Question For Liberals

I never blamed Bush for the 911 attacks.
I do blame him for spending like a drunken sailor and lying us into Iraq though.

Then the question wasn't directed at you. Damn you liberals are stupid!

You do know that a democratic controlled senate authorized Bush to go to war. The president cannot declare war on his own. Most of the spending happened after the democrats took control of the house. But I don't expect you to be intelligent enough to know any of this so just stick with your liberal talking points and stay stupid your entire life!

Republicans were in full charge for six years; Democrats two years during the Bush presidency. Earmarks were drastically reduced in both 2007 and 2008.

2009 Pig Book Summary

Here's a history of the fiscal budgets for your general knowledge (which you apparently need a lot of).

Total outlays in recent budget submissions

Annual U.S. spending 1934-2006 with adjustment for inflation.

2011 United States federal budget - $3.83 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama)
2010 United States federal budget - $3.55 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)
2009 United States federal budget - $3.10 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
2008 United States federal budget - $2.90 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
2007 United States federal budget - $2.77 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
2006 United States federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
2005 United States federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
2004 United States federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
2003 United States federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
2002 United States federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)

2001 United States federal budget - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)
2000 United States federal budget - $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)
1999 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)
1998 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)
1997 United States federal budget - $1.63 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)
1996 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)

The President's budget also contains revenue and spending projections for the current fiscal year, the coming fiscal years, as well as several future fiscal years. In recent years, the President's budget contained projections five years into the future. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issues a "Budget and Economic Outlook" each January and an analysis of the President's budget each March. CBO also issues an updated budget and economic outlook in August.

Actual budget data for prior years is available from the Congressional Budget Office [81] and from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
 
Last edited:
it probably is 25% in real terms.

consumer confidence is increasing slowly because the consumers have no confidence in this government, and i include the legislative branch in that statement.

in the old days we had a name for something like this.

we called it jimmy carter.

nice way to raise the bar. it wasn't "probably" anything,

puleeze re jimmy carter. that's the new chi chi extremist yowl. you can do better.

and the only thing "carterish" about him is he deluded himself into thinking the repubs would work with him and sing kumbaya...he needed to start off hitting them, and congress, in the face.
 
Then the question wasn't directed at you. Damn you liberals are stupid!

You do know that a democratic controlled senate authorized Bush to go to war. The president cannot declare war on his own. Most of the spending happened after the democrats took control of the house. But I don't expect you to be intelligent enough to know any of this so just stick with your liberal talking points and stay stupid your entire life!

Huh? The democrats took control of the senate in Nov of 06 and for voting purposes Jan 07. So exactly when did we invade Iraq? You really shouldn't talk about others intelligence until you are able to demonstrate some of your own...

Better check your history in 2002 Tom Daschle was the senate majority leader. Democrats remained in control after November 25, 2002, despite a Republican majority resulting from Jim Talent's special election victory in Missouri. There was no reorganization as Senate was no longer in session.

Tom Dashle was Senate Majority leader for one year; in 2003 he became the Senate MINORITY leader, succeeded by Bill Frist as MAJORITY leader.
 
If Bush lied, so did all the Democrats that said the same thing about Iraq at the time. The entire world though Saddam has WMD's... not just Bush. Anyway... it was the right thing to do.

Nope it was the wrong thing to do no matter which of the evolving string of excuses the right used to rationalize their stupidity.


Every President for the last 20 years, all leaders of all countries agreed that Saddam had weapons of Mass Destruction. President Clinton, Kerry, Al Gore all of them knew of Saddam's weapons of Mass destruction, yet you accuse Bush of LYING about it. Could it be that all of them were wrong?? Including all the democrats who voted for going into Iraq.

The WMD never included the LIE about "mushroom clouds" to scare the American people and Saddam's capability to launch weapons that could reach the United States. Big, BIG difference when defining a "wmd" which the Bush camp exaggerated beyond comprehension. Several countries in that region had WMD, including nuclear (Pakistan, India, Israel and possibly Iran). Yet the entire focus was on Iraq. And that's all I'm going to say about this subject which has been discussed to death for years.
 
Where was the Dow when Obama took office?

where was unemployment before his master stimulus bill to keep it under 8%?

I heard yesterday that if they hadn't done what they did, it would have been 25%

But why take that into consideraton, eh?

Not to mention all predictors are up. And things are slowly creeping back. If they re-regulate the banks, should get even better.

But all the loons keep talking down the economy. Don't you think that has something to do with consumer confidence increasing more slowly?

Correct. As long as the right wing noise machine gets all the attention by continuing to claim that we're going to hell in a hand basket, consumer spending will continue to be flat, businesses will be afraid to hire, big banks will refuse to lend to community banks which in turn lend to businesses and individuals in order to buy things. A vicious cycle of NOISE is what keeps the economy struggling.
 
it probably is 25% in real terms.

consumer confidence is increasing slowly because the consumers have no confidence in this government, and i include the legislative branch in that statement.

in the old days we had a name for something like this.

we called it jimmy carter.

nice way to raise the bar. it wasn't "probably" anything,

puleeze re jimmy carter. that's the new chi chi extremist yowl. you can do better.

and the only thing "carterish" about him is he deluded himself into thinking the repubs would work with him and sing kumbaya...he needed to start off hitting them, and congress, in the face.

i've read estimates between 15 and 27% for the real unemployment rate in a variety of media. let's call it 10% if that makes it more palatable to you.this is a success?

call it what you want jillian, but with every passing day his inability to govern becomes more apparent. i always thought he was an empty suit, and that is what he's turning out to be.

at least carter got the camp david accords done.
 
I never blamed Bush for the 911 attacks.
I do blame him for spending like a drunken sailor and lying us into Iraq though.

Good, you couldn't blame him if you wanted too, what's your point?

So then you must categorize Obama's spending as the whole Navy spending like drunken sailors?

Let's be clear, Obama is on a course to be an epic failure, hell he already is by liberal standards, Uncle Teddy is still spinning in his grave over Scott Brown winning his vacated seat......

He has become considerably more dangerous than anything we experienced from Carter.....

His favorite dialogue begins with "it was at my door step when I got here", how does someone who is touted as the smartest man to be POTUS not understand it comes with the job? You will have a very difficult time finding quoted text during 43's time as POTUS directly blaming Clinton for OBL......

So to anyone, when is he going to take responsibility? Does or has he ever taken responsibility for his mistakes???
 
Why do you blame Bush for not preventing the 9/11 attacks after 8 months in office but then refuse to give Obama any blame for the economy after almost 13 months in office?


u-fail.jpg
 
Why do you blame Bush for not preventing the 9/11 attacks after 8 months in office but then refuse to give Obama any blame for the economy after almost 13 months in office?

ARe you serious? Bush had intel regarding an attack, didn't do much about it. He was in charge, but previous administrations also share some blame. Although I'm not really "blaming bush", but those are reasons why people would.
Obama inherited a bad economy, plus the nature of the economy is things don't change overnight. One of the big talks during the campaigns was the poor economy.So why blame Obama for the economy? The reality of economics is things don't change overnight and it takes time for the economy to rebound.
 
Last edited:
I never blamed Bush for the 911 attacks.
I do blame him for spending like a drunken sailor and lying us into Iraq though.


If Bush lied, so did all the Democrats that said the same thing about Iraq at the time. The entire world though Saddam has WMD's... not just Bush. Anyway... it was the right thing to do.

I didn't believe it, and many other people also, but we were labeled as anti americans..

That;s bullshit about the dems, because any dem that would of spoken up against it would of been lableed as anti american, or a terrorist sympathizer, and wouldn't of been elected or re-elected. Doesn't make it right but that's politics, as many people were duped by Bush playing the patriotism card and using 9/11 to justify attacking Iraq.
 
Then the question wasn't directed at you. Damn you liberals are stupid!

You do know that a democratic controlled senate authorized Bush to go to war. The president cannot declare war on his own. Most of the spending happened after the democrats took control of the house. But I don't expect you to be intelligent enough to know any of this so just stick with your liberal talking points and stay stupid your entire life!

But most on here label me as a liberal. And so did you...

You can call yourself whatever the fuck you want, you're still a stupid fuck!

You apparently know nothing about the nature of poliitcs and the how anybody questioning bush were called terrorists or worse
 
If Bush lied, so did all the Democrats that said the same thing about Iraq at the time. The entire world though Saddam has WMD's... not just Bush. Anyway... it was the right thing to do.

Curious there were lots who contradicted that, and if you remember the inspectors found none. Iraq after the Iran war and the first Gulf war had nothing - not even a real army. They were contained and it was only an incompetent president and his draft dodger side kick Dick who raised fear to a new level and invaded a nation that was absolutely no threat.

As far as Bush and 911, while he was asleep at the wheel you can't really blame him, his goal was squandering the surplus with reduced taxes for the rich while the infrastructure collapsed - that he accomplished. He was lost that first year, actually silly looking.


Once Upon a Time...: Trapped in the Wrong Paradigm: Three Handy Rules

"I repeat: the entire war and occupation are immoral. If you criticize the Bush administration on the grounds that it "bungled" the war, this leaves one, and only one, inevitable implication: if they had prosecuted the war and occupation "competently," then you would have no complaints whatsoever. That is: you think the invasion and occupation of Iraq were justified and moral. If that's what you actually think, you belong in the Bush camp. You're arguing over managerial style, and about issues that are entirely trivial."

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred."
 
BLAME Obama for adding 4,000 to the DOW and 5.7% GDP growth? O.K. I "BLAME" him.
The economists were saying that the stock market AND the economy were going to move back up after December 08 without any aid at all.

But go ahead and believe that Mr. Obama had anything to do with it.
 
BLAME Obama for adding 4,000 to the DOW and 5.7% GDP growth? O.K. I "BLAME" him.
The economists were saying that the stock market AND the economy were going to move back up after December 08 without any aid at all.

But go ahead and believe that Mr. Obama had anything to do with it.

The problem with sourcing "the economists" is that there's no single agreed upon correct economic theory. For each economist that said what you posted, at least as many said exactly the opposite. Quoting "economists" is always a good cop-out - you can always find at least a few that agree with whatever you post. But that doesn't make them right.

The "science" of economics is about as accurate as weather prediction.
 
The economists were saying that the stock market AND the economy were going to move back up after December 08 without any aid at all.

But go ahead and believe that Mr. Obama had anything to do with it.
Take it up with the OP
 
BLAME Obama for adding 4,000 to the DOW and 5.7% GDP growth? O.K. I "BLAME" him.
The economists were saying that the stock market AND the economy were going to move back up after December 08 without any aid at all.

But go ahead and believe that Mr. Obama had anything to do with it.





WERE the "economists" saying that? SHOW ME!!! And not some BS right wing "THINK TANK" REAL economists. I will be HAPPY to wait long enough for you to FABRICATE some FACTS!!!
 
BLAME Obama for adding 4,000 to the DOW and 5.7% GDP growth? O.K. I "BLAME" him.
The economists were saying that the stock market AND the economy were going to move back up after December 08 without any aid at all.

But go ahead and believe that Mr. Obama had anything to do with it.





WERE the "economists" saying that? SHOW ME!!! And not some BS right wing "THINK TANK" REAL economists. I will be HAPPY to wait long enough for you to FABRICATE some FACTS!!!

Yep that is pretty much what the "experts" said over by the end 0f 2008 and rebound in the first of 2009.

I remember it and a google search will show articles, perhaps even a search on here? Not sure how far back posts are kept here.

McCain said in what in mid 2008 that the economy was fundamentally sound?
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top