Originally Posted by ptownrob

Boy, you guys still can't figure out why the nation bounced the right wing out- and it wasn't just the Executive. And now, in your wisdom, you simply place "intent" instead of treason as Obama's sole reason for carrying out the very policies he very publicly promised to enact. (Of course, you won't give him credit for backstepping on the photos or briefings, even though he was listening to his generals, unlike a certain former president)

How does Bucco put it? oh yeah, "Right wing poop"

This is the second time you "quoted" and alluded to comments that I HAVE NEVER MADE NOR ALLUDED TO.

I would respectfully ask you to stop attributing things to me that I have never said or even implied !

Originally Posted by dklassen

Just because it started before he got here doesn't mean he had to continue it to the most extreme measures. There were choices, he chose wrong... again.

And again and again and again.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

Originally Posted by dklassen

Wrong.

Everything we are seeing now is 100% Obama and the liberal controlled government, no one else.

I'm not happy at all with Bush and I despise what Obama and his radicals are doing to my country.

2 observations:
1. The war is not 100% Obama..he inherited it, and he's stuck with it until he can figure out a way to get us out...and the trillion dollar deficit from the war, never taxed to pay for it, well...he inherited that, too...

2. Dk, this is not, despite what you want to believe, your country. you'll have to learn to share it...with others who are just as entitled to ownership as you. Even if they are black, hispanic, unemployed, on food stamps, gay, whatever...this land is your land, this land is my land, etc. etc. etc.

Dk, this is not, despite what you want to believe, your country. you'll have to learn to share it..

It is my county and I share plenty, I see just how much every 1st and 15th. Apparently it's not enough as they are coming for more.

The budget, every bailout, every new tax, every wasted dollar, every lost job, every lame socialist policy and trillions of NEW debt is all his and the Democrats 100%

Blaming Bush for everything doesn't work anymore. It's nothing but an old tired out liberal talking point.

if they can assign blame to somebody else. Does that make it more tolerable. Make doing more dumb things more acceptable? When Obama and others ran for POTUS they were not given a free pass on things they did not do.
They inherit them with the job......end of the inheritance dialogue.
The man owns it all day one. HIS job is to do something about all the things his loyal followers don't like about the prior administration and not just keep up the arms distance from those things that are not mine BS.

Or maybe he is finding out now that he has the responsibility there are some things the POTUS must do whether he or his constituents like them or not.

All the things hos followers don't like about the previous administration must be OK by him and his advisors....they aren't doing much about them.

And please don't waste key strokes with how much time it takes to get things done.
By his own profession just look at what we got done in the first 100 days...just not much has anything to do with the things the loyalists don't like about the prior admin.

Situation:....POLITICALLY NORMAL!!!

BTK

There is a difference between what a President "inherits" and what he is 100% responsible for.

My post was directed at DK's assertion that every bit of the budget is his doing. That is patently absurd.

The new stuff is, and it's a big deal, and I agree that it's very scary. But there is a lot of old pork in there too, that if you want to get anything done, you just have to accept. Unfortunately, that's the way our government works, has always worked, and as good a man as he might or might not be, he isn't going to change that in any significant way.

Just curious, when GW started his war, and told us it was going to cost 250 billion, were any of you hollering that our taxes should go up to pay for it?

Or were you just figuring that deficit spending is ok, as long as it's for bombs and bullets?

George Washington was fighting to secure our freedom from corrupt government oppression and unlawful taxation from abroad.

Since FDR started this whole big government movement, we have once again been fighting corrupt government oppression and unlawful taxation by OUR government.

Big difference...bad analogy.

Originally Posted by cabo35

George Washington was fighting to secure our freedom from corrupt government oppression and unlawful taxation from abroad.

Since FDR started this whole big government movement, we have once again been fighting corrupt government oppression and unlawful taxation by OUR government.


Big difference...bad analogy.

Did I make an analogy?

Unlawful taxation?

Do you really think corrupt government started with FDR?

Is there an answer to my question in your post?

It isn't a rhetorical question, it's an honest question. During the pre-war buildup, and the initial stages of the war, I honestly do not remember anyone, including the fiscal ultra-conservative Rush L his-own-self saying,"this war is good, but we have to tax our people to pay for it, otherwise it's deficit spending, and as fiscal ultra-conservatives we must stand up against deficit spending, because we will be 'mortgaging our children's futures'."

Did I miss it, or did it just not happen?

You keep harping on the same thing over and over. The war, the war, the war.

BTW, Bush didn't start this war, the terrorists did. Also don't forget that Congress overwhelmingly voted for and supported it including the Democrats, so only calling our the name of Bush is yet another whitewash.

The war on terror didn't put us in this financial mess. The Democrats did starting with Fannie and Freddie and their lies telling the American people there was absolutely nothing wrong.

Bush, McCain and many others knew we were heading for problems and the Democrats (who controlled congress) blocked every attempt to fix it.

Our problem isn't paying the off the war, our problem is paying off the trillions of NEW spending from Obama including his massive government growth, his pet social programs, the continuing bailout of auto companies that are going bankrupt anyway and other billions and billions of other dollars that are going down the toilet.

Our taxes aren't going up to pay for Bush, our taxes are going up to pay for Obama.

Ooops....I thought you were referring to George Washington and the revolutionary war when you referenced GW. My bad.......

Originally Posted by cabo35

Ooops....I thought you were referring to George Washington and the revolutionary war when you referenced GW. My bad.......

Now that is funny! And I am really smiling in a good-natured way as I say that.


But back to my question.

Originally Posted by dklassen

You keep harping on the same thing over and over. The war, the war, the war.

BTW, Bush didn't start this war, the terrorists did. Also don't forget that Congress overwhelmingly voted for and supported it including the Democrats, so only calling our the name of Bush is yet another whitewash.

The war on terror didn't put us in this financial mess. The Democrats did starting with Fannie and Freddie and their lies telling the American people there was absolutely nothing wrong.

Bush, McCain and many others knew we were heading for problems and the Democrats (who controlled congress) blocked every attempt to fix it.

Our problem isn't paying the off the war, our problem is paying off the trillions of NEW spending from Obama including his massive government growth, his pet social programs, the continuing bailout of auto companies that are going bankrupt anyway and other billions and billions of other dollars that are going down the toilet.

Our taxes aren't going up to pay for Bush, our taxes are going up to pay for Obama.

This is a slightly different harp. Putting aside whether or not I agree with the war, my question that goes unanswered is :

was there any noise from the fiscal ultra-conservative right wing about paying for it as we go, by raising taxes or whatever other method there might be, rather than deficit spending and thereby "mortgaging our children's future" in order to pay for it?

it's an honest fair question, and there has to be an answer. Do you have one?

Originally Posted by Laker14

This is a slightly different harp. Putting aside whether or not I agree with the war, my question that goes unanswered is :

was there any noise from the fiscal ultra-conservative right wing about paying for it as we go, by raising taxes or whatever other method there might be, rather than deficit spending and thereby "mortgaging our children's future" in order to pay for it?

it's an honest fair question, and there has to be an answer. Do you have one?

I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make here !

I would doubt if there was much noise from anyone when the Iraq war began. The original cost of, I think, 87B was surely discussed but I think at the time national security took precedence.

Now, over time there was much discussion on the amount of money but most of the debate would end up in the justification for the war.

Now, no matter what the discussion was, we now have a deficit that is light years beyond what it was then and that was done..

1. By nobody in congress even reading the stimulus bill

2. Amid statements by the President that despite this spending he could balance the budget

3. Plans to spend even more money EVEN THOUGH he admits we are out of money.

Then when you add someone like Barney Frank pushing legislation so that any group under indictment could get some of this money (AND that applies ONLY to ACORN) and what I consider a smoke screen...this talking about Iraq as if that money was even in the same league as what is happening in Washdc.

I am trying to understand what your talking about Iraq has to do with what is happening now and if it is ONLY to throw darts at conservative talk show hosts or something...point well taken, but those guys dont make laws or actually spend the money so stop listening to them !

Originally Posted by Bucco

I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make here !

I would doubt if there was much noise from anyone when the Iraq war began. The original cost of, I think, 87B was surely discussed but I think at the time national security took precedence.

Now, over time there was much discussion on the amount of money but most of the debate would end up in the justification for the war.

Now, no matter what the discussion was, we now have a deficit that is light years beyond what it was then and that was done..

1. By nobody in congress even reading the stimulus bill

2. Amid statements by the President that despite this spending he could balance the budget

3. Plans to spend even more money EVEN THOUGH he admits we are out of money.

Then when you add someone like Barney Frank pushing legislation so that any group under indictment could get some of this money (AND that applies ONLY to ACORN) and what I consider a smoke screen...this talking about Iraq as if that money was even in the same league as what is happening in Washdc.

I am trying to understand what your talking about Iraq has to do with what is happening now and if it is ONLY to throw darts at conservative talk show hosts or something...point well taken, but those guys dont make laws or actually spend the money so stop listening to them !

You don't know what point I'm trying to make because I haven't made the point yet. I've just asked a question, which nobody is willing to answer. I don't remember 87Billion being discussed. I could be wrong but I seem to remember more along the lines of 250Billion being discussed, and laughed at as an unrealistically optimistic figure, and I do remember GW Bush saying something like "whatever it takes" which means, unlike the stimulus package it was essentially a blank check, which has yet to be filled out.

So again, the question, should somebody like to answer a simple yes or no question, with no attempt to justify,

"at that time, when we were preparing for, and undertaking this war, at whatever the projected costs were, at any time, did those who purport to be 'fiscal conservatives' ever publicly make the argument that we should pay as we go rather than pay for the war with deficit spending, in order to keep us from 'mortgaging our children's futures'?"

Originally Posted by Laker14

You don't know what point I'm trying to make because I haven't made the point yet. I've just asked a question, which nobody is willing to answer. I don't remember 87Billion being discussed. I could be wrong but I seem to remember more along the lines of 250Billion being discussed, and laughed at as an unrealistically optimistic figure, and I do remember GW Bush saying something like "whatever it takes" which means, unlike the stimulus package it was essentially a blank check, which has yet to be filled out.

So again, the question, should somebody like to answer a simple yes or no question, with no attempt to justify,

"at that time, when we were preparing for, and undertaking this war, at whatever the projected costs were, at any time, did those who purport to be 'fiscal conservatives' ever publicly make the argument that we should pay as we go rather than pay for the war with deficit spending, in order to keep us from 'mortgaging our children's futures'?"

My answer would be NO. Not only the fiscal conservatives but I do not recall the Democrats, etc saying much although I know there was some debate.

Having said that, whatever the point is that you will make, to me anyway is irrelevent as that situation was considered a matter of national defense.

NOW...we have passed an enormous stimulus bill that was not even read by the congress (actually on the vote for Iraq, they KNEW what they were voting on) AND...in addition by the Presidents own admission about 40% of that "stimulus bill" was what is commonly referred to as pork and social programs from the years prior that was not passable because of the make up of the congress.

So, make your point...am very interested in what it might be !