax cuts rather than fighting with congress every two seconds, he was able to get bipartisan support on numerous ocassions, even including the Iraq war. Which whether you disagree with or not EVERY democrat agreed with, and we followed BRITISH intelligence to start not American as well as 16 UN sanctions put in place by Clinton. Bush was an above average president.
Libby, Illegals do get medicaid and plenty of it. If you show up at a medicaid office here they have signs in English and Spanish. If you are a white male and need help you don’t get it. If you are an “undocumented worker” you get $500.00 in emergency assistance and moved to the head of the line for medicaid benefits. I know, my brother (an American citizen)who has had 3 back surgeries and no income (his company filed bankruptcy) could not get any assistance except from me. The illegals standing behind him in line got cash and medicaid.
As far as doing work in the US? They are a drain on our economy. If we cut off able bodied workers from medicaid and welfare we they would go to work and the illegals would have to go home. Besides that I will pay an extra quarter for fruit or vegatables
How do you know they were illegals behind him in line? Not everyone that speaks Spanish is illegal…
MEDICAID AND SCHIP ELIGIBILITY RULES FOR IMMIGRANTS
The passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in 1996 changed
the eligibility requirements for immigrants, making it more
difficult for immigrants, especially those newly arrived in the
U.S., to obtain Medicaid coverage. For the first time, the
1996 law tied legal immigrants’ eligibility for Medicaid to their
length of residency in the U.S. These restrictions also
applied to SCHIP, which was established in 1997. The
following summarizes Medicaid and SCHIP eligibility rules
for immigrants today.
Most immigrants are subject to a five-year bar on
eligibility. Legal permanent residents (immigrants with
green cards) are ineligible for Medicaid or SCHIP during their
first five years in the U.S. After five years, they become
eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP if they meet the programs’
other eligibility requirements. Some immigrants are exempt
from the bar and are eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP
regardless of their length of residence. These include
refugees and most other humanitarian immigrants as well as
active-duty members or veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces
and their families. In 2004, 22 states and the District of
Columbia used state funds to provide coverage to some
immigrants ineligible for Medicaid and SCHIP.
Undocumented immigrants and immigrants in the U.S.
on a temporary basis (e.g., have temporary work visa or
student visa) are generally ineligible for Medicaid and
SCHIP. Regardless of their length of residence in the U.S.,undocumented and temporary immigrants are ineligible for
Medicaid and SCHIP. This restriction was in place prior to
PRWORA and remains in place today.
States can use SCHIP funds to provide prenatal care to
pregnant women, regardless of their immigration status.
In 2002, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services,
which administers the SCHIP program, amended the SCHIP
regulations to provide states with the option of providing
SCHIP-funded prenatal care without applying an immigration
test. The rule extends SCHIP eligibility to a pregnant
woman’s fetus, which does not have an immigration status
and is not subject to the restrictions. Currently, seven states
provide SCHIP-funded prenatal care to pregnant immigrant
women.
Emergency treatment is available to all immigrants,
regardless of their status. Legal and undocumented
immigrants who meet all eligibility requirements except for
the immigrant eligibility restrictions are eligible for
Emergency Medicaid, which covers the costs of emergency
medical treatment. Additionally, the Emergency Medical
Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) requires hospitals to
screen and stabilize all individuals, including immigrants,
who seek care in an emergency room.
Libby, read the post. We are copying Taxachusetts healthcare system and we look a whole lot like Europe from an economic standpoint.
And as far as my service to this country, you can go to h-ll.
My father did two tours in Vietnam, one in Korea, and is now dead because of Agent Orange. I am very proud of the service given by any service man and meant no disrespect. My apologies.
My brother witnessed it and called me to complain that I talked him into going down to what he called “Mexican Village”. They are illegals when the medicaid worker, behind the counter asks;
Are you an American citizen- Nada
Are you in the US under a visa or green card- Nada
Do you have children with you- Si. No children were with them.
Do you need emergency assistance- Si
Do you have work- no answer.
By the way this was done thru an interpreter as they spoke 0 english
Actually, no in Spanish is no, not nada. So, unless you are paraphrasing, which you might be, I don’t think your brother heard the conversation right. Also, if it was done through an interpreter, and if your brother doesn’t speak Spanish, how would he know what was being asked? Obviously, now you’ll say you are paraphrasing and your brother is fluent. Which he might be. I’m certainly not calling you a liar.
I know I’ll be made to be the crazy one here, but 0 English doesn’t really bother me. So what?
Your brother calls it, “Mexican Village”? Awfully white of him to generalize and stereotype like that. I’m sorry, that’s just not right on many levels. I wonder what all of the connotations are meant by such a comment. I have a number of guesses.
And if they were behind him in line, how could he have heard anything? He would have been gone.
I think just the employee was behind the counter, according to the story. But, it doesn’t really matter. Sgt’s brother sounds pretty jaded to me, actually worse than that, potentially owns a rebel flag. Regardless, I know what Jesus would do. This is a “Christian nation” supposedly, right? Founded on Christian principles? He’d turn these people away for not speaking the predominant language of the land. He’d tell these people to starve and get diseases. Jesus a humanitarian? Yeah, right! He never helped…oh, wait…
Shame on you Planet for your ugly post about Sargents brother. It is beneath your normally uninformed posts. I guess this is the new game plan. If you can’t win an argument, you just resort to ugly inuendo just like Libby does.
A guy calls a Medicaid office “Mexican Village” and I’m the ugly one? Okay. C’mon, Agent. I hope you wouldn’t do the same. There is no game plan, just opinions. Hence, blog.
Planet, No one invited people to break our immigration laws to come here illegally and collect benefits from this country. That is reserved for citizens of this country which Sargents brother was by the way. He was expressing frustration that they were getting benefits reserved for our citizens. These people all need to be loaded up on a bus and sent back and told to do it the right way like immigrants have been doing since our country was founded. They have no right to Social Security, Medicaid, Food Stamps or any other benefit that our country provides to its citizens. I don’t feel a bit guilty about this. Call me a cold hearted Conservative all you want. These people are a major problem for this country.
I challenge you to take a look at how immigration has, um, ‘developed’ since our country was founded. A bit more convoluted these days. I think you’d probably say the government is getting in the way. Thousands of dollars and years of time are spent. Back when the country was founded, I think you just signed your name.
I can think of a word stronger than jaded, but I will keep that to myself.
Agent – get off your high horse. There is nothing ugly about using the word jaded. Using a term like “Mexican Village” to describe the local assistance office is ugly. And how about lumping all people receiving assistance (as his brother was attempting to do) as “Tattooed, body pierced, dope smoking, I phone and medicaid receiving throng”? That sounds kind of ugly to me. Point out one thing I have posted that is your definition of ugly. You can’t.
Actaully Captain and libby my brother was standing next to the “Spanish speaking undocumented worker”. The Medicaid worker would ask the questions in english and a person who came with the “spanish speaking undocumented worker” would interpret the question in spanish. then the “spanish speaking undocumented worker” would answer and shake his head and the interpreter would answer in english. That is how he knew.
It took my brother, a person who is 1. a US citizen, 2. someone who has paid into Social Security for 20 or more years, 3. who has never asked for a dime of unemployment and often worked two jobs; it took him 3 years to get any kind of Social Security benefits and he had to get an attorney. In the meantime he had surgery after surgery and could not get released by his doctors to do any work. I sent him money to live on or he would have been either homeless or living with me. I think that just maybe we should take care of our own citizens first, before taking care of anyone else.
I agree with that, but wouldn’t that make your brother part of a Tattooed, body pierced, dope smoking, I phone and medicaid receiving throng? My point is, not all people on assistance are lazy or trying to scam the system. I have a sister on SSD (with help from an attorney) and a good friend that sounds alot like your brother who is in the process of going through a hearing after his first denial, again, with the help of a lawyer. It just doesn’t seem logical to me that 3 U.S. citizens with legitimate disabilities have such difficulty, but illegal aliens are given benefits with no questions asked. Maybe emergency assistance, but not any steady kind of assistance or medical care. I just don’t believe that.
Man, if only we had some sort of healthcare system in this country so even with surgery after surgery, you didn’t need to ask family for money. #1 cause of bankruptcy in this country? Medical costs.
Off the soapbox point, I hope your brother is doing better and I agree, we should be helping citizens first. That’s only logical.
Captain and Libby. Sounds like a band.
The band of the uninformed to me.
We’d rock it! Probably be a lot of tattoed, body pierced, dope smoking fans out there. I’m good with that. Our first album will be titled “Republican’t”.
Awesome! I love that!
I think Democ”rat” would be more appropriate.
Another popular name is “Demoncrat”. That is what we are dealing with now. Within minutes after Romney named Ryan as his VP nominee, they just couldn’t stand it and ran the Granny off the cliff ad depicting Ryan pushing her off the cliff in a wheelchair. That’s pretty typical of what they will do to “demonize” a Conservative. Not to worry. Ryan has a titanium spine and will hold his own.
You can’t even agree with me on a joke! You really do need to lighten up Francis.
Libby,are you talking about Francis the talking A$$? That is your mascot, not mine. Mine is a giant elephant with a long memory. I remember when we had the greatest country the world has ever known before the Progressive movement corrupted minds like yours into believing their agenda and that we needed to re-distribute the wealth, let any illegal into the country and give them our treasure and try to spend our way to prosperity. How did that work out for the country? You and Planet think the government and this President is great and he thinks the private sector is doing just “fine”. What a warped view of how things really are.
I was talking about the movie, Stripes. You really should chill out and laugh once in while. I think you and Bob need to untwist the panties and take a deep breath. We can all agree to disagree and still be civil, if not friendly.
So Libby, You and Planet have spent numerous posts insulting Sargent, his brother, Bob & I and now you want to make nice and tell us to lighten up. You even intimated that Sargent took some shrapnel to the head for his views. Your belated apology rings hollow. We will be much more lighthearted when the Progressives you idolize are swept out of office in November and we can start restoring this country to greatness once again. The country has been in a death spiral for about 10 years now and I blame both parties for it. It is time for a reversal of direction.
Don’t mistake my posts for trying to “make nice” with you. I’m trying to point out how uptight and fanatical you sound. And my apology was to Sargent Major and only Sargent Major. Your opinion of it means nothing to me.
I didn’t insult anyone. I pointed out Sgt’s brother referred to the Medicaid office as “Mexican Village” and that is a pretty white statement. Plain and simple. If anyone was insulting, it is the brother, not me. I didn’t say, “Mexican Village”.
Good luck in November, Agent. See you at the polls. And yes, both parties are to blame.
You call me Francis and I’ll kill you. Yeah, I got it. I don’t think Agent has seen the movie.
There are people who need assistance, that was my point which obviously, you missed. That said there is a large amount of inconsistency, ineptness on the part of those who administer the program and a large amount of fraud. That was also my point. As far as the description of being tattooed- My sister is a nurse. Since the inner city general receiving hospital closed (went broke because of the amount of non paying walk ins and the large percentage of medicaid patients) many of these patients have been coming to her suburban hospital to deliver babies. According to he they are all on medicaid. She is shocked to see a high percentage of patients and their families who are able bodied tattooed with body piercings, implants, jewelry, expensive clothing and shoes etc. She said most have phones/PDAa that are better than the one she has and they smoke like chimneys outside the hospital. Not only that many of the family members want the hospital to give them a free pass for food at the hospital which is refused.
So how is it that this much understood group of needy recipients have the money for all the above but can’t seem to find a job to pay for it? There is far to much fraud in the system
I agree there is fraud and it should be addressed. I just don’t like to hear sweeping generalizations of entire classes of people. It’s offensive. Let’s hear some ideas/suggestions about cleaning it up, that would be more constructive.
Amen, Libby. We should be talking about solutions. That’s where a conversation can be had. Parties may not agree on the solutions, but at least the discussion is fruitful. Think of the small group exercises from school. Different mindsets combining to mix up a bowl of problem solution, hypothetical or not. We really should try that approach more often rather than simply point fingers, jump up and down, and scream, “I’m right, you’re evil!”
I think I can be right AND evil at the same time. :-)
Trust me Libby. Evil is not good and it is not right. I recommend you & your cohort Planet Google Milton Friedman on the net. He was probably the most brilliant economist of the 20th Century and wrote the book Capitalism & Freedom. Watch the video of his interview with Phil Donahue. There may still be time for you to learn about the evils of Progressive Socialism and Big Government.
OMG! Another joke lost on you. You’re hopeless!
Libby, you and Planet could do us a favor and stop with the wisecracks and jokes on this forum. You obviously don’t have anything meaningful to post and your ideas lack substance and style. Bob is very analytical and backs up his statements just like Sargent does. You should open your mind up instead of just blogging nonsense. I again refer you to google Milton Friedman, but you seem to be lost in your Progressive dogma.
And just because my ideas don’t conform with yours, does not mean they are not meaningful and lack substance OR style. My style is humor if you haven’t noticed. Bob can analyze all the numbers he wants, it doesn’t make them right. We all know how numbers can be manipulated to prove a point. I don’t need “facts” and “figures” or history lessons from you or Bob. I’m here for a HEALTHY exchange of ideas, not a bunch of rhetoric from the likes of you and Bob.
The facts on Iraq and the DOD were correct. And if being hate filled toward Bush is ok as long as you have style while you are wrong so is being hate filled toward blacks. You were wrong I’m our argue meant and didn’t even know where Osama was killed. Obama was going to close gitmo. He didn’t. Eer wonder why? He received the information on Osama as per the post I showed you stating Bush was right and they had a lead on Osama. This isn’t an opinion. It came out of Obama’s mouth. But since Obama decided gitmo was good it’s good right? With Bush it’s just because he’s completing his daddy’s war. That is not style Libby. That’s classless literally rhetoric. My facts are facts. You just don’t like them. And they are right
I am filled with rage over the way the Bush family has used their political power for personal gain:
BUSH’S PERSONAL FINANCIAL TIES TO SAUDIS RUN DEEP: According to various sources, Bush has been awash in Saudi money for years. Journalist/author Craig Unger in his new book “House of Bush, House of Saud” traced millions “in investments and contracts that went from the Saudis over the past 20 years to companies in which the Bushes and their allies have had prominent positions – Harken Energy, Halliburton, and the Carlyle Group among them.” According to the Boston Herald, that includes a $1 million gift from Prince Bandar to the Bush Presidential Library in Texas.
WAS BCCI’S INDICTED PRINCIPAL A BUSH BUSINESS BACKER?: Author Kevin Phillips, a top Republican strategist under President Nixon, reported in his new book, “Bush made his first connection in the late 1970s with James Bath, a Texas businessmen who served as the North American representative for two rich Saudis (and Osama bin Laden relatives) – billionaire Salem bin Laden and banker and BCCI insider Khalid bin Mahfouz. Bath put $50,000 into Bush’s 1979 Arbusto oil partnership, probably using bin Laden-bin Mahfouz funds.” Also of interest: Former CIA Director James Woolsey testified to the Senate on 9/3/98 that Mafouz’s sister was married to Osama bin Laden. And according to the conservative American Spectator, “Bush has given conflicting statements about Bath’s investment in Arbusto, finally admitting to the Wall Street Journal that he was aware that Bath represented Saudi investors.”
BUSH CAMPAIGN TIES TO THE SAUDIS: A 12/11/01 Boston Herald report found that “a powerful Washington, D.c=, law firm with unusually close ties to the White House has earned hefty fees representing controversial Saudi billionaires as well as a Texas-based Islamic charity fingered last week as a terrorist front.” The influential law firm of Akin, Gump, whose partners “include one of President Bush’s closest Texas friends, James C. Langdon, and Bush fundraiser George R. Salem,” has represented three wealthy Saudi businessmen – BCCI’s Mahfouz, Mohammed Hussein Al-Amoudi and Salah Idris – “who have been scrutinized by U.S. authorities for possible involvement in financing Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network.”
WHY THESE TIES ARE IMPORTANT: Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, told the Boston Herald “that these intricate personal and financial links have led to virtual silence in the administration on Saudi Arabia’s failings in dealing with terrorists like bin Laden” and in oil policy. He said, “It’s good old fashioned ‘I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine.’ You have former U.S. officials, former presidents, aides to the current president, a long line of people who are tight with the Saudis, people who are the pillars of American society and officialdom. So for that and other reasons no one wants to alienate the Saudis, and we are willing to basically ignore inconvenient truths that might otherwise cause our blood to boil. We basically look away. Folks don’t like to stop the gravy train.”
As President Bush today squeezes in a visit to a 9/11 memorial as part of a fundraising trip, his Administration is coming under increasing pressure to explain its close relationship with a “Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.” Just yesterday, Newsday reported the family of the FBI’s late counterterrorism chief who was killed in the 9/11 attacks “filed lawsuits Wednesday accusing Saudi Arabia of aiding terrorists worldwide.” And today, an explosive excerpt from the new book “House of Bush, House of Saud” examines how top White House officials orchestrated the post-9/11 exodus of Osama bin Laden’s relatives before U.S. law enforcement officers could ask them for critical details about the Al Qaeda leader and his terror network. Meanwhile, Time Magazine reports “the Saudis still appear to be protecting charities associated with the royal family” which funnel money to terrorists. And yet, despite all this, President Bush has continued to praise Saudi Arabia, has invited Saudi government leaders to his Crawford mansion, and in general is far “cozier than most [Presidents] to Riyadh.” As Vanity Fair noted, “the Bush-Saudi relationship raises serious questions, if only because it is so extraordinary for two presidents to share such a long and rich personal history with any foreign power” – especially one that has been so closely implicated in the 9/11 attacks. And despite the calls to get tough, Time Magazine concludes that the Administration’s all-too-close ties to the Saudi royal family makes “it seem unlikely that the Bush Administration will adopt a tougher policy toward Riyadh.”
I could go on, but you will just argue with me that these are not facts and only the information you present is fact.
Do you have any idea how many people try to tie Saudi dealing to every president?
http://www.newsmax.com/KenTimmerman/obama-sutton-saudi/2008/09/03/id/339914
Your facts are not relevant because they are partisan B.S. politics, I could attempt the same connection with every president since Regan, and it still wouldn’t be true. You link a friend of a buddy of a friend, then state the action must have been made due to your intricate web of BS. Saudis and others have clearly been making investments into spreading their mentality here, to schools etc. They clearly have the right to do business with us. That’s their agenda. Not Bush. Your same president says and so do all democrats that we should not restrict business from Cuba or isolate countries. Bush does not make the decision to go after Saudi deals, Saudis go after him and other men of power, it’s a targetting technique to make us an enemy. You vastly underestimate the tactics of world leaders to tarnish other leaders. The leaders falsely believe that doing business with Obama, supporting him, or supporting Bush gives them power over us. And it does in a way give them power over you. All they have to Clearly, as Rudy Giuliani showed, it does not. You believe all they have to do is establish some business here that is with a friend of a president, and you will state the president is involved in roughly 20 businesses with Saudis. Bush or Obama or any president would not have the ability to map 20 business plans targetting Saudi Ties. One man would lack the business ability. And seeing as you democrats are clueless on business, it makes sense you think Bush could run and manage 20 or more businesses with hundreds (thousands) of people to get these deals.
What a crock.
My facts are relevant. They aren’t relevant to you because they do not support your position. There are deep ties between the Bush family and the Saudi royal family. And they have protected them in the past regardless of the fact that they had far stronger ties to Al Queda than Iraq did. Sorry, but your theory of this perfect Bush dynasty is a crock.
Your facts are not relevant. I don’t question the facts. Your facts are in a way facts. The methodology has no sense Libby.
None. You have to make a web in order for them to come close to making sense. Using that same web, I can link Obama to the suadis as shown above. Or we can use other methodology, the one I presented which showed your facts are true of every president. And that’s odd is it not? If cannot be Bush it it is every president. Therefore the tie is not Bush. So my methodlogy is superior to yours. It has nothing to do with facts not meeting my agenda. It has everything to do with your methodology being half assed, a crock, and conspiracy theory oriented.
What personal &/or business connection does Obama have with the Saudis? The Bush connection goes far beyond any work on behalf of the U.S.
I did google Friedman. And if I want to make a wisecrack I will. This is America, buddy. Why don’t you try saying something positive and constructive instead of the same old “Progressives are ruining this country” b.s. We are not all full of crap and actually have some interesting and insightful things to share, if you were open minded enough to listen without being on the attack all the time. You assume because I am liberal, I agree with everything democrat. I don’t necessarily, as I have a fine mind of my own and can make decisions and form opinions based on my own values. Thank you very much.
Libby, The reason I attack Progressivism vehemently is that I studied it thoroughly in college and have a degree in Economics. Progressive Socialism is insidious and is a massive failure everywhere it has been tried. Hand in hand with that theory is Keynsian Economics which trotted out the theory that excessive government spending actually helped the economy. That has also proven to be a massive failure and is right there before your eyes should you choose to open them. I was hoping against hope that a light bulb would light up over your’s and Planets head and you would see the light. However, I am inclined to accept Bob’s conclusion that you are both fools for believing that nonsense.
Libby,
Rush and Hannity tell America every day that liberals come from 1 mold and all think aliike. So, excuse Agent if he generalizes us. I’ve actually had some good discussions with him. We don’t agree on much, and that’s okay because we live in America and free exchange of ideas is encouraged. Bob made the comment “Bush was an above average President.” That tells me who I am dealing with so I know there is no way I am going to persuade him otherwise. So, what’s the point in addressing the figures? I’ll show him where he’s wrong but he won’t listen because I lean liberal. It’s okay, I have conservative friends that do the same thing. Then, we have a beer and move onto sports, movies, books, or something else.
And now, a quote about voting from the great Hunter S. Thompson:
“It ain’t much, but it’s the only weapon we have against the Greedheads.”
On voting, in “My 49er Habit” (4 November 2002), also published in Hey Rube : Blood Sport, the Bush Doctrine, and the Downward Spiral of Dumbness (2004)
Good point. I’ll quit beating my head against the wall with Bob. He exhausts me.
Planet, You really need to google Milton Friedman and watch his discussion with poor Phil Donahue on greed. I have never seen such a complete destruction of a committed liberal. Friedman was a very great man and a brilliant economist. It is too bad you think like you do. So misguided and sad.
Making the statement that Bush was an above average president is accurate. You’re the one who has to prove Bush was bad. I’ve already shown how he did not cause this recession. I’ve already shown how his methods lead to the information which resulte in Osama bin laden’s death. I’ve already shown how he stoppe two recessions. I’ve already shown his tax deferred tax exempt accounts for people making under 90,000 a year, a combo which would have benefited the middle class. In the case of my father 150,000 dollars. I’ve already given the example of his private and public social security, as well as his increasing of coverage for Medicare part d which helped the elderly. You sir must point out why he was bad. The 2008 recession was indefinitely democrat created. No doubt. Look up the CRA ratings. Following his tax reductions for capital gains the stock market shot up and revenues went up as well. Those are good things. All Bush. Now make the bad please.
We have shown you. You refuse to accept it. You have proved nothing.
Haha. Other than you don’t know what you’re talking about regarding Iraq, Osama’s location of death, how the intel was obtained by Obama keeping gitmo open as per Bush’s legitimate reasoning to go after Osama im Iraq and Iran, thus showing he shared the reasoning of Obama not Saudi support, and other than me pointing out that Bush allowed you to make a choice outside of the government social security to retire, yeah I’m totally not proving anything. You are laughable. This is conspiracy theory all over it.
You saying it doesn’t make it proof. I don’t care why Obama kept Gitmo open. Never mentioned it. Never mentioned Bush’s social security plan. You’re just blowing smoke with all your Bush trivia that no-one cares about. Nobody, including me, disputed Gitmo or social security. So you have “proved” nothing to me about anything I discussed on this blog. Blow hard.
And regarding the costs of the Iraq war and the DOD budget, I find it interesting you didn’t address my comments about the use, and in the case of the Bush administration abuse, of supplemental appropriations to finance government operations, most notably the war in Iraq. What about that little factoid?
Libby, when it looks like a duck it’s a duck.
The gitmo factoid is relevant as it shows two presidents knew the method of going after Osama involved the axis of evil.
The Iraq war was in response to a real situation which you have dispelled into a web of conspiracy. The facs are relevant. You’re just too ignorant to see why. I’m painting a picture of the real happening. Obama would have ended bush endeavours if they were fake. But they were not. Gitmo was a real attempt to get Osama. And it worked. Your link implied Bush let Osama go and had ties with that guy’s family. So my job is to show how he vehmently went after and killed Osama. Therefore, there were no ties there.
are you referring to the point where you amounteed 17 billion dollars of spending in Iraq? The one I replied with “Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
8
5And further: Calling you a fool (which you are being a fool) is not name calling.
You amounted 17 billion of the budget Obama spends to Bush, which is still his choice to send out and still part of the DOD budget.
Very bad way of trying to prove the point that Obama inherited a war deficit. He chooses to spend and it’s time you held him accountable.”
If so you have again lost track of this convo. If not, then you are not talking about when we were talking about the DOD budget. Overseas operations were 700 billion in my notes above regarding Obama. I put his 2012 budget up there. You mean the 700 billion used and abused by Obama? I would say I adressed it in the fact that every president has increased that amount, regardless of war. The over seas budget has steadily incresed and is higher now than the time period during Iraq. It’s part of the DOD. I already adressed it. You’re just too damn stupid to keep track of this convo. Side comment: I’m being an ass, but I do not tolerate smart ass-ism. Which you just pulled on me.
Me saying it? How about you look it up yourself from a site whose goal is not to destroy the right?
Get it from a left side site if you choose. I showed you LA TIMES.
LA @#@ing TIMES. You do not get more liberal than LA times regarding Gitmo.
He had ties to the bin Laden family way, way before 9/11. I never said Bush didn’t go after Osama bin Laden. He did. He wasn’t at the wheel when he was caught (in Pakistan) but he did try to track him down. Not in dispute.
If he had ties with the family, then he would have actually had requirements with those ties that I don’t know, would involve not tracking the guy down to kill him.
Glad you agree on the other aspects, as they conflict with your theory that tie exist. No ties exist.
Also:
See below for the projected 2012 DOD budget without two wars:
DOD spending $707.5 billion Base budget + “Overseas Contingency Operations”
FBI counter-terrorism $2.7 billion At least one-third FBI budget.
International Affairs $5.6–$63.0 billion At minimum, foreign arms sales. At most, entire State budget
Energy Department, defense-related $21.8 billion
Veterans Affairs $70.0 billion
Homeland Security $46.9 billion
NASA, satellites $3.5–$8.7 billion Between 20% and 50% of NASA’s total budget
Veterans pensions $54.6 billion
Other defense-related mandatory spending $8.2 billion
Now Bush: In his FY 2003 budget, President Bush requested $10.1 billion for the Department’s baseline funding including $8.2 billion for acquisition and other requirements resulting from the Department’s experience in the global war on terrorism, $1.2 billion for increased air patrols in the continental United States, and $0.7 billion for implementation of the Nuclear Posture Review. Congress appropriated only $7 billion of the $10.1 billion requested. Congress did not appropriate the additional $10 billion the President requested as a contingency for FY 2003 incremental operations costs related to the global war on terrorism.”
The Iraq war was an extremely low amount of our global spending.
Try again please. From a government website.
http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=3615
Here is the exchange where I mentioned appropriations:
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
7 6
See my above comment D. You’re wrong. The DOD spending is what covered the Iraq war. Prior years of DOD spending do not affect future years under Obama.
If we have X amount of military in Iraq getting paid in 2003, sending jets there and tanks, the cost goes in 2003. Not 2012.
It would be impossible to budget it 9 years in the future as you ignorantly suggest. You pay for it when you use it. The deficits back then did take the Iraq and Afghan war into consideration. It was part of the DOD budget.
Reply
August 9, 2012 at 1:08 pm Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
5 9
We continue to incur costs for both wars. Costs of returning vets needing care (estimated at $1 trillion), interest on loans used to fund direct costs, replacement equipment ($17B per year), and appropriations too numerous to mention.
I just had to repost and add to said repost the section where I dealt with DOD spending regarding Iraq so it would get through your head.
Your credibility is extremely lacking.
Libby:
I’m fully aware that was the area you were referring to. Now then, I already directed your 17 billion dollar comment.
17 billion which in most part was resigned and put into place in Obama’s budget. That is Obama’s choice. He did not have to do that spending. Now we are back to the arguement where you tried to state that those Bush funds were affecting Obama’s budget. Whereas I said Obama did not have to pass those funds. I already adressed this and will not a second time. Good to see how terrible you are at keeping track of the convo.
But apparently you are able to keep track of a Saudi conspiracy theory, which every president republican or democrat has been connected too, and then link it back to Bush. Good job on that genius detective work.
Salem bin Laden, Osama’s older brother, was an investor in Arbusto Energy. – the Texas oil company started by George W. Bush. Arbusto means “Bush” in Spanish. When President George W. Bush froze assets connected to Osama bin Laden, he didn’t tell the American people that the terrorist mastermind’s late brother was an investor in the president’s former oil business in Texas. He also hasn’t leveled with the American public about his financial connections to a host of shady Saudi characters involved in drug cartels, gun smuggling, and terrorist networks. (Read BCCI)
Deep Laden ties, so deep, that he’ll start a war to blow the guy up.
So deep that he’ll kill Laden’s family.
Ties so deep, that every president and member of congress including Rudy Guiliani, Bush, Obama, and several others shared these same ties, and somehow, all did business with Saudis in league with each other in conjunction with those bastards who had the nerve to sell real estate property to Saudis (Carlyle Group).
Yes, oh so very deep. Or shallow…business transactions that are normal between two countries going on between their country and our country all the time, not involving Bush, or Obama. You know, or that.
Obama wouldn’t have to pay $17B for equipment repair if it was not for the war. That was my point, dummy.
A rich oil man, decided to invest into Bush’s oil company.
Wow. By that account if I buy stocks in Solyandra I must have Obama ties!
;)
The guy was after money of that I have no doubt. This does not make them in league.
Obama does not have to pay for it period.
When I said going on between two countries even without Bush I meant there are others which have nothing to do with Bush or his profitablity.
There are thousands of businesses here doing business with Saudis.
I write an architect who has been doing architecture in Iraq since before 9/11. He’s had an uptick in billings (for obvious reasons) and Saudis love doing business with him. So…Is he in league with them? If he gave campaign dollars to Obama is Obama in league with Saudis? OH NO!!!
His bin Laden tie was with Osama’s brother many years ago. The brother was dead at the time Bush went after bin Laden. And of course he had to go after him. But that doesn’t mean that he did not try to protect Saudi’s by waging war with Iran. These were not normal business transactions when the 2 presidents, in the oil business, have personal and business ties with the same people involved in harboring and breeding terrorists. And waging war on a country that was a threat to their country. Not ours.
I’m referring to appropriations, not budgets.
On March 25, 2003, President Bush requested $74.8 billion in the FY2003 Emergency Supplemental for ongoing military operations in Iraq, postwar occupation, reconstruction and relief in Iraq, international assistance to countries contributing to the war in Iraq or the global war on terrorism, the cost of the
continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan, and additional homeland security. On April 12, 2003, the House and Senate passed the conference version of the FY2003 supplemental (H.R. 1559/H.Rept. 108-76/P.L. 108-11). It includes $78.49 billion, $3.7 billion more than requested by the President.
The largest fund proposed was $59.9 billion for the DOD’s Defense Emergency Response Fund that would cover the costs associated with the war in Iraq, the continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan, enhanced security at U.S. military bases, and postwar occupation in Iraq. The conference includes $15.7 billion in a new Iraq
Freedom Fund but distributes the remaining funds to specific accounts.
All not included in the budget. And that was just 2003. The costs of the war were higher than the budget indicates because of appropriations. I’m sure you will argue with me about it though.
An appropriation still shows in the budget.
And I want to see where it is. If the bill is paid, then the bill is paid. Show me your $1 trillion in veteran costs in our budget attributable directly to Iraq injuries.
I will not accept you stating aspects are not part of the budget without a link showing where they are.
Hahaha. No. You don’t. You couldn’t even follow your own comments. The reasons you are liberal are based on fallacy. You are a joke.
Yes. You and I pay for it. But the cost would not have been incurred if not for the war. Quit playing symantics with me.
No. It was not symantics.
Obama literally does not have to pay for it, or us. We don’t have to clean up any mess. For Obama it’s just in his good heart right?
And you say I’m up Bush’s ass.
Then we just let the military go to s*&t? Get real.
The vet military healthcare and return comment you made was not in the military budget. And if you’re counting the entire cost of vets, that would include WWII, North Korea, and other wars. The trillion cost for returning vets I don’t even count considering it is not at one trillion for Iraq. You posted a clear and obvious lie and or untrue comment. You are claiming roughly 150,000 troops incurred 1 trillion in costs. 1/15th the cost of our entire health system, with .0004 the amount of total people. Yeah. That number makes sense doesn’t it?
So, when I gave you credit for 17 billion, I gave you credit for 17 billion that in no way lets our military go to 2#%$@#.
I did not make it up! In a hearing before the panel on Wednesday, Heidi Golding, an analyst with the Congressional Budget Office, testified that the annual cost of caring for veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would nearly triple or more in the next decade, rising to $5.5 billion to $8.4 billion in 2020, from $1.9 billion in 2010. And continue to grow after that. Estimating the long-term costs of those programs is a complex, contentious art, and no one inside the government does it beyond 10 years.
I will continue to not count those numbers until you have a link showing those costs and where they are in the budget.
More importantly:
A government link, with how the government itself includes those costs and seperates it out.
I will at that point find the amounts myself. I will not in any way accept a media source on this one.
Here’s the link, but it’s a N.Y. Times article quoting the Congressional Budget Office. Look it up there if you won’t accept my source.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/us/28veterans.html?_r=1
The trillion $ number was from a media source I found last week. I’ll track it down again if you insist. But regardless of the number, since no-one actually knows what it is, cost associated with vets from both wars will continue this year and for many years to come. The fact that they are in the budget does not discount the fact that they are costs incurred because of the war. Without the war, this money could have been spent on other things. That was the point being made and it’s irrefutable.
So Bob, I see you are still having a running battle with Libby over our ties to the Saudi’s. I don’t remember seeing GW bow to his heels to the King, have you? We wouldn’t need a drop of their oil if politicians in this country ever decided to have a major push to develop our own enormous reserves. Instead, we get the failed green policy and have to fund numerous companies so they can fail a year later at taxpayer expense with few if any jobs created. We could have had 100,000 new jobs created by now if we had done Keystone and opened the permitting process on federal land, but instead we are trying to figure out how to get fuel from switchgrass, algae and cow manure. Somehow, I don’t think that will bring down the price at the pump which has been going up drastically the past 3 months.
Nope, never bowed:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33289_Bush_Bowed_Too
Not his heels, just his head.
There are pros and cons regarding both Friedman and Keynes. I am not an economist, as you are, but never professed to be one. From what I did discover per your advice, conservatives are turning away from Friedman and much of what he stated in his book you refer to is over 50 years old and not applicable to today’s society. And just let me clarify one thing. I am a liberal, not a socialist. There is a difference.
There are a lot of pros with Friedman and very few cons. On the other hand, there are a lot of cons with Keynes and very few pros. Friedman didn’t die until 2006 and actually, there has been a rebirth of his economic principles among Conservatives since the country started imploding with Progressive government programs and policies. There is a wealth of information on google about this outstanding economist and his theories are just as relevant now as when he wrote them. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and his writings shine the light on how bad Progressivism is and what it will do if we let it take over our country.
Well, I’d like to tell you I’ll read his book, but I know I won’t. Economics is not my forte. I just know I am not a socialist, so stop beating up on me.
It is obvious from your posts that Economics is not your forte. Friedman’s concepts are not that hard to understand if you keep an open mind instead of swallowing the Progressive positions hook, line and sinker. If you are not a Socialist, you are certainly a Progressive and more in line with Keynes positions of trying to spend our way to prosperity. The last time I checked, this country was in debt over $16 Trillion thanks to Keynsian philosophy and the pipe will have to be paid in the near future.
Honestly, I am a liberal in my thoughts on discrimination, pro-choice, and gay rights. I don’t follow Keynes position any more than I do Friedman’s. “Spending our way to prosperity” does not even make any sense. I certainly wouldn’t do it in my personal life so I don’t think the country would be wise to do it. I do, however, think our money could be allocated differently. Unfortunately, that is in the hands of the elected and most of them would not have been on my ballet. But, we are stuck with them for now.
Libby, thank you for your thoughtful post. I don’t have a problem with your basic beliefs and you seem to have come around to now believe that big government spending is not the answer. You are right that money could be allocated differently and by the way, the government should live within its means like we have to do. This country has been on a disastrous spiral and Congress and Administrations think all solutions can be achieved by spending more money. It is absolutely incorrect. We have so many duplicative, overlapping, departments, agencies, programs wasting and spending our money unwisely, they could be cut entirely and we would never know the difference. They are also corrupt. One only has to look at the GSA and their 122 conferences they have had and all the bonuses they have paid themselves to see it and they are only one part of the massive Federal Government. That is why we have to change out the elected leaders of both parties and replace them with fiscal conservatives who will represent the interests of the people. With proper management of the budget ( which we haven’t had for 3 years)our resources can be used more effectively and we won’t have to borrow $.40 of every dollar from China.
I don’t think I ever took the stand that big government spending was the answer. I am definitely for some type of healthcare reform and a program that will provide basic medical care to all people. I think it a noble and worthwhile use of financial resources. I agree there is fraud, corruption, and waste that if cut out, would leave resources for a health care program for those in need. From my perspective on this blog, because I am for some type of health care plan (don’t know what exactly), I have been labeled, insulted, and demeaned. I was so busy trying to defend myself from the barrage of accusations that I was not able to articulate my point of view. Now I know you are not pro-healthcare. And we can debate that issue or agree to disagree. But there is no need to make assumptions about folks or insult and name-call on this blog.
Remember, this blog started because of an article about healthcare. It really took a nosedive along the line…
Libby, most Americans including myself are for “some kind of Healthcare reform”. The disagreement between Liberals and Conservatives is what we ended up with versus what was needed. The Progressives decided we needed a massive 2,700 page one size fits all monstrocity designed to control our lives by government bureaucrats making life and death decisions. They also told us if we didn’t want it, we would be “taxed”. Does that sound like the America you grew up in? Do you really think that Healthcare will be more affordable? Reality is that rates have continued to escalate at an alarming pace. How about all those new taxes built into a Health bill? People need to wake up and realize the economic consequences of what just happened and hope the new President will repeal it and start over with real solutions. We need not waste trillions more on this boondoggle and yes I will say that only citizens of this country should receive our benefits.
I think all people that pay taxes should benefit from the program, whether citizens or not. I won’t say this 2,700 page boondoggle is the answer, but it is a start. Let’s change it, modify it, tweak it, whatever. But don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. That doesn’t seem like a good solution to me. I applaud the efforts in trying to come up with something. This may not be the ultimate solution, but let’s explore making changes to it, not repealing it.
The bottom line is I support helping the needy. I oppose funding the lazy and those not supposed to be in this country.
Agreed.
Hunter also said, “Fear is just another word for ignorance.” Oh, and these about that above average President George W. Bush (notice particularly The Big Darkness quote – right on the money):
“We are turning into a nation of whimpering slaves to Fear — fear of war, fear of poverty, fear of random terrorism, fear of getting down-sized or fired because of the plunging economy, fear of getting evicted for bad debts, or suddenly getting locked up in a military detention camp on vague charges of being a Terrorist sympathizer.
“Extreme Behavior in Aspen” (3 February 2003)
It is hard to ignore the prima facie dumbness that got us bogged down in this nasty war in the first place. This is not going to be like Daddy’s War, old sport. He actually won, and he still got run out of the White House nine months later.. . The whole thing sucks. It was wrong from the start, and it is getting wronger by the hour.
“Love in a Time of War” (31 March 2003)
What the hell is going on here? How could this once-proud nation have changed so much, so drastically, in only a little more than two years. In what seems like the blink of an eye, this George Bush has brought us from a prosperous nation at peace to a broke nation at war.
“A Sad Week in America” (10 March 2003)
But wow! This goofy child president we have on our hands now. He is demonstrably a fool and a failure, and this is only the summer of ’03. The American nation is in the worst condition I can remember in my lifetime, and our prospects for the immediate future are even worse. . . The Bush family must be very proud of themselves today, but I am not. Big Darkness, soon come. Take my word for it.
“Big Darkness” (22 July 2003)
The utter collapse of this Profoundly criminal Bush conspiracy will come none too soon for people like me… The massive plundering of the U.S. Treasury and all its resources has been almost on a scale that is criminally insane, and has literally destroyed the lives of millions of American people and American families. Exactly. You and me, sport — we are the ones who are going to suffer, and suffer massively. This is going to be just like the Book of Revelation said it was going to be — the end of the world as we knew it. ”
“The Nation’s Capital” (29 July 2003)
Planet, true to your nature and others of your ilk, blame Bush, blame Bush, blame Bush. Gee, I wonder how he managed to serve for 8 years if everyone hated him like you do. I see you managed to breeze over the facts that this country was attacked on 9/11 and the entire country expected him to take action including Democrats. Progressives are mad because we had to spend big money on the military to take out the evildoers and that meant their entitlement programs were put on the back burner. Speaking of plundering the Treasury, how much debt has been added in the past 3 1/2 years by your guy? Your Democratic Congress for the final two years of Bush and the first 3 1/2 of Obama has added more debt than all the President’s in the history of the country and what do we have to show for it? Who is the Goofy Child President in this scenario? We are well on the road to destruction due to what he is doing. He even proposed yesterday that we need to nationalize all manufacturing. This is from his lips, not propoganda. How is this in keeping with a free market society? This is Socialism 101 and it will not be allowed to happen starting in November.
It’s deeper than Bush, as Hunter explains:
“It would be easy to say that we owe it all to the Bush family from Texas, but that would be too simplistic. They are only errand boys for the vengeful, bloodthirsty cartel of raving Jesus-freaks and super-rich money mongers who have ruled for at least the last 20 years, and arguably the last 200 years. They take orders well, and they don’t ask too many questions. The real power in America is held by a fast-emerging new Oligarchy of pimps and preachers who see no need for Democracy or fairness or even trees, except maybe the ones in their own yards, and they don’t mind admitting it. They worship money and power and death. Their ideal solution to all the nation’s problems would be another 100 Year War. Coming of age in a fascist police state will not be a barrel of fun for anybody, much less for people like me, who are not inclined to suffer Nazis gladly and feel only contempt for the cowardly flag-suckers who would gladly give up their outdated freedom to live for the mess of pottage they have been conned into believing will be freedom from fear. Ho ho ho. Let’s not get carried away here. Freedom was yesterday in this country. Its value has been discontinued. The only freedom we truly crave today is freedom from Dumbness. Nothing else matters.”
George W. Bush has said that history will determine the greatness of his presidency. According to an informal poll by George Mason University’s History News Network, 98 percent of historians polled rated Bush’s presidency a failure. Sixty-one percent ranked him last among presidents, while only 4 percent placed him among the top two-thirds.
To which this “great” president replied: “As far as history goes and all of these quotes about people trying to guess what the history of the Bush administration is going to be, you know, I take great comfort in knowing that they don’t know what they are talking about, because history takes a long time for us to reach.”—George W. Bush, Fox News Sunday, Feb. 10, 2008
Priceless!
Who cares about your poll of Progressive historians who teach their revised history and leave out the true history. The American People will judge each President. Jimmy Carter heaved a huge sigh of relief when he found out he is now second behind Obama as the worst of all time.
Planet, does your wife know you harbor thoughts like these? If so, I hope she considers admitting you or at least getting treatment from a good psychiatrist. There is a lot of nasty stuff going on between your ears.
Fear and loathing all around us…
I don’t fear and loathe you or Planet, Libby. I fear and loathe the ideology you believe in. You have the right to believe what you believe, but it is a real shame you have been reduced to a true believer in Progressivism to solve this country’s problems. I feel sorry for you because one day you may wake up and not like our country very much if this ideology is continued. The Democrats pushing this agenda are the nastiest politicians on the face of the earth. All you have to do is watch their dirty tactics to try to win. Accusing Mitch Romney of murder is just the latest attack. What happened to civil discourse and debating the issues? I am sure it will get only worse in the next 90 days.
It’s the title of one of Hunter Thompson’s books. “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.”
Love these ones, too:
Is it possible that he has already abandoned all hope of getting re-elected? Or does he plan to cancel the Election altogether by declaring a national military emergency with terrorists closing in from all sides, leaving him with no choice but to launch a huge bomb immediately?. . . Desperate men do desperate things, and stupid men do stupid things. We are in for a desperately stupid summer.
“Bush’s Disturbing Sleeping Disorder” (18 February 2004)
For myself, I would much prefer to be stuck with Kentucky in the NCAA Tournament, than stuck with George Bush in the White House. It is the difference between losing your wallet at a cock fight and losing all your credit cards forever, along with your job and your house and your ability to earn enough money to pay off your sports-gambling debts or even a six-pack on game day. . .
“What’s Better Than the Tournament?’ (18 March 2004)
The 2004 presidential election will be a matter of life or death for the whole nation. We are sick today, and we will be even sicker tomorrow if this wretched half-bright swine of a president gets re-elected in November.
“The Big Finale Was a Big Disappointment” (6 April 2004)
Planet, Your post is straigt out of the Democrat play book. Nasty and getting nastier. You obviously believe this crap or you wouldn’t post it. This country wouldn’t be sick at all if it weren’t for Progressive Socialists in leadership positions in our government for the past 30 years. The Democrats and the reach across the aisle McCains/Graham types have done great harm. Fortunately, we made a good start in replacing many of them in the 2010 mid terms with the well known “Shellacking”. The next time is sure to be a Tsunami. We have had enough of class warfare, race warfare, entitlement spending and need real leaders to emerge. Judging from recent success of Conservative candidates, I think we are on our way.
I will say this Planet, the crap you come up with in your posts proves you might be from a planet but it is not this planet. If you want solutions like you mentioned above, I have a few off the top of my head:
* Close the border. Station the national guard along with the border patrol on the border and keep them out. This should be a military coordinated effort and it will get done.
*Instead of hiring the 6500 or 8500 new government hires to collect the healthcare tax, hire the people in immigration enforcement, round up the illegals and send them back to Mexico or where ever. They could start picking them up at the welfare office and Walmart. If they come back send them to internment camps in the Mojave desert until they decide not to come back any longer. Let Sheriff Joe in Arizona be the head of US Bureau of prisons.
* while that is going on, cut off able bodied welfare and medicaid recipients and force them to do the work the illegals were doing in order to pay back the money they stole from welfare and medicaid. If Barry Soetoro/Obama can’t do that then have the able bodied work for their Welfare checks and have the employers reimburse the government for the work done. This gets rid of illegals and helps offset welfare cost.
* Barry Soetoro/Obama could stop alienating our best allies (Israel for one) and stop court our worst enemies(Several Arab Nations fit). He could also stop the security leaks. This president and his cabinet has the worse record of any president for security leaks, So much so many of our allies no longer want to cooperate on security matters.
Once back in favor with our allies we get them to help us substitute NATO troops for US troops in Afghanistan and Irag. Since we fund about 70 to 80% of NATO anyway, we save money by bringing some of our troops home.
Give me a little time and I can give you a few more
* He could kill this ridiculous healthcare bill that is so expensive even he does not know how to pay for it. And if you are one of those still under the ether and believe he can move the shells around to pay for it you are either in need of psychiatric help or are stupid. We can’t pay for it
* That will start the deficit reduction and the focus should be on creating jobs by creating job creators and letting the people who hire people do their job and not tax them to death.
You said Sherrif Joe should be in charge of, heck I don’t care, anything at all. That guy should be locked up. Let me ask you a question, Sgt – do you believe President Obama is a US citizen?
The “solutions” you present are not real-worldly. At least you are putting forth something. Were you a Reagan supporter by chance?
Planet, At least Sargent is coming up with some solutions that may not seem real-worldly as you put it, but compared to what is being done presently, they seem like common sense solutions. As you know, there is not a lot of common sense going on with government. Actually, I would have Sheriff Joe put in the cabinet for Homeland Security. I bet those leaky borders would be closed in short order. We would also keep the buses busy transporting all the illegal criminals back to where they came from. We could also disband the inefficient and intrusive TSA and privatize it so security could be enhanced.
Good one Sargent. About the only thing I disagree on is the number of hires the IRS are hiring to collect Obamatax. I have seen numerous reports that the figure is about 17,000. See, they are creating jobs afterall. They think creating more non-productive government jobs is helping the economy and all it does is add to the already outrageous deficit. They also think that more unemployment checks are a stimulus to the economy. One of their bright minions, one Nancy Pelosi uttered that pearl of wisdom.
Planet:
Yes, I was a Reagan supporter and saluted him more than once. As far as Barry Soetoro/Obama being a citizen- at this point it does not matter. As far as Sheriff Joe, I used him as an example. We need someone who will uphold the law and most Americans could care less whether prisoners wear pink or have public service announcements to watch on TV. They are real world solutions. The problem with the current administration is that Barry would rather waste billions courting anyone and everyone including the dregs as potential voters rather than do what is right for America and get rid of one of the biggest burdens on this country.
Planet, let me ask you a question. What do you think would happen if Americans were crossing the border into Mexico illegally? How about Americans working and not paying taxes and taking the pesos back to America. Where do you think an American would end up? A Mexican prison is not a nice place. Or what would happen in just about any other country outside the US.
We have a problem and it will take tough measures that Barry won’t take because he wants another 20 milion voters (or however many are now in the US) for the Democratic Socialist movement.
Sgt. –
(About Reagan’s stance on amnesty and immigration)
By Anthony Gregory
Senator Marco Rubio has proposed letting young illegal immigrants stay in the United States legally. This is seen as an alternative to the Democrats’ DREAM Act, although supporters of the latter welcome the Rubio plan as a way to reinvigorate the agenda of immigration reform.
Romney has so far taken no position. No doubt he fears being accused of defending “amnesty.” In Republican politics, an accusation such as this can be poisonous to a campaign. This dynamic might have hit its peak in 2008, when the GOP presidential candidates stumbled over one another to prove they were the least pro-amnesty of the lot.
George W. Bush’s seemingly genuine desire to liberalize immigration laws faced resistance within his own party. The 9/11 tragedy likely provided him the necessary political capital and party leniency, but ramping up attacks on civil liberties, rather than taming them, is always easier at wartime.
It was Ronald Reagan who last enacted significant immigration reform. Millions of conservatives seem to ignore this. He called the plan “amnesty.” This was not a dirty word back then. It was not a verboten concept, either. In a 1980 GOP primary debate, both Reagan and George H.W. Bush appear to be competing for the distinction as the more compassionate candidate:
Bush said, “The problem has to be solved. We have… made illegal some kinds of labor I’d like to see legal… We’re creating a whole society of really honorable, decent, family-loving people who are in violation of the law… These are good people, strong people.”
Reagan responded, “I think the time has come that the United States and… our neighbor to our South should have a better understanding and relationship than we’ve ever had… Rather than… talking about putting up a fence, why don’t we work out some recognition of our mutual problems, make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit… [A]nd open the border both ways…”
In the 1984 debate with Mondale, Reagan went further when asserting, “I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here even though some time back they may have entered illegally.”
As far as what other countries do, I don’t care. I live in this one and want to make this one a better place. Mexico and other countries can do whatever it is they think they need to do.
Also, these numbers are from 8/7/2012:
According to current figures from Immigration and Customs Enforcement — the federal agency responsible for deportations — Obama has removed 1.4 million people during his 42 months in office so far. Technically, that’s fewer than under George W. Bush, whose cumulative total was 2 million. But Bush’s number covers eight full years, which doesn’t allow an apples-to-apples comparison.
If you instead compare the two presidents’ monthly averages, it works out to 32,886 for Obama and 20,964 for Bush, putting Obama clearly in the lead. Bill Clinton is far behind with 869,676 total and 9,059 per month. All previous occupants of the White House going back to 1892 fell well short of the level of the three most recent presidents.
Agent, you are right and if the number is 17,000, I am sure he will take credit for “creating” jobs. The problem is they are government jobs where the net gain is a negative number as they are a drain on the economy not a gain like private industry jobs. So let’s chase a $700 tax on a kid not buying healthcare while billions in tax fraud head south of the border. Maybe Barry can move some of the postal workers from the bankrupt post office over to the IRS so they can go door to door and collect taxes rather than deliver mail. That way Barry can take credit for reducing government jobs and also credit for creating 17,000 new ones.
Sargent, the narrative for 3 1/2 years has been it was all George Bush’s fault. They downplay the role Pelosi/Reid had when they were in charge of Congress spending at a record clip, not reigning in Fanny & Freddie which led to the housing crisis which the result has been this onerous recession. Then, instead of doing incentives to small business to create jobs, they ignored the economy in order to pass the worst piece of job killing legislation in history. On top of all that they passed the Stimulus which was nothing but political paybacks and didn’t create any new jobs and ran up more debt. The big spender Progressives said it didn’t work because it wasn’t big enough. Somehow this was all George Bush’s fault that we are in this financial condition. The Green Technology push was a disaster as well since almost all of the companies getting our tax dollars have gone belly up. How did that Cash for Clunkers program work out for us? More cost to the taxpayers. I have looked long and hard at everything that has been done and cannot find even one thing I can agree on that was good for this country.
Agent, who is “they”? I can’t speak for anyone else, but there is enough blame to go around on both sides. Instead of pointing fingers, why not try to come together with solutions? This is a classic example of what is going on Washington and why nothing is getting done. It is not productive and is very destructive. I’m sure we can agree on some things and move forward in a positive direction instead of continuing to beat up on each other. I don’t think deep down, “we” are much different from you in what we want and desire out of life. Let’s find our similarities and not focus on our differences. We might just find solutions!
Libby, “They” are the cadre of Progressive Liberal political operatives in the media, the administration, the Democratic Party. You know who I mean, the ones who blame Bush for anything and everything and have never made a mistake in judgment or policy. I remember our President early in his term saying the economy was the last thing on his mind when he went to bed at night and the first thing he started thinking about when he got up in the morning and he was going to focus like a laser beam on restoring the economy. What did he do but focus on Healthcare for 18 months and let the economy slide? The reason nothing gets done in Washington is that we have a party in power which is ruling by executive order, it is their way or the highway and they think they are smarter than Conservatives so they reject ideas put forth by Conservatives automatically. Just look at how they have treated Paul Ryan when he came out with a reasonable budget plan. He was demonized and called crazy. Does that show a willingness to compromise and find solutions to our problems. The answer Libby is that these people need to be sent into retirement so we can focus on solutions.
I’d say there is an unwillingness to compromise and find solutions on both sides. Just as the “progressives” blame Bush and the republicans for everything, “conservatives” blame Obama and the democrats. It is a two-way street. Again, there is enough blame to go around for everyone. No one is blameless. However, laying blame does not solve anything. It only creates hostility and defensiveness. We really need to get away from this “us” and “them” mentality. I don’t follow Paul Ryan, but “demonized” is a strong word. I believe many did not think his budget viable (including a few Republicans), but I don’t think he was demonized. It is use of such outlandish language that incites anger. Instead, debate the merits of his plan. And there have to be merits, just as there are probably things that could/should be changed. Or is it just a perfect budget plan because he proposed it? I am certainly for fiscal responsibility and Romney does have a track record in that area, however I can not with good conscience vote for a party that will take away women’s rights, gay rights, and other areas the government has no business controlling. If “they” would just back off on some of those issues, I’d be more inclined to listen to them. Until then, I can not abide old, white men trying to legislate morality. It is NOT American.
Libby, it shouldn’t be necessary to compromise on the Constitution and doing the right thing for the people. When the Democrats contolled the House and the Senate, they were not in the compromising mood about anything. Even though they had the super majorities, they had great difficulty passing Obamacare because of their own party having reservations. The Blue Dogs and many Democratic leaders in the Senate had to be bribed, coerced, browbeaten into submission by the far left that was in control. The Party of Truman & Kennedy no longer exist and the party should rename itself the Progressive Party because that is what it is now. There will not any meaningful thing done to correct our problems until the Senate changes hands and we get a new President. Harry Reid has tabled every bill the House has sent over this year to help the economy declaring they are DOA. How is that for the spirit of cooperation and compromise? He would rather be the attack dog for Obama on the Senate floor.
How could you “dislike” my comment? It was totally unbiased, placing blame on both parties and calling for compromise and cooperation. I even complimented your candidate. What is to dislike about that?? Or do you just automatically dislike anything I say? That really is not in the spirit of my message and I see you will continue with your “us” vs. “them” theme regardless. The Supreme Court ruled on the constituionality issue and “your side” lost. Sorry. Deal with it. I am beginning to think you may just be a one-note tune. Blah, blah, blah. It’s really not interesting.
Libby, I wasn’t the dislike on the prior comment, but I do dislike this one since you still don’t “get it” after I patiently explained why there was no spirit of bi-partisan cooperation or compromise when this bill was forced through by the minions in the Democratic Party. Perhaps you don’t remember the famous Blair House meeting on Healthcare where the Democrats led by Obama was on one side and the Republican leaders on the other. It turned out to be a dog and pony show and Democrats didn’t want to hear any suggestions, solutions or compromise from Republicans. Their attitude was – We won, you lost so get on the back of the bus. It isn’t over yet on this bill. The Supremes are leaving it to the people to vote these people out and it will be repealed and you and Planet might be surprised to learn a new poll is out now and 58% of the people want it repealed to 38% wanting to keep it. You and Planet are among the 38%.
I do “get it”. I know there isn’t cooperation or compromise on the hill. That was my point. I don’t think we should foster and encourage it on this blog. It is the epitome of why things aren’t working in Washington. I think our leaders need some leadership from the people, that we aren’t going to put up with this BS for much longer. We’ll vote them all out and start over for all I care. They are all croooked. All stuck in their bi-partisan rhetoric. All responsible for the failing of this country. There is no one side that is any better than the others in that regard. What I don’t want is for that to become the spirit of the American people, too. We need to band together and tell all of these creeps that we will not tolerate their nonsense any longer. That starts by coming to some common ground amongst ourselves. Is that not possible to do???
Now you’re talking. The citizens need to band together and vote these misguided idiots out of office. They are the ones who have been in their too long, are corrupt, beholden to special interests and obviously have the wrong ideas on how to fix our economy and heal our country. The Republicans have a lot of RINO’s who have forgotten why they were sent there and have gone along to get along and reached across the aisle to sell the country down the river. The Progressives are worthless leaches sucking the very life blood out of the country. They all need to go if they are up for re-election. It is past time to make a change in direction.
I think there are worthless leaches on both sides of the aisle. I will vote my choices based on their records, not on their party affiliation. Each person Republican, RINO, Democrat needs to be accountable for their record on the issues that are important to the voter. Again, the pro-life, anti-gay, bible thumping candidates WILL NOT get my vote. I have to vote for things more important than money and economics. Not that those are not important issues, but the others are more important to me. If I could be assured they would be left alone by the government, then my choice of candidates would double…
Libby, the issues you are passionate about may be important to you, but the American People are much more concerned about the economy, jobs, gas prices, being upside down on their mortgages and how their net worth has fallen 25% in the past 3 1/2 years. That will determine this election, not whether gays can get married or abortion will be made illegal. Politicians have tried to make these issues, but these issues will not change voters minds. A candidates religion or lack of one will also not sway voters. The question is who has the best vision for America for the future. We have seen what radical Progressivism has done to our country. I don’t want anymore of that and you shouldn’t either if you care about your country.
They will sway this voter. And I know many others that feel just as passionately as I do. The best vision for America’s future includes these issues. Just as much as gas prices and jobs. I have been one of the laid-off and unemployed and believe me, that’s very important to me. But I don’t think either side has a silver bullet solution to the economy, so for now I will stick with the issues that are most important to me. I don’t share the view that radical Progressives have run the country in the ground. If it were that simple, I certainly would vote in every conservative on the ballot. It’s more complicated than that. Again, BOTH sides are responsible. But I don’t want to play tit for tat on that, it won’t get us anywhere. Find me someone that will not try to legislate morality, has a viable healthcare plan, and a strong record of fiscal responsibility. Romney has done well in 2 out of 3 areas. Unfortunately, he fails in the one that is most important to me and should be important to any American that wants to keep their beloved “freedom”. We can survive together with less money, but not without the very thing that made this country great.
Find me someone who will not legislate immorality and will defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights our wise founding fathers wrote as the law of the land. We can’t have politicians in office who disregard the Constitution and rule by executive fiat. Our country is a Constitutional Republic and we have 3 branches of government, Executive, Legislative and Judicial created separate but equal. It seems the current President thinks the Executive branch is more equal than the others and does his own thing. If a Republican had done half the things he has, impeachment proceedings would have been well underway. He has made Nixon and Clinton look like choir boys by comparison.
Oh, and no-one is legislating immorality. We advocate leaving it up to personal choice, which is the American way.
I thought this was a hilarious article that shows what’s wrong with both parties:
The Difference Between Republicans and Democrats
away all the advertising and you can think about the difference between the two parties, and the way that gap has changed, by envisioning a simple allegory.
Imagine that the public needs a box moved from point A to point B. Nothing more politically or culturally interesting than that, just a basic challenge of execution. Now ask yourself this question: Which party would I choose to complete that task?
Take the scenario back in time just a generation or so and the answer would be nearly unanimous. If all you cared about was getting a particular task accomplished, you would pick Republicans to do it. Sure, if left to complete the project without supervision they might pave the Everglades, build an eight-lane freeway through Yellowstone, and hire thousands of Malaysian 8-year-olds for the labor, but you could count on them to complete it, on time, under-budget, without a lot of fuss.
And the Democrats? They would get it done, maybe, mostly, after taking care of more important matters. First there would be eight years of environmental studies to assess the impact of moving the box on all the sensitive creatures along the route. Each effort to reach a decision on the project would be delayed by a three hour speech from Sheila Jackson Lee, reminding us that America never moved a box for black people.
The box could only be moved by union labor, at an absurd markup, with appropriate “donations” to the “leaders” of underprivileged communities along the route. The move would be halted multiple times as possible historical artifacts were discovered or a new species of beetle was found.
Before any work could begin, we would have to wrestle with the basic fairness of moving the box. Why do we move a box for some, but not for others? We would pause to remember the poor who each day must move their own boxes. The actual work might be temporarily interrupted by anti-globalization protesters who ask why the box has to be moved at all. Why can’t all our boxes remain local and sustainable?
Only green energy could be used for the move, meaning work could only be conducted in the daytime. The green technology required would be purchased from a major political donor and its pollution-laden manufacture would ruin a pristine coastal habitat.
By the time the public gave up on having the box moved, the project would have cost billions and the box would be 87% of the way to its destination. It would be covered in anti-capitalist graffiti and a portion of its contents would be missing.
Though the Democrats are still pretty much the same, changes in the Republican Party have made that old characterization less accurate. Despite all the partisan rhetoric, the gap between them has narrowed dramatically in terms of their ability to actually accomplish something. Perhaps that’s why the angry bickering has become so important.
Today’s Republicans would start the whole effort with a prayer…to Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ himself, not some namby-pamby “Creator” or “Father in Heaven.” The project would be outsourced to Halliburton and insured with a suite of complex derivatives issued by Goldman Sachs based loosely on the value of the box, along with a basket of currencies, two tranches of mortgage CDO’s, and a peg to the price of a human kidney on the Chinese market.
Approval would be delayed for months while Ron Paul demands to see the Constitutional authority for moving the box. Once work begins, the first sub-contractor would be fired after right-wing bloggers uncover that the company’s insurance covered domestic partners. Work would stall again when Sarah Palin suggests that the box may have been painted by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Crowds would demand the destruction of the box after Glenn Beck implies that it was constructed by our first Communist President, Woodrow Wilson, and that it contains both Communism and Fascism living together miraculously in harmony. Several Congressmen would demand to see the original bill of sale for the box…the real one.
Michele Bachmann would claim to have proof that the box was in fact being moved to a Socialist re-education camp. Overnight she would receive a million dollars in campaign contributions.
Republicans would launch preemptive wars with three “rogue” states that could potentially threaten the box. The box could only be secured by the use of enhanced interrogation techniques and the indefinite detention of evildoers who hate our way of life. Nothing you need to concern yourself with.
Once Republicans, at long last, transport the box to its destination, a block of Tea Party freshman in Congress would block it from being released. The box would only be wrested back from government hands after abortion was outlawed and funding for NPR was cut off. All of the undocumented workers they had quietly hired to do the work would then be rounded up and deported.
By then, the derivatives issued by Goldman to insure the project would have collapsed, threatening a global financial meltdown which could only be halted by a trillion-dollar relief package to the bank. Goldman partners would then claim the government forced them to engage in the deal in the first place, while retaining the bonuses which were due to them under the original contract. Republicans would defend Goldman from irresponsible leftist “class warfare,” and blame the whole mess on Liberals.
Under a representative government you always get the leadership that you deserve. Pick your poison.