The GOP's "aversion" to responsibility

[DiamondDave]

1) The US did not kill more 'people' than Saddam
2) The war should have been allowed to be finished properly the first time
3) The DEBT HAS NOT BEEN SHRINKING AT ALL
4) You are an idiot

Mixed up the word Deficit. No, the US didn't kill more people then Saddam, but the war did.

1) And the spending is still up compared to ANY TIME DURING PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS
2) Your assertions of deaths caused by the war are challenged and completely unfounded and unsubstantiated
3) You are still an idiot

Oh look.. I first came in and went in debt more to the tune of 1.4T instead of 800B... I now have a deficit of 900B... I CUT THE DEFECT!!!.. Not

 

[Nyvin]

1) The US did not kill more 'people' than Saddam
2) The war should have been allowed to be finished properly the first time
3) The DEBT HAS NOT BEEN SHRINKING AT ALL
4) You are an idiot

Mixed up the word Deficit. No, the US didn't kill more people then Saddam, but the war did.

1) And the spending is still up compared to ANY TIME DURING PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS
2) Your assertions of deaths caused by the war are challenged and completely unfounded and unsubstantiated
3) You are still an idiot

Oh look.. I first came in and went in debt more to the tune of 1.4T instead of 800B... I now have a deficit of 900B... I CUT THE DEFECT!!!.. Not

ZCommunications | More than 1,000,000 Iraqis murdered since 2003 invasion by Orb | ZNet Article

1,220,580 deaths since the invasion in 2003

The deficit is shrinking faster then anytime since ww2...there really isnt much more you can ask for.

 

[DiamondDave]

Mixed up the word Deficit. No, the US didn't kill more people then Saddam, but the war did.

1) And the spending is still up compared to ANY TIME DURING PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS
2) Your assertions of deaths caused by the war are challenged and completely unfounded and unsubstantiated
3) You are still an idiot

Oh look.. I first came in and went in debt more to the tune of 1.4T instead of 800B... I now have a deficit of 900B... I CUT THE DEFECT!!!.. Not

ZCommunications | More than 1,000,000 Iraqis murdered since 2003 invasion by Orb | ZNet Article

1,220,580 deaths since the invasion in 2003

The deficit is shrinking faster then anytime since ww2...there really isnt much more you can ask for.

One of MANY unsubstantiated and unfounded numbers being thrown around

The deficit is not shrinking AT ALL... period... to increase spending exponentially and then cut back slightly to a number that is still higher than when you made your first increase is NOT DECREASING THE DEFICIT

 

[Nyvin]

1) And the spending is still up compared to ANY TIME DURING PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS
2) Your assertions of deaths caused by the war are challenged and completely unfounded and unsubstantiated
3) You are still an idiot

Oh look.. I first came in and went in debt more to the tune of 1.4T instead of 800B... I now have a deficit of 900B... I CUT THE DEFECT!!!.. Not

ZCommunications | More than 1,000,000 Iraqis murdered since 2003 invasion by Orb | ZNet Article

1,220,580 deaths since the invasion in 2003

The deficit is shrinking faster then anytime since ww2...there really isnt much more you can ask for.

One of MANY unsubstantiated and unfounded numbers being thrown around

The deficit is not shrinking AT ALL... period... to increase spending exponentially and then cut back slightly to a number that is still higher than when you made your first increase is NOT DECREASING THE DEFICIT

no one will ever know the exact numbers, but they are more then saddam

Not like we had 2 wars, tax cuts, and a global financial crisis to deal with in 2009, that wont have any effect on the deficit. Sure...Obama came into the presidency under WONDERFUL economic terms...

 

[Contumacious]

Why is it so hard to get Republicans, even just USMB Republicans to take responsibility for anything?

Iraq
the debt
The Bush Tax Cuts
The economic meltdown
The government shutdown
The votes for drugs bill
Cutting embassy security

How come they refuse to take responsibility for anything? They used reconciliation three times under Bush and now ask "for what?"

Can someone explain it?

Remember how they screamed "you are with us or with the terrorists" and now they say Democrats should have stopped us from going into Iraq.

Remember how the Bush Tax Cuts were going to be so good for the country and the extension even better? Now they blame Obama.

They quietly raised embassy security by two billion. Why? If it wasn't needed before Benghazi?

Remember when they said deregulation would create jobs? Instead we got a meltdown.

So which of these will the take responsibility for? None?

What did they use reconciliation on? Three times?

Forever blaming Democrats. But where do they take responsibility?

Yo Vern, while I agree that republican irresponsibility has helped create the economic mess , I can not recall when anything was ever DE-regulated.

I am old as dirt, yet I do not recall such event taking place. Elaborate.

.

 

[DiamondDave]

1,220,580 deaths since the invasion in 2003

The deficit is shrinking faster then anytime since ww2...there really isnt much more you can ask for.

One of MANY unsubstantiated and unfounded numbers being thrown around

The deficit is not shrinking AT ALL... period... to increase spending exponentially and then cut back slightly to a number that is still higher than when you made your first increase is NOT DECREASING THE DEFICIT

no one will ever know the exact numbers, but they are more then saddam

Not like we had 2 wars, tax cuts, and a global financial crisis to deal with in 2009, that wont have any effect on the deficit. Sure...Obama came into the presidency under WONDERFUL economic terms...

Your statement is inherently contradictory.. you cannot know numbers but you KNOW it is more than Saddam.. even though nobody really knows that number either

So now you are backpedaling because the deficit is really not shrinking and is still higher than any other deficit during any other year under any other president

As stated.. you are an idiot

 

[Nyvin]

One of MANY unsubstantiated and unfounded numbers being thrown around

The deficit is not shrinking AT ALL... period... to increase spending exponentially and then cut back slightly to a number that is still higher than when you made your first increase is NOT DECREASING THE DEFICIT

no one will ever know the exact numbers, but they are more then saddam

Not like we had 2 wars, tax cuts, and a global financial crisis to deal with in 2009, that wont have any effect on the deficit. Sure...Obama came into the presidency under WONDERFUL economic terms...

Your statement is inherently contradictory.. you cannot know numbers but you KNOW it is more than Saddam.. even though nobody really knows that number either

So now you are backpedaling because the deficit is really not shrinking and is still higher than any other deficit during any other year under any other president

As stated.. you are an idiot

Yes...the deficit is mathematically shrinking. From 2009 to 2012 the Deficit shrank every year. Federal spending from 2010 to 2012 remained mostly flat. You're really going in circles with this and using petty little personal attacks.

I said "exact" numbers...but pretty much every source out there has Saddam around 300,000 and the War at least at 500,000. War > Saddam

 

[Billo_Really]

Iraq
Whoever said Bush and the Republicans weren't responsible for Iraq? Bush overthrew the dictor Saddam, much to your disgust. I give him all the credit in the world for that. Personally I don't agree with the way he conducted that war, but I still give him the credit/responsibility of it.

The Iraq war was illegal and immoral. It had more in common with Nazi Germany, than it did with the principles this country was founded upon. Do you not know how wrong it is to attack someone, that did not attack you first? And it is not up to us to decide who can (and cannot) be the leader of a sovereign nation.

We spent over $4 trillion US taxpayers dollars on that war and what did we get in return? Nothing! ******* nothing! If you wanna talk about unecessary government spending, that's a good place to start.

the debt
The trillions in debt is due to both parties. Yes, Bush ran it up...so much he turned off conservatives and thats why Repubs lost the house in 2006. But since Dems have been in power since 2006, they've only made it worse. So I'm not sure what your point here is...if it's a bad thing then why do you want the current Congress to borrow another trillion to pay for ObamaCare? The only party showing any interest in reducing debt are Republicans....the Tea Party element at that.

Bullshit! Anyone serious about cutting the deficit, would start by cutting the defense budget. And no republican is willing to do that.

The Bush Tax Cuts
I have no problem giving Bush credit/responsiblity for his "tax cuts". Obama and the fully controlled Dem Congress extended those same "tax cuts", although at that point they were simply the permenant tax rate for nearly 10 years. So if you have a problem with the current tax rates (e.g."Bush Tax Cuts"), then take it up with Obama and Reid.

The tax cuts reduced government revenue and contributed to the deficit we're facing now.

The economic meltdown
The Housing bubble is what caused the economic meltdown. Banks giving out loans to people for houses prices way over what they should of been worth. Also, giving out loans to people with bad credit, but that was largely because liberal enacted policies forced such banks to give loans to poor people...mainly blacks. Then of course there is Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, (D)-bag controlled agencies that refused to acknowledge the oncoming crisis, and just continued to force banks to give loans to "low income" families.

Wrong! De-regulation caused the meltdown. The derrivitives market ballooned to over 180 times the collective GNP of all the nations on the planet. The housing bubble never had numbers that high.

And the government did not tell banks to relax standard loan reviewing procedures, when vetting the credit worthiness of applicants. BTW, most of the defaulted loans were from private lenders.

 

[DiamondDave]

no one will ever know the exact numbers, but they are more then saddam

Not like we had 2 wars, tax cuts, and a global financial crisis to deal with in 2009, that wont have any effect on the deficit. Sure...Obama came into the presidency under WONDERFUL economic terms...

Your statement is inherently contradictory.. you cannot know numbers but you KNOW it is more than Saddam.. even though nobody really knows that number either

So now you are backpedaling because the deficit is really not shrinking and is still higher than any other deficit during any other year under any other president

As stated.. you are an idiot

Yes...the deficit is mathematically shrinking. From 2009 to 2012 the Deficit shrank every year. Federal spending from 2010 to 2012 remained mostly flat. You're really going in circles with this and using petty little personal attacks.

I said "exact" numbers...but pretty much every source out there has Saddam around 300,000 and the War at least at 500,000. War > Saddam

No.. it is not... would be easy for ANY president to come in and increase spending by 100%, then to subsequently remove 80% of that and CLAIM a shrinking deficit... it is a game of smoke and mirrors you and your ilk have bought into to

And again... no confirmed numbers or anything like that.. so you make an assertion on death numbers (that ironically fit your political agenda) that are unsubstantiated, invalidated, and unfounded... and of course attributing ALL of those unsubstantiated, unfounded, and invalidated deaths to the war as a result of the US when no reason for deaths are given, no specific instances are attributed, etc...

Again. .plain idiotic

 

[Interpol]

Republicans don't take responsibility for anything. It's just the way they are now. Sad but true.

Obama puts all the under-the-table Republican spending of the Bush years on the books, and they have the gall to accuse Obama having spent more than Bush!

This is how retarded Republicans have gotten: 25% of America approves of the shutdown; in another poll, 25% of America blames Obama for the shutdown.

Both of those 25%'ers are the same effing person, a Teabagger Republican. And they approve of the shutdown because then we don't have to pay 800,000 federal workers AND it's all Obama's fault, dammit!

Next logical step then would be to take responsibility and actually THANK Obama for NOT negotiating with them then!

 

[Nyvin]

No.. it is not... would be easy for ANY president to come in and increase spending by 100%, then to subsequently remove 80% of that and CLAIM a shrinking deficit... it is a game of smoke and mirrors you and your ilk have bought into to

And again... no confirmed numbers or anything like that.. so you make an assertion on death numbers (that ironically fit your political agenda) that are unsubstantiated, invalidated, and unfounded... and of course attributing ALL of those unsubstantiated, unfounded, and invalidated deaths to the war as a result of the US when no reason for deaths are given, no specific instances are attributed, etc...

Again. .plain idiotic

What's the point of posting more numbers when you just brush them off as "not proven"?

Anyway....you refuse to acknowledge the financial crisis at all and just pretend like no spending was needed when tax revenue was falling in historic proportions and bailouts were deemed needed to save the economy. You can live in this delusional world if you want to...but the events happened...taxes were raised, wars were ended, economy saved, federal spending mostly flat. It's kinda pointless to argue with you I see. So..bye.

 

[DiamondDave]

Iraq
Whoever said Bush and the Republicans weren't responsible for Iraq? Bush overthrew the dictor Saddam, much to your disgust. I give him all the credit in the world for that. Personally I don't agree with the way he conducted that war, but I still give him the credit/responsibility of it.

The Iraq war was illegal and immoral. It had more in common with Nazi Germany, than it did with the principles this country was founded upon. Do you not know how wrong it is to attack someone, that did not attack you first? And it is not up to us to decide who can (and cannot) be the leader of a sovereign nation.

We spent over $4 trillion US taxpayers dollars on that war and what did we get in return? Nothing! ******* nothing! If you wanna talk about unecessary government spending, that's a good place to start.

the debt
The trillions in debt is due to both parties. Yes, Bush ran it up...so much he turned off conservatives and thats why Repubs lost the house in 2006. But since Dems have been in power since 2006, they've only made it worse. So I'm not sure what your point here is...if it's a bad thing then why do you want the current Congress to borrow another trillion to pay for ObamaCare? The only party showing any interest in reducing debt are Republicans....the Tea Party element at that.

Bullshit! Anyone serious about cutting the deficit, would start by cutting the defense budget. And no republican is willing to do that.

The Bush Tax Cuts
I have no problem giving Bush credit/responsiblity for his "tax cuts". Obama and the fully controlled Dem Congress extended those same "tax cuts", although at that point they were simply the permenant tax rate for nearly 10 years. So if you have a problem with the current tax rates (e.g."Bush Tax Cuts"), then take it up with Obama and Reid.

The tax cuts reduced government revenue and contributed to the deficit we're facing now.

The economic meltdown
The Housing bubble is what caused the economic meltdown. Banks giving out loans to people for houses prices way over what they should of been worth. Also, giving out loans to people with bad credit, but that was largely because liberal enacted policies forced such banks to give loans to poor people...mainly blacks. Then of course there is Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, (D)-bag controlled agencies that refused to acknowledge the oncoming crisis, and just continued to force banks to give loans to "low income" families.

Wrong! De-regulation caused the meltdown. The derrivitives market ballooned to over 180 times the collective GNP of all the nations on the planet. The housing bubble never had numbers that high.

And the government did not tell banks to relax standard loan reviewing procedures, when vetting the credit worthiness of applicants. BTW, most of the defaulted loans were from private lenders.

The Iraq military actions (there was no war) were neither illegal nor immoral... but nice to know a left wants morality put into political decisions.. bring back the abortion issue

Anyone serious about cutting the deficit would indeed cut everything including wasteful spending in defense.. but would probably start with things not charged to the federal government by the constitution, like food stamps and other bullshit entitlements

Increased spending added to the debt and deficit... and funny how you can complain about slight cuts in the burden held by about 50% of the populace while the other 50% skates off with no federal income tax paid at all, while a majority of them are actually drawing benefit and entitlement from the federal government

Deregulation did not cause the meltdown.. this idiotic assertion has been shown time and time again.. considering there has been no disappearing of regulation.. and in fact we have been having regulations steadily grow each and every administration for a long while

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Because most of what you said is a lie, Mr. winner of "The Dumbass Award!"

Well no it isn't.

Just look at the Sequester. It's something they let happen and they are taking credit for the deficit going down.

But not the Sequester.

What's up with that?

Because the sequester was Obama's idea!!!! Go look it up, that was introduced by the WH!!!!!

 

[DiamondDave]

No.. it is not... would be easy for ANY president to come in and increase spending by 100%, then to subsequently remove 80% of that and CLAIM a shrinking deficit... it is a game of smoke and mirrors you and your ilk have bought into to

And again... no confirmed numbers or anything like that.. so you make an assertion on death numbers (that ironically fit your political agenda) that are unsubstantiated, invalidated, and unfounded... and of course attributing ALL of those unsubstantiated, unfounded, and invalidated deaths to the war as a result of the US when no reason for deaths are given, no specific instances are attributed, etc...

Again. .plain idiotic

What's the point of posting more numbers when you just brush them off as "not proven"?

Anyway....you refuse to acknowledge the financial crisis at all and just pretend like no spending was needed when tax revenue was falling in historic proportions and bailouts were deemed needed to save the economy. You can live in this delusional world if you want to...but the events happened...taxes were raised, wars were ended, economy saved, federal spending mostly flat. It's kinda pointless to argue with you I see. So..bye.

I can post bullshit number claims too... all over the spectrum... but when numbers are unsubstantiated, they are of no use to make ANY MOTHERFUCKING CLAIM

1) Taxes were raised.. the first truthful thing you have said
2) Wars were not ended.. and I can give you correspondence addresses to those still in Iraq
3) There was no economy saved as the economy is in just as bad of shape
4) Spending is not flat, spending is indeed actually UP compared to last year...
5) You refuse to see how the spending and deficit at this time are higher than during any fiscal year under any president before Obamalama... Obamalama and crew raised spending exponentially to almost DOUBLE what it was, causing a deficit that was almost DOUBLE, then scaled back SOME to a level that is still higher than any time before him and call it a deficit reduction.. that is disingenuous.. period

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Mixed up the word Deficit. No, the US didn't kill more people then Saddam, but the war did.

1) And the spending is still up compared to ANY TIME DURING PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS
2) Your assertions of deaths caused by the war are challenged and completely unfounded and unsubstantiated
3) You are still an idiot

Oh look.. I first came in and went in debt more to the tune of 1.4T instead of 800B... I now have a deficit of 900B... I CUT THE DEFECT!!!.. Not

ZCommunications | More than 1,000,000 Iraqis murdered since 2003 invasion by Orb | ZNet Article

1,220,580 deaths since the invasion in 2003

The deficit is shrinking faster then anytime since ww2...there really isnt much more you can ask for.

A simple question for you, I dare you to answer it honestly.

If the Deficit/debt is shrinking, why must we request the debt ceiling be raised?

 

[TooTall]

Iraq -- Both agreed to and voted for it. Your lie is exposed.

95% of the Nay votes were democrats, granted there were ones that voted yes, it was overwhelmingly a GOP vote.

The economic meltdown -- Caused by a Democratic majority in Congress. Your lie is exposed.

No it wasn't, the economy peaked in 2007, the same year democrats came to power, you can't stop a reccession at the peak of the crisis. Plus Bush was still president.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush turns his attention on Friday to the United Nations after the Senate joined the House in strong votes authorizing a possible U.S. attack on Iraq.

The Republican-led House and Democratic-led Senate by wide margins approved the resolution that Bush wanted to reinforce his demand that the U.N. Security Council threaten the use of force, if necessary, to enforce its requirements that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein abandon programs for biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.

"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement issued after the early-hours vote.

"Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world, and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must," Bush said.

The House earlier Thursday passed the resolution 296-133 after three days of debate.

Under intense pressure from the White House, which wanted a big bipartisan majority in Congress to strengthen its hand in its confrontation with Iraq, the Democratic-led Senate passed the war powers resolution, 77-23.

Congress Grants Bush War Powers Against Iraq

You can't say the economy peaked and then call it a recession.

 

[Nyvin]

A simple question for you, I dare you to answer it honestly.

If the Deficit/debt is shrinking, why must we request the debt ceiling be raised?

Because there is still a deficit.

 

[Nyvin]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush turns his attention on Friday to the United Nations after the Senate joined the House in strong votes authorizing a possible U.S. attack on Iraq.

The Republican-led House and Democratic-led Senate by wide margins approved the resolution that Bush wanted to reinforce his demand that the U.N. Security Council threaten the use of force, if necessary, to enforce its requirements that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein abandon programs for biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.

"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement issued after the early-hours vote.

"Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world, and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must," Bush said.

The House earlier Thursday passed the resolution 296-133 after three days of debate.

Under intense pressure from the White House, which wanted a big bipartisan majority in Congress to strengthen its hand in its confrontation with Iraq, the Democratic-led Senate passed the war powers resolution, 77-23.

Congress Grants Bush War Powers Against Iraq

You can't say the economy peaked and then call it a recession.

What does this have anything to do with what I said? almost all the no votes for the war came from the democrats

And the economy...let's put it this way...the bubble was blown up already, it was huge. By 2007 things were inevitable, it was just a matter of time.

 

[Contumacious]

Right wing definition of "Freedom":

The complete abscence of responsibility​

DEMOPUBLICAN definition of freedom

Complete and total dominance by a gargantuan government

.

 

[Katzndogz]

The debt Truth o Meter

PolitiFact New Hampshire | Did Barack Obama accrue more debt in half the time as George Bush?

"Under President Bush in eight years, we added $4.9 trillion to the debt. Under President Obama, we've added $5.3 trillion to the debt in the 3.5 years he's been in office."

Iraq deaths under Bush - 640. Under obama 1,496.

Over 2,000 Soldiers Dead: Bush 630 ? Obama 1,496 | RedState

The rest is just as fraudulent.

Hillary Clinton took the embassy security budget and bought a fleet of Volt cars and installed charging stations at embassies around the world rather than pay for security.

State Department Cut Libyan Security While Spending on Chevy Volts

The Washington Times is reporting that at the same time State Department officials were cutting security for our diplomatic stations in Libya, they were increasing the budget for our embassy in Austria in order to purchase Chevrolet's electric powered Volt:
In a May 3, 2012, email, the State Department denied a request by a group of Special Forces assigned to protect the U.S. embassy in Libya to continue their use of a DC- 3 airplane for security operations throughout the country. . .
Four days later, on May 7, the State Department authorized the U.S. embassy in Vienna [Austria] to purchase a $108,000 electric vehicle charging station for the embassy motor pool’s new Chevrolet Volts. The purchase was a part of the State Department’s “Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe” initiative, which included hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on green program expenditures at various U.S. Embassies.

Democrats lie about EVERYTHING.