Why the GOP will continue to stay on the "attack"

[DontBeStupid]

Wrong.

"Wrong"

Yep, if you pretend that FY2001 wasn't Clinton and FY2009 wasn't Bush.

Gotta love the USMB Right Wingnut Brigade. You can count on them to lie and make up their own reality no matter the situation.

No need to pretend about 2009 Obama signed the remaining parts into law. Pelosi held them over because Bush was going to veto the additional spending.

Fit that in your pipe.

That doesn't change the fact that the deficit was $1.2T weeks before Obama came in to office and weeks before he signed what you are talking about.

 

[Article 15]

Obama will run on his record and win.

The USMB Right Wingnut Brigade will claim he won because the liberal media propped him up and Romney wasn't conservative enough.

Oh, and ACORN. Can't forget ACORN.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually no, the budget deficit on the day he took office was $1.2T. If his 2013 budget has a deficit of $900B, that's an improvement over what Bush left.

Wrong.

"Wrong"

Yep, if you pretend that FY2001 wasn't Clinton and FY2009 wasn't Bush.

Gotta love the USMB Right Wingnut Brigade. You can count on them to lie and make up their own reality no matter the situation.

2009 wasn't Bush. Obama spent the remaining half of the TARP money, not Bush, and Obama passed his emergency "stimulus" con in 2009.

 

[bripat9643]

That doesn't change the fact that the deficit was $1.2T weeks before Obama came in to office and weeks before he signed what you are talking about.

Wrong. The deficit for 2008 was under $500 billion. Obama was inaugurated in Jan 2009. He spend half of the TARP money in 2009 and passed his "stimulus" bill right at the beginning of his administration.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Wrong.

"Wrong"

Yep, if you pretend that FY2001 wasn't Clinton and FY2009 wasn't Bush.

Gotta love the USMB Right Wingnut Brigade. You can count on them to lie and make up their own reality no matter the situation.

2009 wasn't Bush. Obama spent the remaining half of the TARP money, not Bush, and Obama passed his emergency "stimulus" con in 2009.

AND BEFORE HE DID ANY OF THAT .... the deficit stood at $1.2T. Not a projected deficit, the ACTUAL deficit up to that date.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama will run on Bush's record. What else can he do?

 

[bripat9643]

2009 wasn't Bush. Obama spent the remaining half of the TARP money, not Bush, and Obama passed his emergency "stimulus" con in 2009.

AND BEFORE HE DID ANY OF THAT .... the deficit stood at $1.2T. Not a projected deficit, the ACTUAL deficit up to that date.

Nope. that's only according to some left-wing propaganda organs that lump everything they can into the shoulders of the Bush administration and absolve Obama of tons of spending that occurred on his watch.

 

[Full-Auto]

"Wrong"

Yep, if you pretend that FY2001 wasn't Clinton and FY2009 wasn't Bush.

Gotta love the USMB Right Wingnut Brigade. You can count on them to lie and make up their own reality no matter the situation.

No need to pretend about 2009 Obama signed the remaining parts into law. Pelosi held them over because Bush was going to veto the additional spending.

Fit that in your pipe.

That doesn't change the fact that the deficit was $1.2T weeks before Obama came in to office and weeks before he signed what you are talking about.

Post those figures. The deficit for the year was 1.4

 

[Article 15]

Wrong.

"Wrong"

Yep, if you pretend that FY2001 wasn't Clinton and FY2009 wasn't Bush.

Gotta love the USMB Right Wingnut Brigade. You can count on them to lie and make up their own reality no matter the situation.

2009 wasn't Bush. Obama spent the remaining half of the TARP money, not Bush, and Obama passed his emergency "stimulus" con in 2009.

Bush submitted a $3.1 trillion dollar budget for FY2009 and federal receipts for FY2009 were $2.1 trillion.

Do the math.

 

[bripat9643]

"Wrong"

Yep, if you pretend that FY2001 wasn't Clinton and FY2009 wasn't Bush.

Gotta love the USMB Right Wingnut Brigade. You can count on them to lie and make up their own reality no matter the situation.

2009 wasn't Bush. Obama spent the remaining half of the TARP money, not Bush, and Obama passed his emergency "stimulus" con in 2009.

Bush submitted a $3.1 trillion dollar budget for FY2009 and federal receipts for FY2009 were $2.1 trillion.

Do the math.

That budget never passed. Bush wasn't president in FY2009. Obama was. Obama passed his "stimulus" in 2009, but you don't want to credit him with any of that spending. Nor do you want to credit him with $350 in TARP spending he did in FY2009.

Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[Article 15]

2009 wasn't Bush. Obama spent the remaining half of the TARP money, not Bush, and Obama passed his emergency "stimulus" con in 2009.

Bush submitted a $3.1 trillion dollar budget for FY2009 and federal receipts for FY2009 were $2.1 trillion.

Do the math.

That budget never passed. Bush wasn't president in FY2009. Obama was. Obama passed his "stimulus" in 2009, but you don't want to credit him with any of that spending. Nor do you want to credit him with $350 in TARP spending he did in FY2009.

Who do you think you're fooling?

Scroll back where I said that an additional $400 billion was added to the budget that Bush submitted. That's why I said that that he had a $3.1 trillion dollar budget and not a $3.5 trillion. Your saying "Bush wasn't president in FY2009" just shows how ignorant or purposely dishonest you are being here. You may be able to fool yourself and a few mouth breathers but you certainly can't fool me.

 

[bripat9643]

Bush submitted a $3.1 trillion dollar budget for FY2009 and federal receipts for FY2009 were $2.1 trillion.

Do the math.

That budget never passed. Bush wasn't president in FY2009. Obama was. Obama passed his "stimulus" in 2009, but you don't want to credit him with any of that spending. Nor do you want to credit him with $350 in TARP spending he did in FY2009.

Who do you think you're fooling?

Scroll back where I said that an additional $400 billion was added to the budget that Bush submitted. That's why I said that that he had a $3.1 trillion dollar budget and not a $3.5 trillion. Your saying "Bush wasn't president in FY2009" just shows how ignorant or purposely dishonest you are being here. You may be able to fool yourself and a few mouth breathers but you certainly can't fool me.

Bush's budget is irrelevant because Congress hasn't passed a budget in 3 year, dipstick. Bush was not president in FY2009. There was no budget in force. Obama and the Dims had total control over every dime that was spent that year. They could have cut appropriations or increased them, and they chose to pile on tons of spending over the amounts already approved.

That's the bottom line.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Seriously, what else are they going to run on?

The American people don't see even more tax cuts for the wealthy as the way to go.

"Prosperity though lower wages" doesn't resonate.

Outlaw birth control? Seriously?

Slash education? What about the kids?

Medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy so "no health care" is not something the average American sees as a "right". Instead, they see it as a "problem".

Republicans should stay away from foreign policy. After all, they let Bin Laden go. Obama not only took out Bin Laden, but most of the al Qaeda leadership. And did it no matter where Bin Laden was. Which was against Republican policy.

End the EPA? Like Michelle Bachmann said she would during the presidential debates? Seeing what's going on in China, a country that is now number one in birth defects, that seems like a losing strategy.

So what's left? What will Republicans run on that will be a "winning hand"?

We want to know.

Tell us something...Do the paint chips stay crunchy in milk?

its a character flaw.....

 

[Article 15]

Bush's budget is irrelevant because Congress hasn't passed a budget in 3 year, dipstick. Bush was not president in FY2009.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Oh, and Deanie? Did you want to tell me which Republican it was that said they wanted to get rid of the first black American President before he was even elected? You seemed to RUN AWAY from that thread as soon as you were asked to back up that claim.

as he does with anything he cant find a "Link" too......Dean has started and has run from more threads than anyone here that i know of......must be a Character flaw.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Why the GOP will continue to stay on the "attack"

Whatever the plan, it will be devoid of the truth.

so we can count on the other guys to tell us the truth then?......

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Why the GOP will continue to stay on the "attack"

They haven't trashed EVERY city.....

.....in the Lower 48.....

.....yet!!
​

 

[rdean]

The only thing Republicans need to run on is..

Are you better off today than when the Hope and Change was elected?

if answer NO...than vote to kick Obama and his Comrades in arms OUT.

Considering that the country was hemorrhaging jobs at the rate of 750,000 a month and the debt has already been raised to 12 trillion and tens of thousands had already been killed and maimed in Iraq, I would think the answer is no. What say you?

You can't hand someone a sinking ship and then complain they sunk the ship.

 

[rdean]

Seriously, what else are they going to run on?

The American people don't see even more tax cuts for the wealthy as the way to go.

"Prosperity though lower wages" doesn't resonate.

Outlaw birth control? Seriously?

Slash education? What about the kids?

Medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy so "no health care" is not something the average American sees as a "right". Instead, they see it as a "problem".

Republicans should stay away from foreign policy. After all, they let Bin Laden go. Obama not only took out Bin Laden, but most of the al Qaeda leadership. And did it no matter where Bin Laden was. Which was against Republican policy.

End the EPA? Like Michelle Bachmann said she would during the presidential debates? Seeing what's going on in China, a country that is now number one in birth defects, that seems like a losing strategy.

So what's left? What will Republicans run on that will be a "winning hand"?

We want to know.

Tell us something...Do the paint chips stay crunchy in milk?

its a character flaw.....

So I always ask you where I'm mistaken, and you can never say where. Just unimaginative and tired insults. Well, at least I can count on you being "consistent".

 

[Oddball]

Tell us something...Do the paint chips stay crunchy in milk?

its a character flaw.....

So I always ask you where I'm mistaken, and you can never say where. Just unimaginative and tired insults. Well, at least I can count on you being "consistent".

"Mistaken" carries a connotation of an honest error...There is no such honorable intent to any of your brain droppings.

Therefore, your puerile and intellectually vapid posts get all the consideration they deserve....Like none.