Why Don't Right Wingers Acknowledge Bush's And The Right's Part In

[Wicked Jester]

The current financial situation?

Why are they so dishonest in their debating as to say that the minute Obama stepped into office the debt increased?

Why do they not admit that it was the 2 unecessary wars that Bush and Co. got us into that STARTED or FINISHED, rather, the financial situation in the country?

Why is this?

I have NO PROBLEM saying I had problems with Bush's spending. However, you can't blame out of control entitlement spending, Obamacare and virtually nonexistent private sector growth, which equates to uber-reductions in tax revenue on GWB. It is a result of nearly a century of nanny statism by the Progressives and the liberal left and the current administration.

BULLSHIT!!!!!

It's a simple matter o' tellin' the 1%ers....

"You've pretty-much gotten an interest-free loan, when we could least afford it, with all your tax-cuts, and NOW it's time to PAY!!!"

Why the Hell are so many people so goddamned AFRAID to upset them???

THEY CAN AFFORD IT....AND, THE REST-OF-US ARE TAPPED-OUT!!!

It ISN'T like they didn't EARN any cash/intere$t with those tax-cut bucks!!!​

So, tell us how there is enough 1%ers to make a drop in the bucket.

We'll be waiting for real numbers and FACTS.

 

[Navy1960]

I don't know if you call it "right wing" or not, but I will say this, the Bush Administration came into power with a budget surplus and . . .

And that's the little lie that's been told. In reality, there never was a surplus. A 10 year projected surplus based on phoney numbers, is not a real surplus.

Don't you just love it when politicians lie to us? [/sarcasm]

NEW YORK (CNNmoney) - The U.S. government's budget surplus shrank in 2001, the Treasury Department reported Monday, dragged down by a sluggish economy, falling tax revenue and the impact of last month's terror attacks.

The Treasury Department reported a budget surplus for the fiscal year, which ended on Sept. 30, of $127 billion, compared with $237 billion a year ago.
U.S. budget surplus shrinks in 2001 - Oct. 29, 2001

The excess of revenue over net cost figure (accrual basis) contained in these financial statements for fiscal
2000 is $46.0 billion. In fiscal 2000, there was a unified budget surplus (primarily on the cash basis) of $236.9billion. The primary components of the difference that have been identified are increases in the liability for veteran
compensation and burial benefits, $62.5 billion; increases in the liability for civilian employee benefits, $55.3
billion; increases in the liability for military employee benefits, $39.5 billion; principal payments of pre-credit
reform loans, $24.1 billion; increases in environmental liabilities, $19.6 billion; and decreases in capitalized fixed
assets, $31.6 billion. For more information on the detailed reconciliation, see the Reconciliation of the Excess of
Revenue Over Net Cost to the Unified Budget Surplus in the Supplemental Information section.
http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/00frusg.pdf

The U.S. Federal Debt is over $14 trillion. This is more than double the debt in 2000, which was $6 trillion
US Federal Debt and Deficit - How the National Debt and Deficit are Different and How the Debt and Deficit Affect Each Other

While I won't argue the fact that all political types are prone to spin a tale or two or three, and some make a career out it. The fact remains that when George W. Bush took office he was handed a budget surplus , as was reported by the GAO. My post did not attempt to lay the blame for our present ills on his shoulders alone though. I seem to recall both parties beating the drums for Afghanistan and Iraq as well as both parties making contributions to this mess in the form of TARP, Medicare Part D, Stimulus, Health Reform, numereous continuations of operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and so on. So if it took both parties to get us into this mess, its going to take both to get out, and if they cannot seem to manage that then we who hire them need ti hire someone who can.

 

[rdean]

The current financial situation?

Why are they so dishonest in their debating as to say that the minute Obama stepped into office the debt increased?

Why do they not admit that it was the 2 unecessary wars that Bush and Co. got us into that STARTED or FINISHED, rather, the financial situation in the country?

Why is this?

Please, by the time they finish, the Republican base will believe Obama invaded Iraq. How many believe he invaded Afghanistan?

Check this out:

By invading Afghanistan, a country that has never attacked us, Obama is following the "Bush Doctrine." Does this worry you? | Answerbag

 

[candycorn]

The current financial situation?

Why are they so dishonest in their debating as to say that the minute Obama stepped into office the debt increased?

Why do they not admit that it was the 2 unecessary wars that Bush and Co. got us into that STARTED or FINISHED, rather, the financial situation in the country?

Why is this?

What a stupid inflammatory post! Bush is not the President now, is he? The current President Has made the situation worse. We need a leader, who is able to solve the problem, not blame former presidents.
You deserve the despotic government, you are working so to install. Of course, you will just blame Bush for that too.

I noticed you didn't say inaccurate. Bush authorized TARP and Wall Street has never looked back while they were laughing their way to the bank to cash their bonus checks courtesy of GWB.

I gave GWB props for some good things he did. That wasn't one of them. You should be intellectually honest enough to admit that.

 

[elvis]

Answer the question.

Yes. You're a total dipshit.

 

[Dot Com]

The current financial situation?

Why are they so dishonest in their debating as to say that the minute Obama stepped into office the debt increased?

Why do they not admit that it was the 2 unecessary wars that Bush and Co. got us into that STARTED or FINISHED, rather, the financial situation in the country?

Why is this?

selective amnesia

P.S.- don't forget tax-cuts during a time of war & Medicare part D (also unpaid-for

 

[Trajan]

The current financial situation?

Why are they so dishonest in their debating as to say that the minute Obama stepped into office the debt increased?

Why do they not admit that it was the 2 unecessary wars that Bush and Co. got us into that STARTED or FINISHED, rather, the financial situation in the country?

Why is this?

I know that's what that MFer is saying.

I mean...some states/cities have that rancid "Miss Bush Yet" sign...well...very little places do actually...but the fact that even one place has it. Un-effing-believable!

*SMH*

smack harder, please.

 

[Dot Com]

Bu$h II did the enormous task of getting the ball rolling. It must be noted that what he did w/ those trillions upon trillions is termed "give-aways" whereas what Obama is doing is termed "investing in competitiveness" by wanting to fund education, infrastructure & alternative energies.

We will also not know the true cost of the wars for years to come. I have no doubt they'll prolly exceed $5 trillion after all is said and done PLUS we still don't know the final outcome.

 

[editec]

What IS the point of places like USMB, folks?

It it designed as a place where partisands can score coups on each other?

Or is it to provide a place where we citizens can, though the process of intellecutal debate, arrive at a truer truth than either position originally had though intellectually challenging and testing of our POVs in debate?

Most people on USMB are here, I think, mostly to score points for their team. They see this activity is a team sport rather than a way of learning or possibly teaching their fellow citizens anything woth knowing.

Hence, we have threads that employ the same DISHONEST partisan's formula for evoking equally counter partisan responses.

These intellectually dishonest threads generally start out with an unspoken assumption and demand that people respond whatever follows without challenging the assumptions that are presented as if they were facts we all agree upon.

Now, on this board we tend to see more of that kind of dishonest posting coming from the RIGHT WING.

But that is, I think, mostly true because the right winger partisans here outnumber left wing partisans.

But every time anybody starts a post that PRESUMES, as but one example, that the POTUS has TOTAL responsiblity for the state of the economy TODAY, you know, you absolutely KNOW that that person's unspoken prsupposition is based on a false premise.

THE lie is this: what is happpening today is in no way the result of things that happened BEFORE the POTUS was in office.

Of course, we all KNOW that that is an insane assumption, but we see it implied over and over again on this board.

I'd estimate that about half the threads here START OUT with THAT false presumption -- that what is happening at this VERY MINUTE us entirely the responsibilith of the person in the WHITE HOUSE today.

My point here is that you partisans aren't usually worth the ASCIII you used to craft your TROLLING threads, or my time even considering whatever it is you wrote AFTER your introductary statement which is an OBVIOUS untruth.

 

[Mad Scientist]

The current financial situation?

Why are they so dishonest in their debating as to say that the minute Obama stepped into office the debt increased?

Why do they not admit that it was the 2 unecessary wars that Bush and Co. got us into that STARTED or FINISHED, rather, the financial situation in the country?

Why is this?

I agree. Bush gave us 500 billion in debt and Obama pushed to 1.4 trillion.

Bush gave us two unnecessary wars and Obama gave us a third.

Bush didn't pass Amnesty for illegals, Obama didn't pass Amnesty for illegals.

Uh, wait a minute.

Bush had a CFR,Tri-Lateral Commission, Bilderberg member V.P telling him what to do. Obama has a CFR, Tri-Lateral Commission, Bilderberg member V.P. telling him what to do.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Debt has always risen with both sides however what we see today makes the other pale in comparison. We're at 15 trillion and climbing now thanks to "new improved" debt ceiling. The question is why so few understand that we cannot continue down this path.

I know man, i know...i edited in something when i realized this is what you were getting at .

I don't think we have a choice but to raise the debt ceiling. It seems that everytime we get to this point, someone is yelling about not raising the ceiling. It's too late at that point to do anything but raise it. The debate on the debt ceiling has to occur well before we're at the point of exceeding the ceiling because even if we eliminated the federal government alltogether right now, we'd still have to raise the debt ceiling because the interest charges on money we've already borrowed and other federal obligations, such as the redemption of T-bills, would still accumulate and would exceed the current debt ceiling therefor thrusting the government into default.

I think we need to rip that band aid off, its gonna hurt like hell but it has to be done.

We should have done it 2 years ago and let the banks that couldn't survive and the car companies that were faultering go out of business and let other banks and car companies fill in the gaps.

We keep just ignoring the problems and its not getting better.

 

[edthecynic]

The current financial situation?

Why are they so dishonest in their debating as to say that the minute Obama stepped into office the debt increased?

Why do they not admit that it was the 2 unecessary wars that Bush and Co. got us into that STARTED or FINISHED, rather, the financial situation in the country?

Why is this?

I agree. Bush gave us 500 billion in debt and Obama pushed to 1.4 trillion.

Bush gave us two unnecessary wars and Obama gave us a third.

Bush didn't pass Amnesty for illegals, Obama didn't pass Amnesty for illegals.

Uh, wait a minute.

Bush had a CFR,Tri-Lateral Commission, Bilderberg member V.P telling him what to do. Obama has a CFR, Tri-Lateral Commission, Bilderberg member V.P. telling him what to do.

Bush gave us $6.1 trillion in debt!!! Obama's first budget was $100 billion LESS than Bush's last budget!!!

 

[R.D.]

These intellectually dishonest threads generally start out with an unspoken assumption and demand that people respond whatever follows without challenging the assumptions that are presented as if they were facts we all agree upon.......

Now, on this board we tend to see more of that kind of dishonest posting coming from the RIGHT WING

But that is, I think, mostly true because the right winger partisans here outnumber left wing partisans........


THE lie is this: what is happpening today is in no way the result of things that happened BEFORE the POTUS was in office.

As this thread is...

Whatever....

Can you post where that has ever been alleged? Or is this just a case of pot meet kettle?

 

[editec]

These intellectually dishonest threads generally start out with an unspoken assumption and demand that people respond whatever follows without challenging the assumptions that are presented as if they were facts we all agree upon.......

Now, on this board we tend to see more of that kind of dishonest posting coming from the RIGHT WING

But that is, I think, mostly true because the right winger partisans here outnumber left wing partisans........


THE lie is this: what is happpening today is in no way the result of things that happened BEFORE the POTUS was in office.

As this thread is...

Whatever....

Can you post where that has ever been alleged? Or is this just a case of pot meet kettle?

Did you read my post and think it was ONLY talking about right wing partisans?

Really?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

What IS the point of places like USMB, folks?

It it designed as a place where partisands can score coups on each other?

Or is it to provide a place where we citizens can, though the process of intellecutal debate, arrive at a truer truth than either position originally had though intellectually challenging and testing of our POVs in debate?

Most people on USMB are here, I think, mostly to score points for their team. They see this activity is a team sport rather than a way of learning or possibly teaching their fellow citizens anything woth knowing.

Hence, we have threads that employ the same DISHONEST partisan's formula for evoking equally counter partisan responses.

These intellectually dishonest threads generally start out with an unspoken assumption and demand that people respond whatever follows without challenging the assumptions that are presented as if they were facts we all agree upon.

Now, on this board we tend to see more of that kind of dishonest posting coming from the RIGHT WING.

But that is, I think, mostly true because the right winger partisans here outnumber left wing partisans.

But every time anybody starts a post that PRESUMES, as but one example, that the POTUS has TOTAL responsiblity for the state of the economy TODAY, you know, you absolutely KNOW that that person's unspoken prsupposition is based on a false premise.

THE lie is this: what is happpening today is in no way the result of things that happened BEFORE the POTUS was in office.
Of course, we all KNOW that that is an insane assumption, but we see it implied over and over again on this board.

I'd estimate that about half the threads here START OUT with THAT false presumption -- that what is happening at this VERY MINUTE us entirely the responsibilith of the person in the WHITE HOUSE today.

My point here is that you partisans aren't usually worth the ASCIII you used to craft your TROLLING threads, or my time even considering whatever it is you wrote AFTER your introductary statement which is an OBVIOUS untruth.

Yes some of it is from things going on when obama took office but more of it is from the decisions obama and the congress have made since he took office.

 

[R.D.]

These intellectually dishonest threads generally start out with an unspoken assumption and demand that people respond whatever follows without challenging the assumptions that are presented as if they were facts we all agree upon.......

Now, on this board we tend to see more of that kind of dishonest posting coming from the RIGHT WING

But that is, I think, mostly true because the right winger partisans here outnumber left wing partisans........


THE lie is this: what is happpening today is in no way the result of things that happened BEFORE the POTUS was in office.

As this thread is...

Whatever....

Can you post where that has ever been alleged? Or is this just a case of pot meet kettle?

Did you read my post and think it was ONLY talking about right wing partisans?

Really?

Yes, I read it and no. I replied to what interested me. You post this stuff constantly, so I asked a question.

 

[Herbie Hancock]

If you think I would be one to defend Bush on certain items you are mistaken. However, both Afghanistan and Iraq you can make a case that we fought the war over there vs. over here. I will say that after seeing what Iraq has become now, and the road we took to get it here, I would have been for it in the past. Afghanistan I fully believe we can do what we need do with drones, fuck Pakistan. In regards to the deficit yes Bush had a hand in it, further expanded the recipient class by requiring less individuals to pay ANY federal taxes, passed a MED D plan that was unfunded. In regards to the current deficit....how can you even bring up Bush vs. Obama. Obama has taken Bush's deficit and put it on atomic steriods. He has quadrupled the overall debt in under two years and shows no signs that he thinks he should slow down. Discussing the financial collapse both Bush and McCain are on record asking for investigations into sub-prime mortgages and Fannie/Freddie and were called racists by people like Bawney Frank and Dodd. I still blame Bush for the collapse just like I still blame him for not being successful in partially privatizing SS and controlling the border. Yes he didn't have the votes to get them passed or Fannie/Freddie looked into but it is his job to bring people together , something Obama is unable to do, and move forward.

 

[Navy1960]

I know man, i know...i edited in something when i realized this is what you were getting at .

I don't think we have a choice but to raise the debt ceiling. It seems that everytime we get to this point, someone is yelling about not raising the ceiling. It's too late at that point to do anything but raise it. The debate on the debt ceiling has to occur well before we're at the point of exceeding the ceiling because even if we eliminated the federal government alltogether right now, we'd still have to raise the debt ceiling because the interest charges on money we've already borrowed and other federal obligations, such as the redemption of T-bills, would still accumulate and would exceed the current debt ceiling therefor thrusting the government into default.

I think we need to rip that band aid off, its gonna hurt like hell but it has to be done.

We should have done it 2 years ago and let the banks that couldn't survive and the car companies that were faultering go out of business and let other banks and car companies fill in the gaps.

We keep just ignoring the problems and its not getting better.

Your post sort of remined me of something,

Ballooning labor costs (the company had never had an official United Auto Workers [UAW] strike and Studebaker workers and retirees were among the highest paid in the industry), quality control issues, and the new-car sales war between Ford and General Motors in the early 1950s wreaked havoc on Studebaker's balance sheet.[2]254-255 Professional financial managers stressed short-term earnings rather than long-term vision. There was enough momentum to keep going for another ten years, but stiff competition and price-cutting by the Big Three doomed the enterprise.

From 1950, Studebaker declined rapidly and, by 1954, was losing money. It negotiated a strategic takeover by Packard, a smaller but less financially troubled car manufacturer. However, the cash position was worse than it had led Packard to believe and, by 1956, the company (renamed Studebaker-Packard Corporation and under the guidance of CEO James J. Nance) was nearly bankrupt, though it continued to make and market both Studebaker and Packard cars until 1958.[2]254 The "Packard" element was retained until 1962, when the name reverted to "Studebaker Corporation".

Studebaker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There was a time in this nation when companies "WERE NOT TOO BIG TO FAIL" we survived then and we should have known that. If Texaco, Worldcom, Eastern, TWA, and a whole host of others were not too big then those lesson(s) should have been learned. It's a little late now to do anything about it now though, I do find it somewhat troubling though to ask one segment of Americans to give more than others to get our house in order when at the same time we are doing such things as propping up the GM's and GE's of the world.

 

[MarcATL]

What IS the point of places like USMB, folks?

It it designed as a place where partisands can score coups on each other?

Or is it to provide a place where we citizens can, though the process of intellecutal debate, arrive at a truer truth than either position originally had though intellectually challenging and testing of our POVs in debate?

Most people on USMB are here, I think, mostly to score points for their team. They see this activity is a team sport rather than a way of learning or possibly teaching their fellow citizens anything woth knowing.

Hence, we have threads that employ the same DISHONEST partisan's formula for evoking equally counter partisan responses.

These intellectually dishonest threads generally start out with an unspoken assumption and demand that people respond whatever follows without challenging the assumptions that are presented as if they were facts we all agree upon.

Now, on this board we tend to see more of that kind of dishonest posting coming from the RIGHT WING.

But that is, I think, mostly true because the right winger partisans here outnumber left wing partisans.

But every time anybody starts a post that PRESUMES, as but one example, that the POTUS has TOTAL responsiblity for the state of the economy TODAY, you know, you absolutely KNOW that that person's unspoken prsupposition is based on a false premise.

THE lie is this: what is happpening today is in no way the result of things that happened BEFORE the POTUS was in office.

Of course, we all KNOW that that is an insane assumption, but we see it implied over and over again on this board.

I'd estimate that about half the threads here START OUT with THAT false presumption -- that what is happening at this VERY MINUTE us entirely the responsibilith of the person in the WHITE HOUSE today.

My point here is that you partisans aren't usually worth the ASCIII you used to craft your TROLLING threads, or my time even considering whatever it is you wrote AFTER your introductary statement which is an OBVIOUS untruth.

Post of the thread.

 

[STREICHER187]

they are both at fault.