Why does the debt matter so much to Repubs?

[JRK]

I guess I just don't get it. I suppose I see the importance in not being broke, but above all else?

It is a permanent tax hike
It is a change in philosophy even from Bill Clinton
We had Reagan, GWB-1, Clinton and GWB-2 work there tails off to create a prosperous country and along come Obama and in months throws it all away

It is permanent tax rates that are higher than even Clinton's where
It is a permanent society that the middle class working man loses any hope of coming out of it
75,000 a year has about 20,000 in taxes with it
It will have to be closer to 30 to pay down this debt

 

[Cuyo]

OK, I'm outraged only because it's "Hussein?" If that' why I'm outraged now, why was I outraged at W for his deficits? What I said was he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and had no grasp the money he was spending was earned by someone. Since you're the amateur psychiatrist, what was the real reason? This should be good...

The fact that you refer to him only as 'Hussein' speaks volumes.

What does it say?

Besides the fact that you're a stupid fuck? It says you're using his middle name as a pejorative, therefore it's axiomatic that you're blaming the deficit on him.

It'd be no different than if I said "5 trillion under the redneck." No, I didn't spell it out, but rather obvious what's being suggested.

 

[iggy pop]

I guess I just don't get it. I suppose I see the importance in not being broke, but above all else?

Debt always requires more taxes. Do you think they can realistically suck any more out of us?

 

[Cuyo]

I guess I just don't get it. I suppose I see the importance in not being broke, but above all else?

Debt always requires more taxes. Do you think they can realistically suck any more out of us?

Yes. We've flourished for decades with higher taxes than we have now. Do I think it's politically possible at this moment? Probably not.

 

[drsmith1072]

If you make $50,000/year and $10,000 of that goes to debt servicing.. you wouldn't be worried?

If that was the case why would I voluntarly take a paycut from a small portion of my customer base??

 

[iggy pop]

I guess I just don't get it. I suppose I see the importance in not being broke, but above all else?

Debt always requires more taxes. Do you think they can realistically suck any more out of us?

Yes. We've flourished for decades with higher taxes than we have now. Do I think it's politically possible at this moment? Probably not.

Do you really think you are paying less taxes now. No seriously. Do you honestly believe you are paying less taxes now?

 

[drsmith1072]

I guess I just don't get it. I suppose I see the importance in not being broke, but above all else?

So you would have no problem with your children and/or grandchildren paying off debts that you incur?

Uh you do realize that ryan's plan does nothing to medicare in the immediate and won't address it until AFTER the current 55 and older baby boomers retire. So if medicare is so insolvent why does he address it NOW??

How will punting the ball and passing on the baby boomers medicare costs to the next generation solve anything??

 

[drsmith1072]

I guess I just don't get it. I suppose I see the importance in not being broke, but above all else?

Simple. Because there is a Democrat in the White House. The debt increases under Bush didn't bother them, nor did the debt increases under Reagan.

Right up until Bush Jr the debt was managable.

It's not anymore and it's nearing a catastophic point.

What I don't get, is the people that praised clinton avoid things he did to get this phantom surplus like the friggin plague.

I wonder what W's budget projections would have looked like IF he had incldued the costs of the wars in them??

How "manageable" would they have been then??

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I guess I just don't get it. I suppose I see the importance in not being broke, but above all else?

So you would have no problem with your children and/or grandchildren paying off debts that you incur?

Uh you do realize that ryan's plan does nothing to medicare in the immediate and won't address it until AFTER the current 55 and older baby boomers retire. So if medicare is so insolvent why does he address it NOW??

How will punting the ball and passing on the baby boomers medicare costs to the next generation solve anything??

Who said Medicare was insolvent?

Read Ryan's plan and find something specific to whine about.

The Roadmap Plan | A Roadmap for America's Future | The Budget Committee Republicans

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Simple. Because there is a Democrat in the White House. The debt increases under Bush didn't bother them, nor did the debt increases under Reagan.

Right up until Bush Jr the debt was managable.

It's not anymore and it's nearing a catastophic point.

What I don't get, is the people that praised clinton avoid things he did to get this phantom surplus like the friggin plague.

I wonder what W's budget projections would have looked like IF he had incldued the costs of the wars in them??

How "manageable" would they have been then??

IF a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass on the ground when he hopped.

 

[drsmith1072]

Dude,

$300 billion under Bush, Left considers it cataclysmic

$1.5 trillion under Hussein the Left considers it the cost of doing business

And you say this? As pathetic as the Republicans are, they got nothing on you.

I'm speaking about Republicans which is what the OP is about (read the title again, please). The Left has their own problems. Your little comparison is childish.

To point out hypocrisy is "childish?" I'm sure if Republicans criticized Democrats for something they do even worse you'd criticize any Democrat who pointed out that it was hypocrisy was being childish as well, right?

Were my facts on the level of debt Democrats reacted to with Bush while being OK with BO childish too? Facts are childish, racist, sexist and homophobic you know...

If your goal is to present your claim of hypocrisy to cover for your own hypocrisy even as you refsue to address your own hypocrisy, yes it is childish.

How can you call budget projections about the deficit that don't include the cost of the wars in them factual?? Seems to me that you are more than happy to ignore the facts that don't bow to your version of the facts.

 

[drsmith1072]

I guess I just don't get it. I suppose I see the importance in not being broke, but above all else?

Simple. Because there is a Democrat in the White House. The debt increases under Bush didn't bother them, nor did the debt increases under Reagan.

That's blatantly false. It mattered to Republicans which is why we didnt go out to support the leaders who werent leading on the subject in 06 and 08.

Uh aren't the same leaders in charge now?? LOL

 

[Charles_Main]

Right up until Bush Jr the debt was managable.

It's not anymore and it's nearing a catastophic point.

What I don't get, is the people that praised clinton avoid things he did to get this phantom surplus like the friggin plague.

I wonder what W's budget projections would have looked like IF he had incldued the costs of the wars in them??

How "manageable" would they have been then??

Why wonder, we know how much the wars are and were costing. about 135 Billion a year for Both. Add that to bushes budgets and projections and you still have a number almost HALF of what obama has given us.


You libs love to talk about the cost of the wars, but seem to want to overstate just how much they were.

 

[drsmith1072]

f you make $50,000/year and $10,000 of that goes to debt servicing.. you wouldn't be worried?

Again, WHERE were you when Bush lied us into the trillion dollar nightmare that is Iraq - that we anti-war types were screaming so vehemently against (and rightly so)? We heard NO arguments - not a sound whatsoever but from the right; only saber rattling and people making tasteless Iraqi jokes. Seriously. We heard NOTHING from the right about concern for the deficit... NOT AN EFFING PEEP during the whole Bush debacle, and then suddenly in 2009... OMG THE DEFICIT! HOLY SHIT!!! I really do wish someone would be brave enough (or honest) enough to answer this question...

Nightmare? In what way has Iraq been a nightmare?

If you weren't hearing the right showing concern for the deficit, then you weren't listening.

Nice avoidance. I guess you can't answer the question.

You right wingers love to argue that the left was complaining about W's debt but the thing that most were complaining about concerning the debt was the cost of the wars whioch were not included in W's budgets that obama is now putting on the books.

The fact is that yes there were tea partiers years ago but they were a much smaller group and it wasn't until the republican party lost in 08 that the right wingers tried to find a new voice to co opt as they used the tea party to meet their needs. To try and pretend that there was a large group on the right that was vocal about the debt before then is sheer dishonesty.

 

[boedicca]

The wars aren't driving us into insolvency; entitlements and the ready to explode interest on the debt are.

Not that we shouldn't cut defense spending as well, but the big money is in entitlements.

 

[Cuyo]

The wars aren't driving us into insolvency; entitlements and the ready to explode interest on the debt are.

Not that we shouldn't cut defense spending as well, but the big money is in entitlements.

But the 'entitlements' that you refer to have their own income streams. You realize that if you eliminate SS, you actually increase the deficit?

DoD is the lion's share of the deficit. Conservatives love to talk about eliminating 'Entitlements' as if they're going to eliminate the outlay but not the tax - Because that's the only way it would impact the deficit positively.

 

[JRK]

Again, WHERE were you when Bush lied us into the trillion dollar nightmare that is Iraq - that we anti-war types were screaming so vehemently against (and rightly so)? We heard NO arguments - not a sound whatsoever but from the right; only saber rattling and people making tasteless Iraqi jokes. Seriously. We heard NOTHING from the right about concern for the deficit... NOT AN EFFING PEEP during the whole Bush debacle, and then suddenly in 2009... OMG THE DEFICIT! HOLY SHIT!!! I really do wish someone would be brave enough (or honest) enough to answer this question...

Nightmare? In what way has Iraq been a nightmare?

If you weren't hearing the right showing concern for the deficit, then you weren't listening.

Nice avoidance. I guess you can't answer the question.

You right wingers love to argue that the left was complaining about W's debt but the thing that most were complaining about concerning the debt was the cost of the wars whioch were not included in W's budgets that obama is now putting on the books.

The fact is that yes there were tea partiers years ago but they were a much smaller group and it wasn't until the republican party lost in 08 that the right wingers tried to find a new voice to co opt as they used the tea party to meet their needs. To try and pretend that there was a large group on the right that was vocal about the debt before then is sheer dishonesty.

Iraq?
lies?
of course those wars in the overall budget
The Bush Deficit, the Clinton Surplus and TARP by Gregory Hilton | The DC World Affairs Blog
For eight years many liberals complained about the Bush deficit and praised the Clinton surplus. They had an excellent point, but overlooked many key factors. Bush created a Medicare drug entitle*ment which will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. He increased federal education spending 58% faster than inflation. He was also the first President to spend 3% of GDP on federal anti-poverty programs. For some reason the left wing is no longer talking about the deficit.
The above graph does include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is of course included in the numbers above.
The Bush deficit declined significantly until early September of 2008 when the global economic crisis began. Bush responded with TARP (the toxic asset recovery program). This was done because $550 billion was pulled out of our financial and investment systems in ONE hour on September 18, 2008. The situation was dire and there was no longer a firewall between the banks and the stock market. There was $40 trillion in outstanding Credit Default Swaps, and most of it turned out to be worthless. That’s more than the GDP of the entire United States for three years.

Now lets talk about WMDs
who lied?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

[drsmith1072]

So you would have no problem with your children and/or grandchildren paying off debts that you incur?

Uh you do realize that ryan's plan does nothing to medicare in the immediate and won't address it until AFTER the current 55 and older baby boomers retire. So if medicare is so insolvent why does he address it NOW??

How will punting the ball and passing on the baby boomers medicare costs to the next generation solve anything??

Who said Medicare was insolvent?

Read Ryan's plan and find something specific to whine about.

The Roadmap Plan | A Roadmap for America's Future | The Budget Committee Republicans

Avoidance. Imagine that, thanks for nothing.

 

[drsmith1072]

Right up until Bush Jr the debt was managable.

It's not anymore and it's nearing a catastophic point.

What I don't get, is the people that praised clinton avoid things he did to get this phantom surplus like the friggin plague.

I wonder what W's budget projections would have looked like IF he had incldued the costs of the wars in them??

How "manageable" would they have been then??

IF a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass on the ground when he hopped.

MORE avoidance. imagine that, thanks for nothing.

 

[uscitizen]

Why does the debt matter so much to Repubs?

Because a Dem is in the WH and still controlls the senate.

It was not an issue when Reagan or Bush did it.