Why the GOP should never rule Warshington

I'm sure you could go on and on. But this post proof that it isn't me that needs to pull his head out of his ass. It's you. You had the opporrunity to give yourself some semblance of credibility by showing that you have the ability to be mildly objective. But the fact that you called the write of that piece a Republican when you A) have zero evidence to support it and B) the fact that the author whether factually right or wrong, passed blame out equally, pretty much shatters what small shred of credibility that you have.

You are one of those people that most people reach an impass with in conversation because you don't have th ability to recognize or acknowledge your own bias and see it at just that. Any reasonable person can see that it would be hard to carry on a rationale conversation with somene who makes accussations that they not only have no evidence for, but can't even be reasonably inferred.

The Los Angeles Times editorial board writes: "As the Bush administration attempts to stabilize the nation's economy, we are witness to the final chapter of a period of perverse and dishonest leadership that has used its own crises to justify the expansion of its own power. This was a president who came to office on promises of modesty -- who championed a 'humble nation,' scorned nation building and promised a more limited role for government in the lives of its citizens. Then he presided over a six-year attempt to tear down and rebuild the nations of Afghanistan and Iraq, and now has embarked on the most profound expansion of the federal government's role in the private economy since the Depression.

"In both cases, the pattern is the same. Ineptitude led to crisis; crisis then became the argument for the radical expansion of executive power. The administration insisted that it exercise its new authority with a minimum of scrutiny by Congress, the courts or the public. . . .

"These troubles are about more than a president who is unfaithful to his word. Bush has transformed the balance of power in our government. We are seeing the erection of an imperial presidency, immune from oversight when it fights terrorists and when it rescues banks."
 
The Los Angeles Times editorial board writes: "As the Bush administration attempts to stabilize the nation's economy, we are witness to the final chapter of a period of perverse and dishonest leadership that has used its own crises to justify the expansion of its own power. This was a president who came to office on promises of modesty -- who championed a 'humble nation,' scorned nation building and promised a more limited role for government in the lives of its citizens. Then he presided over a six-year attempt to tear down and rebuild the nations of Afghanistan and Iraq, and now has embarked on the most profound expansion of the federal government's role in the private economy since the Depression.

"In both cases, the pattern is the same. Ineptitude led to crisis; crisis then became the argument for the radical expansion of executive power. The administration insisted that it exercise its new authority with a minimum of scrutiny by Congress, the courts or the public. . . .

"These troubles are about more than a president who is unfaithful to his word. Bush has transformed the balance of power in our government. We are seeing the erection of an imperial presidency, immune from oversight when it fights terrorists and when it rescues banks."

Sticking to this whole theme of credibility, you quite an op ed piece as evidence.......?
 
Sticking to this whole theme of credibility, you quite an op ed piece as evidence.......?

Listen. If you really are conservative and smart and you want to be fiscally responible, you'll start insisting that we stop spending $10 billion a month in iraq, but you never talk about that, do you?

But the gop won't discuss that because the oil profits are for the oil cmpanies. Haloburton and blackwater get the treasury.

Theres a $480 billion dollar difference. 4 yrs x $120 bill

And if you don't think iraq has something to do with our economy but you do think iraq had something to do with 9 11 well then....

ps. If I haven't said it before, you seem like a nice, smart and sincere guy. I think you are way wrong, but at least honest. Sorry for being rude. It won't be the last time, but I really don't mean anything by it.
 
Listen. If you really are conservative and smart and you want to be fiscally responible, you'll start insisting that we stop spending $10 billion a month in iraq, but you never talk about that, do you?

It's the opposite of the same coin, sealy. You call Iraq wastefull, but conservatives will call many Dem spending wasteful. It is so easy to say in hindsight that Iraq was a bad idea. It is on the record that so many Democrats did just that. They voted for it. Then turned around and blamed Bush. My favorite theme reared its head again. They didn't hold themselves accountable. Objectively speaking they had two choices either admit they were wrong even know what they knew or admit that dumb old Bush pulled one over on them. Not very appealing options to be sure.

Everyone can and does play Monday morning quarterback. Do I think it was a mistake? Of course. It's impact on the economy, I honeslty don't know. I do know I have yet to hear it being cited as a cause by anybody at all save you, as an even a minor factor in what we are experiencing now. And again you will have to forgive me, if I don't find you the most credible person on the matter.

On no objective level cas this be laid at the feet of one side or the other. I encourage you to re-read that article and point out exactly why he is wrong and you are right. As close as anyone has come to the level of blame you put on the rght is to blame deregulation, which as the article notes got pinned on the right, yet was almost unanimous in it's passage and supported by Clinton AND credited for keeping the situation from being worse than it is.

What blame there is to go around falls sqaurely on unethical busienss practices, which were choices companies made on their own, and on a financiallly illiterate populace. And frankly those are inherent risks in our style of economy, It is a system that only works when all parties behave respsonsibly. If you do make a poor choice, then you need to deal with the consequnces, that is the only way the system becomes stronger. If I had to fix this I would let every single one of those institutions fail and offer some type of mortgage re-financing to those that are in trouble.

Forget all of that for second and just focus on the concept of obectivity. When absolutely no one is saying what you're saying that may be a good time to do a little self introspection. Objectivity is one of the best qualities people possess and definately held by smart people. Are you smart a person too?
 
Last edited:
It's the opposite of the same coin, sealy. You call Iraq wastefull, but conservatives will call many Dem spending wasteful. It is so easy to say in hindsight that Iraq was a bad idea. It is on the record that so many Democrats did just that. They voted for it. Then turned around and blamed Bush. My favorite theme reared its head again. They didn't hold themselves accountable. Objectively speaking they had two choices either admit they were wrong even know what they knew or admit that dumb old Bush pulled one over on them. Not very appealing options to be sure.

Everyone can and does play Monday morning quarterback. Do I think it was a mistake? Of course. It's impact on the economy, I honeslty don't know. I do know I have yet to hear it being cited as a cause by anybody at all save you, as an even a minor factor in what we are experiencing now. And again you will have to forgive me, if I don't find you the most credible person on the matter.

On no objective level cas this be laid at the feet of one side or the other. I encourage you to re-read that article and point out exactly why he is wrong and you are right. As close as anyone has come to the level of blame you put on the rght is to blame deregulation, which as the article notes got pinned on the right, yet was almost unanimous in it's passage and supported by Clinton AND credited for keeping the situation from being worse than it is.

What blame there is to go around falls sqaurely on unethical busienss practices, which were choices companies made on their own, and on a financiallly illiterate populace. And frankly those are inherent risks in our style of economy, It is a system that only works when all parties behave respsonsibly. If you do make a poor choice, then you need to deal with the consequnces, that is the only way the system becomes stronger. If I had to fix this I would let every single one of those institutions fail and offer some type of mortgage re-financing to those that are in trouble.

Forget all of that for second and just focus on the concept of obectivity. When absolutely no one is saying what you're saying that may be a good time to do a little self introspection. Objectivity is one of the best qualities people possess and definately held by smart people. Are you smart a person too?


But Obama did say last night that we are spending $10 billion a month in Iraq when Iraq has $90 billion dollars in their treasury?

And before the war started, Chaney did say that Iraq oil would pay for the war.

So here is a clear choice. Either go with the party that wants America to stop spending $10 billion a month in Iraq or the party that wants us to continue paying while the oil companies, defense companies & billionaires of Iraq split up our tax dollars and the oil revenues.

Even though Chaney said Iraq would pay for itself, we can't even discuss this with Bush in office. If McCain is president, we won't be able to discuss it again until the next election in 2012.

Stop avoiding the issue. Why can't Iraq oil pay for Iraq? It should and can. But that would mean less profits to the oil companies. I think this is what you don't get. The GOP WANT you paying for Iraq. Get it?
 
It's the opposite of the same coin, sealy. You call Iraq wastefull, but conservatives will call many Dem spending wasteful. It is so easy to say in hindsight that Iraq was a bad idea. It is on the record that so many Democrats did just that. They voted for it. Then turned around and blamed Bush. My favorite theme reared its head again. They didn't hold themselves accountable. Objectively speaking they had two choices either admit they were wrong even know what they knew or admit that dumb old Bush pulled one over on them. Not very appealing options to be sure.

Everyone can and does play Monday morning quarterback. Do I think it was a mistake? Of course. It's impact on the economy, I honeslty don't know. I do know I have yet to hear it being cited as a cause by anybody at all save you, as an even a minor factor in what we are experiencing now. And again you will have to forgive me, if I don't find you the most credible person on the matter.

On no objective level cas this be laid at the feet of one side or the other. I encourage you to re-read that article and point out exactly why he is wrong and you are right. As close as anyone has come to the level of blame you put on the rght is to blame deregulation, which as the article notes got pinned on the right, yet was almost unanimous in it's passage and supported by Clinton AND credited for keeping the situation from being worse than it is.

What blame there is to go around falls sqaurely on unethical busienss practices, which were choices companies made on their own, and on a financiallly illiterate populace. And frankly those are inherent risks in our style of economy, It is a system that only works when all parties behave respsonsibly. If you do make a poor choice, then you need to deal with the consequnces, that is the only way the system becomes stronger. If I had to fix this I would let every single one of those institutions fail and offer some type of mortgage re-financing to those that are in trouble.

Forget all of that for second and just focus on the concept of obectivity. When absolutely no one is saying what you're saying that may be a good time to do a little self introspection. Objectivity is one of the best qualities people possess and definately held by smart people. Are you smart a person too?

I'll say it over and over again. The GOP socialize the losses and privatize the profits.
 
Last edited:
Obama repeated a stale talking point when he said, "We're spending $10 billion a month in Iraq at a time when the Iraqis have a $79 billion surplus, $79 billion."

As we’ve pointed out when Obama said it on the campaign trail, when he repeated it at the last debate, and even when Biden mentioned the figure in the vice presidential debate, that number is wrong. The Iraqis actually “have” $29.4 billion in the bank. The Government Accountability Office projected in August that Iraq’s 2008 budget surplus could range anywhere from $38.2 billion to $50.3 billion, depending on oil revenue, price and volume. Then, in early August, the Iraqi legislature passed a $21 billion supplemental spending bill. The supplemental will be completely funded by this year’s surplus, and that means that the Iraqi’s will not have $79 billion in the bank. They could have about $59 billion.

FactCheck.org: FactChecking Debate No. 2
 
I'll say it over and over again. The GOP socialize the losses and privatize the profits.

The democrats had no problem pushing for the bail out which did just that.

If your party was so against socializing business losses, why was there such support among the Dimocrats?
 
Last edited:
Obama repeated a stale talking point when he said, "We're spending $10 billion a month in Iraq at a time when the Iraqis have a $79 billion surplus, $79 billion."

As we’ve pointed out when Obama said it on the campaign trail, when he repeated it at the last debate, and even when Biden mentioned the figure in the vice presidential debate, that number is wrong. The Iraqis actually “have” $29.4 billion in the bank. The Government Accountability Office projected in August that Iraq’s 2008 budget surplus could range anywhere from $38.2 billion to $50.3 billion, depending on oil revenue, price and volume. Then, in early August, the Iraqi legislature passed a $21 billion supplemental spending bill. The supplemental will be completely funded by this year’s surplus, and that means that the Iraqi’s will not have $79 billion in the bank. They could have about $59 billion.

FactCheck.org: FactChecking Debate No. 2

So Chaney was wrong? Iraq oil will never/not pay for this occupation? When are we getting out? What else needs to be done? What are we striving for?
 
But Obama did say last night that we are spending $10 billion a month in Iraq when Iraq has $90 billion dollars in their treasury?

And before the war started, Chaney did say that Iraq oil would pay for the war.

So here is a clear choice. Either go with the party that wants America to stop spending $10 billion a month in Iraq or the party that wants us to continue paying while the oil companies, defense companies & billionaires of Iraq split up our tax dollars and the oil revenues.

Even though Chaney said Iraq would pay for itself, we can't even discuss this with Bush in office. If McCain is president, we won't be able to discuss it again until the next election in 2012.

All of this unfortunately rests on the assumption that McCain is Bush. Like or dislike Bush that is a comparison no reasonable person could make. Bush has already put the wheels in motion for troop draw downs and turning authority over to Iraqi's. Your other flaw is assuming that voting for a person is the equivalent of voting for a party. It isn't, especially in McCain's case. Listen to any conservative radio program and you will hear that they are about as critical of him for how left he is as they are of Obama.

Stop avoiding the issue. Why can't Iraq oil pay for Iraq? It should and can. But that would mean less profits to the oil companies. I think this is what you don't get. The GOP WANT you paying for Iraq. Get it?

You're the one who changed the subject, not me. You responded to the first two paragraphs of that post and that's it. And I can't really be avoiding an issue that wasn't brought up in the first place. When before this did you bring up oil revenue paying for Iraq? Then you try and make some BS claim about oil companies wanting profits so the oil from Iraq isn't going to pay for this. Minor problem with that. The oil in Iraq is publicly owned, not privately owned.
 
Last edited:
So Chaney was wrong? Iraq oil will never/not pay for this occupation? When are we getting out? What else needs to be done? What are we striving for?

OK BHO spouts an absolute lie that you believe and it's Cheney's fault?

I have made my thoughts on Iraq clear many times. Do you have anything to say about BHO's blatant lie about the Iraqi surplus?
 
The democrats has no problem pushing for the bail out which did just that.

If your party was so against socializing business losses, why was there such support among the Dimocrats?

The bailout is needed or this economy will collapse. Not the original bailout either. The bailout that was passed is better. It regulates. It isn't just a gift to the bankers now. It will help homeowners. Etc.

So if it is necessary, as McCain and Obama both say it is, then at least it isn't what the GOP originally proposed.

They say if we didn't bail them out it would have been catastrophic. You guys call me a conspiracy theorist. Are you suggesting they are lying? I won't argue with you on that.

If they are lying, what can the Democrats do? Call their bluff? Then the market crashes and everyone blames the Democrats. Same reason we didn't cut off the Iraq funds. We should have, but then what if something happens?

Sorry, the GOP leaders really are "the man". They can crash the market, bail out AIG, even without Congress' approval.

PS. I consider the Federal Reserve a branch of the GOP.

Everything in the current bill that's good for tax payers is in there because the Democrats put them in there. Remember Bush's initial plan? Just to give him $700 billion or else and make Paulson unaccountable to any court or administration. PERIOD? So you should thank God Democrats have the majority, or that's what you would have got.
 
All of this unfortunately rests on the assumption that McCain is Bush. Like or dislike Bush that is a comparison no reasonable person could make. Bush has already put the wheels in motion for troop draw downs and turning authority over to Iraqi's. Your other flaw is assuming that voting for a person is the equivalent of voting for a party. It isn't, especially in McCain's case. Listen to any conservative radio program and you will hear that they are about as critical of him for how left he is as they are of Obama.



You're the one who changed the subject, not me. You responded to the first two paragraphs of that post and that's it. And I can't really be avoiding an issue that wasn't brought up in the first place. When before this did you bring up oil revenue paying for Iraq? Then you try and make some BS claim about oil companies wanting profits so the oil from Iraq isn't going to pay for this. Minor problem with that. The oil in Iraq is publicly owned, not privately owned.

I listen to conservatives cry about McCain not being far enough right. That's genius. Know why? Because then he is the lesser of the two evils for them and then the independents will think he's the most moderate. Nice.

Fine, I'm not going in circles with you.

You approve of us spending $10 billion a month in Iraq for the next 5 years. And you will swallow any excuse they give you why next year Iraq can't pay and the year after that and the year after that and so on. Fine, Iraq can never pay for this occupation. It has to be American tax dollars, $10 bill a month. Nice.

You don't have a problem with us borrowing from China and putting this $10 billion a month on the debt.

You are a fiscal responsible guy.

Fine, Bush and McCain are two different guys. So why do you assume all Democrats are liberal tax and spenders? Clinton wasn't.

And I'm glad to see Bush is taking Obama's advice. About time.

Read this: ThomHartmann.com - The Republican Plan For 2008 Begins Today

The Republican Plan For 2008 Begins Today
Published on Tuesday, May 29, 2007
 
OK BHO spouts an absolute lie that you believe and it's Cheney's fault?

I have made my thoughts on Iraq clear many times. Do you have anything to say about BHO's blatant lie about the Iraqi surplus?

Still, why can't Iraq start chipping in?
 
The bailout is needed or this economy will collapse. Not the original bailout either. The bailout that was passed is better. It regulates. It isn't just a gift to the bankers now. It will help homeowners. Etc.

So if it is necessary, as McCain and Obama both say it is, then at least it isn't what the GOP originally proposed.

the second bill is actually MORE expensive for the taxpayers. Yeah good plan

They say if we didn't bail them out it would have been catastrophic. You guys call me a conspiracy theorist. Are you suggesting they are lying? I won't argue with you on that.

Yes they lied. The economy would have gone through a painful but short adjustment. All the idiot pols did was to prolong the pain.

If they are lying, what can the Democrats do? Call their bluff? Then the market crashes and everyone blames the Democrats. Same reason we didn't cut off the Iraq funds. We should have, but then what if something happens?

Now you're close to the real reason the bail out was passed. No one had the balls to stand up and do the right thing because it wasn't politically expedient. it had absolutely nothing to do with what was "right"


Sorry, the GOP leaders really are "the man". They can crash the market, bail out AIG, even without Congress' approval.

PS. I consider the Federal Reserve a branch of the GOP.

when the assumptions on which you base your conclusions are wrong, your conclusions themselves are wrong.

Everything in the current bill that's good for tax payers is in there because the Democrats put them in there. Remember Bush's initial plan? Just to give him $700 billion or else and make Paulson unaccountable to any court or administration. PERIOD? So you should thank God Democrats have the majority, or that's what you would have got.

Yeah OK. If the Dimocrats did it, it must be good.

What you have today is nothing more than a version of FDR's New deal bull.

Don't Trust the Brain Trust - Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. - Mises Institute

The ghost of FDR is everywhere, haunting both Washington and New York. The terrible trouble is that the minds in power have confused an economic wrecker with an angel of mercy. They are following his confusions and prescriptions day to day in an attempted repeat of the longest economic calamity in modern American history.

They have looked at the history of the New Deal and completely misunderstood it, believing the civics-book claptrap about how FDR saved us from the Depression, whereas the fact is that FDR's theories and policies lengthened and deepened it to the point that the only way out that the Roosevelt administration saw was war.


what we will get are the same results; a protracted recovery that will be more painful than the alternative. Or maybe the next pres. will come to the same conclusion as FDR and get us into yet another war.
 
I listen to conservatives cry about McCain not being far enough right. That's genius. Know why? Because then he is the lesser of the two evils for them and then the independents will think he's the most moderate. Nice.

Fine, I'm not going in circles with you.

You approve of us spending $10 billion a month in Iraq for the next 5 years. And you will swallow any excuse they give you why next year Iraq can't pay and the year after that and the year after that and so on. Fine, Iraq can never pay for this occupation. It has to be American tax dollars, $10 bill a month. Nice.

I'm not going in circles with you. You're pissed because Bush beat both candidates to the punch. The deadline has been set. Now you're feigning disappointment because we don't pull up shop and leave this instant. More proof of your lack of objectivity as any reasonable person can see packing up and leaving tomorrow like we were never there probably isn't the best solution in the world.

You are a fiscal responsible guy.

Fine, Bush and McCain are two different guys. So why do you assume all Democrats are liberal tax and spenders? Clinton wasn't.

I don't and that was one of Clinton's decent qualities. I don't assume all dems are tax and spenders (only about 95%). There is plenty of blame to go towards Republicans and their spending. As far as the left goes it's pretty much just a given. It is part of the ideology that government is the solution. Government solutions cost money which means taxes ands spending. In the specific case of Obama, the evidence from his own mouth indicates he will be little different. Neither candidate touched on last night what I would have liked to hear from them about fiscal policy. How about instead of figuring out who to or not to tax to get this money government figures out a way to spend less money and thus lower everyone's taxes? What a novel idea. McCain, eh, maybe he will maybe he won't. Obama it's simply a given. He is going to spend money and lots of it. Clinton was the exception, not the rule. Fiscal conservatism simply isn't even on the left's radar. It's one of the few things they don't even attempt to hide.

I can't say I was overly impressed with the article given its level of bias. That is something you really need to start recognizing. First he made a fundamental writiing no, no in forming a conclusion and makeing a story fit around it. Then he really goes off the deep end by stating all things he 'knows' about what Bush did. It highlights what really annoys me about the whole left vs. right thing. Both sides accuse each other of things that they don't have any evidence for and that is credibility destroyer for me.
 
Last edited:
when the assumptions on which you base your conclusions are wrong, your conclusions themselves are wrong.

Why is my conclusion wrong? The GOP is the party of the super wealthy and the Federal Reserve is owned by the super wealthy. The same people that own the oil companies. Started by Rockafellor, JP Morgan and Carnege. Three ruthless businessmen.

What party do you think these families belong to? Who do they push/lobby to do away with the Death Tax?
 
I'm not going in circles with you. You're pissed because Bush beat both candidates to the punch. The deadline has been set. Now you're feigning disappointment because we don't pull up shop and leave this instant. More proof of your lack of objectivity as any reasonable person can see packing up and leaving tomorrow like we were never there probably isn't the best solution in the world.



I don't and that was one of Clinton's decent qualities. I don't assume all dems are tax and spenders (only about 95%). There is plenty of blame to go towards Republicans and their spending. As far as the left goes it's pretty much just a given. It is part of the ideology that government is the solution. Government solutions cost money which means taxes ands spending. In the specific case of Obama, the evidence from his own mouth indicates he will be little different. Neither candidate touched on last night what I would have liked to hear from them about fiscal policy. How about instead of figuring out who to or not to tax to get this money government figures out a way to spend less money and thus lower everyone's taxes? What a novel idea. McCain, eh, maybe he will maybe he won't. Obama it's simply a given. He is going to spend money and lots of it. Clinton was the exception, not the rule. Fiscal conservatism simply isn't even on the left's radar. It's one of the few things they don't even attempt to hide.

Next year’s federal budget is projected to run a half-trillion-dollar deficit, a precipitous fall from the seven-hundred-billion-dollar surplus that was projected when Bill Clinton left office. Private-sector job creation has been a sixth of what it was under President Clinton. Five million people have fallen into poverty. The number of Americans without health insurance has grown by seven million, while average premiums have nearly doubled. Meanwhile, the principal domestic achievement of the Bush Administration has been to shift the relative burden of taxation from the rich to the rest. For the top one per cent of us, the Bush tax cuts are worth, on average, about a thousand dollars a week; for the bottom fifth, about a dollar and a half. The unfairness will only increase if the painful, yet necessary, effort to rescue the credit markets ends up preventing the rescue of our health-care system, our environment, and our physical, educational, and industrial infrastructure.
 
Why is my conclusion wrong? The GOP is the party of the super wealthy and the Federal Reserve is owned by the super wealthy. The same people that own the oil companies. Started by Rockafellor, JP Morgan and Carnege. Three ruthless businessmen.

What party do you think these families belong to? Who do they push/lobby to do away with the Death Tax?

Those assumptions. Provide some evidence that that is the case. Meanwhile let's look at the uber wealthy, self professed libs. Warren Buffet, most of Hollywood. Obviously there are some rather wealthy democrats to be able to spend $25,000 a plate for a fundraiser and $10,000 a ticket for a concert. I think that's evidence enough to throw that particular assumption out the window.
 
Next year’s federal budget is projected to run a half-trillion-dollar deficit, a precipitous fall from the seven-hundred-billion-dollar surplus that was projected when Bill Clinton left office. Private-sector job creation has been a sixth of what it was under President Clinton. Five million people have fallen into poverty. The number of Americans without health insurance has grown by seven million, while average premiums have nearly doubled.

This is exactley what I was talking about in another thread. You see two things happening at the same time and from that believe you can conclude one caused the other. It is a naive, convenient, disingenuous type of thinking.

Meanwhile, the principal domestic achievement of the Bush Administration has been to shift the relative burden of taxation from the rich to the rest. For the top one per cent of us, the Bush tax cuts are worth, on average, about a thousand dollars a week; for the bottom fifth, about a dollar and a half.

Because the rich pay proportionally more taxes, duh. That isn't some unfair system, that's math. And the tax burden didn't shift from rich to poor. The poor aren't paying anymore in taxes then they were so you are wrong to say the burden shifted.

The unfairness will only increase if the painful, yet necessary, effort to rescue the credit markets ends up preventing the rescue of our health-care system, our environment, and our physical, educational, and industrial infrastructure.

Again depends on how you define fair. Personally I don't see it as fair for 10% of the population to be burdened with the bulk of tax revenues especially when their wealth insulates them from haveing to use many of the services those taxes pay for.
 

Forum List

Back
Top