This is why progressives (fiscally) scare me

[McRocket]

Progressives announce opposition to Pelosi-backed rule changes

'Top Democrats unveiled a series of proposed changes to House rules Tuesday night, including the creation of a select committee on climate change and an exemption to a ban on hats that would allow members to wear religious headwear on the floor of the House.

The big picture: The rules overhaul is already being opposed by progressive Democrats Ro Khanna and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who have said they will vote against the package because of the "pay as you go" (PAYGO) rule — which requires any increase in entitlement spending be offset by paring back other entitlement programs. If more than 16 Democrats defect and no Republicans vote for the package, the Democratic majority won’t be able to pass the package as is.

What they’re saying:

Khanna: "[PAYGO] is terrible economics. The austerians were wrong about the Great Recession and Great Depression. At some point, politicians need to learn from mistakes and read economic history."

• • Ocasio-Cortez: "PAYGO isn’t only bad economics, as Ro Khanna explains; it’s also a dark political maneuver designed to hamstring progress on healthcare and other legislation. We shouldn’t hinder ourselves from the start."'

Progressives announce opposition to Pelosi-backed rule changes



The current budget deficit for FY 2019 is - pro-rated - running at over $1.8 trillion!?!

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/mts/mts.pdf

This is COMPLETELY nuts during peacetime.

Then the Democrats put forth a solid (if not perfect) proposal to not allow new entitlement spending without similar cuts in other entitlement spending/new taxes (I would have MUCH preferred if it was just cuts in spending - but whatever).

Then some Progressives come out and basically say; 'Hey, forget that. We should be able to spend whatever the heck we want.'.

THAT is what REALLY scares me (fiscally) about Progressives. While Dems and Reps seem to pay just lip service to fiscal discipline - which is bad enough - Progressives seem to not care about it AT ALL.
And than they roll out the old 'spending is irrelevant when it comes to education/healthcare/guaranteed jobs/etc.'.

That is INCREDIBLY short-sighted and irresponsible to just spend on anything they deem important and screw the fiscal responsibility they have to America's future.

Progressives motives are admirable. But their seemingly TOTAL lack of fiscal responsibility is, IMO, potentially dangerous.

 

[McRocket]

Additionally, from the OP article:

'Khanna: "[PAYGO] is terrible economics. The austerians were wrong about the Great Recession and Great Depression. At some point, politicians need to learn from mistakes and read economic history."'

No...the 'austerians' were right about the Great Recession and Great Depression.

First, the Great Depression:

US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123] - Page 22

('DA60" was me, BTW, before I got the boot from that forum)


Second, there is no unbiased, factual proof whatsoever that had GWB/Obama/The Fed just let the economy fix itself that things would not have recovered just fine at least as quickly as they 'did'.
And the handling of the 1920/21 Depression 100% factually proves that one does not need the government/Fed to come storming to the rescue to quickly get out of a large recession/depression.
Plus, look at GDP growth since the Great Recession? It has been tepid at best...despite the government/Fed dumping well over 12 TRILLION dollars into the economy (plus ZIRP). Plus, the national debt has exploded.
This is what often happens when you flood an economy with cheap debt...relative, economic stagnation.

No, Rep. Ro Khanna, the 'austerians' were not wrong about either the Great Depression or the Great Recession...quite the opposite, actually.

 

[Rambunctious]

As soon as the market figures out that Pelosi and the dems in the house can't steamroll the senate into destroying the economy like she did with the help of Reid....they will bounce back and buy....its short sighted to not do so....

 

[Lakhota]

Trump just exploded the national debt by $2 TRILLION - and gave a major tax break to the rich. THEREFORE, I think "progressives" should be able to spend at least the same amount on policies that would benefit "most" Americans.

 

[McRocket]

Trump just exploded the national debt by $2 TRILLION - and gave a major tax break to the rich. THEREFORE, I think "progressives" should be able to spend at least the same amount on policies that would benefit "most" Americans.

1) So, your argument is 'they did it badly, so we can too'? Sorry...that does not cut it with me.

2) Obama almost doubled the national debt himself in 8 years...so his supporters have nothing to brag about on fiscal discipline. Both parties are clearly USELESS (at this point in history) when it comes to fiscal discipline. But what the Progressives - in the OP article anyway - are proposing is fiscal madness.

US National Debt by Year – Polidiotic

3) You do realize that it was Democrats who made the proposal that the Progressives were objecting to?

4) I think neither party should be able to run MASSIVE fiscal deficits (except during a declared war).

 

[Lakhota]

Trump just exploded the national debt by $2 TRILLION - and gave a major tax break to the rich. THEREFORE, I think "progressives" should be able to spend at least the same amount on policies that would benefit "most" Americans.

1) So, your argument is 'they did it badly, so we can too'? Sorry...that does not cut it with me.

2) Obama almost doubled the national debt himself in 8 years...so his supporters have nothing to brag about on fiscal discipline. Both parties are clearly USELESS (at this point in history) when it comes to fiscal discipline. But what the Progressives - in the OP article anyway - are proposing is fiscal madness.

US National Debt by Year – Polidiotic

3) You do realize that it was Democrats who made the proposal that the Progressives were objecting to?

4) I think neither party should be able to run MASSIVE fiscal deficits (except during a declared war).

President Obama had to pay for TWO wars that Bush started and was paying for OFF the books. Plus, the Bush tax cuts which were unprecedented during wartime. The Bush financial clusterfuck didn't just stop on the day President Obama was sworn in.

 

[McRocket]

Trump just exploded the national debt by $2 TRILLION - and gave a major tax break to the rich. THEREFORE, I think "progressives" should be able to spend at least the same amount on policies that would benefit "most" Americans.

1) So, your argument is 'they did it badly, so we can too'? Sorry...that does not cut it with me.

2) Obama almost doubled the national debt himself in 8 years...so his supporters have nothing to brag about on fiscal discipline. Both parties are clearly USELESS (at this point in history) when it comes to fiscal discipline. But what the Progressives - in the OP article anyway - are proposing is fiscal madness.

US National Debt by Year – Polidiotic

3) You do realize that it was Democrats who made the proposal that the Progressives were objecting to?

4) I think neither party should be able to run MASSIVE fiscal deficits (except during a declared war).

President Obama had to pay for TWO wars that Bush started and was paying for OFF the books. Plus, the Bush tax cuts which were unprecedented during wartime. The Bush financial clusterfuck didn't just stop on the day President Obama was sworn in.

Oh please...roll out the excuses.

1) Obama could have pulled out of either 'war' whenever he wanted to (just as Trump is proposing to pull troops out of Syria). He chose not to. So from the day he took office (though not before), from that point on, those 'wars' were his responsibility...whether you like it or not.

2) From FY 2010 until FY 2017, the deficits during those years are Obama's responsibility. And so are the deficits. You want to a live in fantasy land and blame someone else for his responsibility...go ahead.
Not me.
Just as I blame GWB and Trump for the FY deficits during their terms.

 

[Third Party]

Progressives announce opposition to Pelosi-backed rule changes

'Top Democrats unveiled a series of proposed changes to House rules Tuesday night, including the creation of a select committee on climate change and an exemption to a ban on hats that would allow members to wear religious headwear on the floor of the House.

The big picture: The rules overhaul is already being opposed by progressive Democrats Ro Khanna and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who have said they will vote against the package because of the "pay as you go" (PAYGO) rule — which requires any increase in entitlement spending be offset by paring back other entitlement programs. If more than 16 Democrats defect and no Republicans vote for the package, the Democratic majority won’t be able to pass the package as is.

What they’re saying:

Khanna: "[PAYGO] is terrible economics. The austerians were wrong about the Great Recession and Great Depression. At some point, politicians need to learn from mistakes and read economic history."

• • Ocasio-Cortez: "PAYGO isn’t only bad economics, as Ro Khanna explains; it’s also a dark political maneuver designed to hamstring progress on healthcare and other legislation. We shouldn’t hinder ourselves from the start."'

Progressives announce opposition to Pelosi-backed rule changes



The current budget deficit for FY 2019 is - pro-rated - running at over $1.8 trillion!?!

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/mts/mts.pdf

This is COMPLETELY nuts during peacetime.

Then the Democrats put forth a solid (if not perfect) proposal to not allow new entitlement spending without similar cuts in other entitlement spending/new taxes (I would have MUCH preferred if it was just cuts in spending - but whatever).

Then some Progressives come out and basically say; 'Hey, forget that. We should be able to spend whatever the heck we want.'.

THAT is what REALLY scares me (fiscally) about Progressives. While Dems and Reps seem to pay just lip service to fiscal discipline - which is bad enough - Progressives seem to not care about it AT ALL.
And than they roll out the old 'spending is irrelevant when it comes to education/healthcare/guaranteed jobs/etc.'.

That is INCREDIBLY short-sighted and irresponsible to just spend on anything they deem important and screw the fiscal responsibility they have to America's future.

Progressives motives are admirable. But their seemingly TOTAL lack of fiscal responsibility is, IMO, potentially dangerous.

As the saying goes, you can have ANYTHING you want, you just can't have EVERYTHING you want.

 

[Lakhota]

Trump just exploded the national debt by $2 TRILLION - and gave a major tax break to the rich. THEREFORE, I think "progressives" should be able to spend at least the same amount on policies that would benefit "most" Americans.

1) So, your argument is 'they did it badly, so we can too'? Sorry...that does not cut it with me.

2) Obama almost doubled the national debt himself in 8 years...so his supporters have nothing to brag about on fiscal discipline. Both parties are clearly USELESS (at this point in history) when it comes to fiscal discipline. But what the Progressives - in the OP article anyway - are proposing is fiscal madness.

US National Debt by Year – Polidiotic

3) You do realize that it was Democrats who made the proposal that the Progressives were objecting to?

4) I think neither party should be able to run MASSIVE fiscal deficits (except during a declared war).

President Obama had to pay for TWO wars that Bush started and was paying for OFF the books. Plus, the Bush tax cuts which were unprecedented during wartime. The Bush financial clusterfuck didn't just stop on the day President Obama was sworn in.

Oh please...roll out the excuses.

1) Obama could have pulled out of either 'war' whenever he wanted to (just as Trump is proposing to pull troops out of Syria). He chose not to. So from the day he took office, from that point on, those 'wars' were his responsibility...whether you like it or not.

2) From FY 2010 until FY 2017, the deficits during those years are Obama's responsibility. And so are the deficits. You want to a live in fantasy land and blame someone else for his responsibility...go ahead.
Not me.
Just as I blame GWB and Trump for the FY deficits during their terms.

Pull out - and just fuck everyone involved including our allies? Funny...

 

[McRocket]

Trump just exploded the national debt by $2 TRILLION - and gave a major tax break to the rich. THEREFORE, I think "progressives" should be able to spend at least the same amount on policies that would benefit "most" Americans.

1) So, your argument is 'they did it badly, so we can too'? Sorry...that does not cut it with me.

2) Obama almost doubled the national debt himself in 8 years...so his supporters have nothing to brag about on fiscal discipline. Both parties are clearly USELESS (at this point in history) when it comes to fiscal discipline. But what the Progressives - in the OP article anyway - are proposing is fiscal madness.

US National Debt by Year – Polidiotic

3) You do realize that it was Democrats who made the proposal that the Progressives were objecting to?

4) I think neither party should be able to run MASSIVE fiscal deficits (except during a declared war).

President Obama had to pay for TWO wars that Bush started and was paying for OFF the books. Plus, the Bush tax cuts which were unprecedented during wartime. The Bush financial clusterfuck didn't just stop on the day President Obama was sworn in.

Oh please...roll out the excuses.

1) Obama could have pulled out of either 'war' whenever he wanted to (just as Trump is proposing to pull troops out of Syria). He chose not to. So from the day he took office, from that point on, those 'wars' were his responsibility...whether you like it or not.

2) From FY 2010 until FY 2017, the deficits during those years are Obama's responsibility. And so are the deficits. You want to a live in fantasy land and blame someone else for his responsibility...go ahead.
Not me.
Just as I blame GWB and Trump for the FY deficits during their terms.

Pull out - and just fuck everyone involved including our allies? Funny...

Which 'war' are you referring to?


Interesting how you are willing to throw away brave, American lives in hopeless conflicts on principal.

Not me.

BTW, are you prepared to volunteer to risk your life in those conflicts?

Because if you are not...the word 'hypocrisy' comes to mind. You are fine having endless wars that gain America nothing but theoretical 'safety'...just so long as other people have to do the dying?

 

[Lakhota]

Trump just exploded the national debt by $2 TRILLION - and gave a major tax break to the rich. THEREFORE, I think "progressives" should be able to spend at least the same amount on policies that would benefit "most" Americans.

1) So, your argument is 'they did it badly, so we can too'? Sorry...that does not cut it with me.

2) Obama almost doubled the national debt himself in 8 years...so his supporters have nothing to brag about on fiscal discipline. Both parties are clearly USELESS (at this point in history) when it comes to fiscal discipline. But what the Progressives - in the OP article anyway - are proposing is fiscal madness.

US National Debt by Year – Polidiotic

3) You do realize that it was Democrats who made the proposal that the Progressives were objecting to?

4) I think neither party should be able to run MASSIVE fiscal deficits (except during a declared war).

President Obama had to pay for TWO wars that Bush started and was paying for OFF the books. Plus, the Bush tax cuts which were unprecedented during wartime. The Bush financial clusterfuck didn't just stop on the day President Obama was sworn in.

Oh please...roll out the excuses.

1) Obama could have pulled out of either 'war' whenever he wanted to (just as Trump is proposing to pull troops out of Syria). He chose not to. So from the day he took office, from that point on, those 'wars' were his responsibility...whether you like it or not.

2) From FY 2010 until FY 2017, the deficits during those years are Obama's responsibility. And so are the deficits. You want to a live in fantasy land and blame someone else for his responsibility...go ahead.
Not me.
Just as I blame GWB and Trump for the FY deficits during their terms.

Pull out - and just fuck everyone involved including our allies? Funny...

Which 'war' are you referring to?

Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump is still in both.

 

[McRocket]

1) So, your argument is 'they did it badly, so we can too'? Sorry...that does not cut it with me.

2) Obama almost doubled the national debt himself in 8 years...so his supporters have nothing to brag about on fiscal discipline. Both parties are clearly USELESS (at this point in history) when it comes to fiscal discipline. But what the Progressives - in the OP article anyway - are proposing is fiscal madness.

US National Debt by Year – Polidiotic

3) You do realize that it was Democrats who made the proposal that the Progressives were objecting to?

4) I think neither party should be able to run MASSIVE fiscal deficits (except during a declared war).

President Obama had to pay for TWO wars that Bush started and was paying for OFF the books. Plus, the Bush tax cuts which were unprecedented during wartime. The Bush financial clusterfuck didn't just stop on the day President Obama was sworn in.

Oh please...roll out the excuses.

1) Obama could have pulled out of either 'war' whenever he wanted to (just as Trump is proposing to pull troops out of Syria). He chose not to. So from the day he took office, from that point on, those 'wars' were his responsibility...whether you like it or not.

2) From FY 2010 until FY 2017, the deficits during those years are Obama's responsibility. And so are the deficits. You want to a live in fantasy land and blame someone else for his responsibility...go ahead.
Not me.
Just as I blame GWB and Trump for the FY deficits during their terms.

Pull out - and just fuck everyone involved including our allies? Funny...

Which 'war' are you referring to?

Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump is still in both.

Well, Obama already said the 'war in Iraq' was a success.

Barack Obama declares Iraq war a success

So there is no reason to be there.


And Afghanistan? America has been there 17 years and seems no closer to 'winning'. Same thing happened to the Soviets and the British before that.

If America's allies want to throw money and lives away in a hopeless conflict over a bunch of rocks and some bogeymen Taliban...let 'em. Afghanistan is the Afghan's business...not America's.

And I will ask you again, are you prepared to volunteer to serve (and possibly die) in Afghanistan? Because if you are not, it's pretty pathetic that you are asking other Americans to do your dirty work for you.

 

[Lakhota]

President Obama had to pay for TWO wars that Bush started and was paying for OFF the books. Plus, the Bush tax cuts which were unprecedented during wartime. The Bush financial clusterfuck didn't just stop on the day President Obama was sworn in.

Oh please...roll out the excuses.

1) Obama could have pulled out of either 'war' whenever he wanted to (just as Trump is proposing to pull troops out of Syria). He chose not to. So from the day he took office, from that point on, those 'wars' were his responsibility...whether you like it or not.

2) From FY 2010 until FY 2017, the deficits during those years are Obama's responsibility. And so are the deficits. You want to a live in fantasy land and blame someone else for his responsibility...go ahead.
Not me.
Just as I blame GWB and Trump for the FY deficits during their terms.

Pull out - and just fuck everyone involved including our allies? Funny...

Which 'war' are you referring to?

Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump is still in both.

Well, Obama already said the 'war in Iraq' was a success.

Barack Obama declares Iraq war a success

So there is no reason to be there.


And Afghanistan? America has been there 17 years and seems no closer to 'winning'. Same thing happened to the Soviets and the British before that.

If America's allies want to throw money and lives away in a hopeless conflict over a bunch of rocks and some bogeymen Taliban...let 'em. Afghanistan is the Afghan's business...not America's.

And I will ask you again, are you prepared to volunteer to serve (and possibly die) in Afghanistan? Because if you are not, it's pretty pathetic that you are asking other Americans to do your dirty work for you.

Look, dumbass, I understand why Bush went into Afghanistan - but not Iraq. I'm 72 and served my military time during Vietnam. I defer to the military experts what should be done in Afghanistan.

Bush 41 suckered Saddam into invading Kuwait by giving him the "green light" via April Glaspie.

That fateful meeting on July 25, 1990 between then-US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie and President Saddam Hussein that the Iraqi leader interpreted as a "green light" from Washington for his invasion of Kuwait eight days later.

TRANSCRIPT: Is the US State Department still keeping April Glaspie under wraps?

Bush 43 conjured up lies to invade Iraq a 2nd time. He was planning to invade Iraq before 9/11.

The Downing Street Memo

 

[g5000]

Progressives announce opposition to Pelosi-backed rule changes

'Top Democrats unveiled a series of proposed changes to House rules Tuesday night, including the creation of a select committee on climate change and an exemption to a ban on hats that would allow members to wear religious headwear on the floor of the House.

The big picture: The rules overhaul is already being opposed by progressive Democrats Ro Khanna and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who have said they will vote against the package because of the "pay as you go" (PAYGO) rule — which requires any increase in entitlement spending be offset by paring back other entitlement programs. If more than 16 Democrats defect and no Republicans vote for the package, the Democratic majority won’t be able to pass the package as is.

What they’re saying:

Khanna: "[PAYGO] is terrible economics. The austerians were wrong about the Great Recession and Great Depression. At some point, politicians need to learn from mistakes and read economic history."

• • Ocasio-Cortez: "PAYGO isn’t only bad economics, as Ro Khanna explains; it’s also a dark political maneuver designed to hamstring progress on healthcare and other legislation. We shouldn’t hinder ourselves from the start."'

Progressives announce opposition to Pelosi-backed rule changes



The current budget deficit for FY 2019 is - pro-rated - running at over $1.8 trillion!?!

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/mts/mts.pdf

This is COMPLETELY nuts during peacetime.

Then the Democrats put forth a solid (if not perfect) proposal to not allow new entitlement spending without similar cuts in other entitlement spending/new taxes (I would have MUCH preferred if it was just cuts in spending - but whatever).

Then some Progressives come out and basically say; 'Hey, forget that. We should be able to spend whatever the heck we want.'.

THAT is what REALLY scares me (fiscally) about Progressives. While Dems and Reps seem to pay just lip service to fiscal discipline - which is bad enough - Progressives seem to not care about it AT ALL.
And than they roll out the old 'spending is irrelevant when it comes to education/healthcare/guaranteed jobs/etc.'.

That is INCREDIBLY short-sighted and irresponsible to just spend on anything they deem important and screw the fiscal responsibility they have to America's future.

Progressives motives are admirable. But their seemingly TOTAL lack of fiscal responsibility is, IMO, potentially dangerous.

One of the first things the GOP did when they took power under Bush was allow PAYGO to expire.

Now ask yourself, retard, why the GOP did not implement PAYGO since taking power again.

Ask yourself why you haven't noticed the GOP has DOUBLED the deficit since taking power. A deficit which was DECLINING before they took over.

Ask yourself why you haven't noticed Trump just submitted the biggest massive spending bill in human history. A bill which exceeds Obama's worst year by a trillion dollars.

 

[McRocket]

Oh please...roll out the excuses.

1) Obama could have pulled out of either 'war' whenever he wanted to (just as Trump is proposing to pull troops out of Syria). He chose not to. So from the day he took office, from that point on, those 'wars' were his responsibility...whether you like it or not.

2) From FY 2010 until FY 2017, the deficits during those years are Obama's responsibility. And so are the deficits. You want to a live in fantasy land and blame someone else for his responsibility...go ahead.
Not me.
Just as I blame GWB and Trump for the FY deficits during their terms.

Pull out - and just fuck everyone involved including our allies? Funny...

Which 'war' are you referring to?

Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump is still in both.

Well, Obama already said the 'war in Iraq' was a success.

Barack Obama declares Iraq war a success

So there is no reason to be there.


And Afghanistan? America has been there 17 years and seems no closer to 'winning'. Same thing happened to the Soviets and the British before that.

If America's allies want to throw money and lives away in a hopeless conflict over a bunch of rocks and some bogeymen Taliban...let 'em. Afghanistan is the Afghan's business...not America's.

And I will ask you again, are you prepared to volunteer to serve (and possibly die) in Afghanistan? Because if you are not, it's pretty pathetic that you are asking other Americans to do your dirty work for you.

Look, dumbass, I understand why Bush went into Afghanistan - but not Iraq. I'm 72 and served my military time during Vietnam. I defer to the military experts what should be done in Afghanistan.

Bush 41 suckered Saddam into invading Kuwait by giving him the "green light" via April Glaspie.

That fateful meeting on July 25, 1990 between then-US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie and President Saddam Hussein that the Iraqi leader interpreted as a "green light" from Washington for his invasion of Kuwait eight days later.

TRANSCRIPT: Is the US State Department still keeping April Glaspie under wraps?

Bush 43 conjured up lies to invade Iraq a 2nd time. He was planning to invade Iraq before 9/11.

The Downing Street Memo

First - my IQ is 124-126 (government tested on several levels), which is actually at the 95% level (though I am far from genius level). So calling me a 'dumbass' is erroneous (though I do have an 'ass' - so, to call me an 'ass' is accurate). But, if you wish to anyway - knock yourself out.

Second - so you are saying that if you were 35, you would volunteer right now to serve in either Iraq or Afghanistan? If you would, good for you. If not, you are a hypocrite on this.

Third - this thread is NOTHING to do with what the Bush's did before Obama took office. This is about fiscal discipline.

Now it is your argument that Obama had no choice but to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Did Obama have the legal authority to pull ALL U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan when he took office?

Yes or No, please?

 

[g5000]

Republicans always allowed PAYGO to expire. It has always been Democrats who re-instituted it. The Democrats under Clinton enacted it, the Republicans under Bush allowed it to expire, and the Democratic majority under Obama re-instituted it.

And now Pelosi wants to re-establish it again.

 

[Lakhota]

Pull out - and just fuck everyone involved including our allies? Funny...

Which 'war' are you referring to?

Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump is still in both.

Well, Obama already said the 'war in Iraq' was a success.

Barack Obama declares Iraq war a success

So there is no reason to be there.


And Afghanistan? America has been there 17 years and seems no closer to 'winning'. Same thing happened to the Soviets and the British before that.

If America's allies want to throw money and lives away in a hopeless conflict over a bunch of rocks and some bogeymen Taliban...let 'em. Afghanistan is the Afghan's business...not America's.

And I will ask you again, are you prepared to volunteer to serve (and possibly die) in Afghanistan? Because if you are not, it's pretty pathetic that you are asking other Americans to do your dirty work for you.

Look, dumbass, I understand why Bush went into Afghanistan - but not Iraq. I'm 72 and served my military time during Vietnam. I defer to the military experts what should be done in Afghanistan.

Bush 41 suckered Saddam into invading Kuwait by giving him the "green light" via April Glaspie.

That fateful meeting on July 25, 1990 between then-US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie and President Saddam Hussein that the Iraqi leader interpreted as a "green light" from Washington for his invasion of Kuwait eight days later.

TRANSCRIPT: Is the US State Department still keeping April Glaspie under wraps?

Bush 43 conjured up lies to invade Iraq a 2nd time. He was planning to invade Iraq before 9/11.

The Downing Street Memo

First - my IQ is 124-126 (government tested on several levels), which is actually at the 95% level (though I am far from genius level). So calling me a 'dumbass' is erroneous (though I do have an 'ass' - so, to call me an 'ass' is accurate). But, if you wish to anyway - knock yourself out.

Second - so you are saying that if you were 35, you would volunteer right now to serve in either Iraq or Afghanistan? If you would, good for you. If not, you are a hypocrite on this.

Third - this thread is NOTHING to do with what the Bush's did before Obama took office. This is about fiscal discipline.

Now it is your argument that Obama had no choice but to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Did Obama have the legal authority to pull ALL U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan when he took office?

Yes or No, please?

Possibly, in a vacuum, if he didn't care about being impeached and leaving our allies hanging out to dry.

 

[g5000]

The propagandists who feed the Trumptards their talking points have been very deliberate in not pointing out the Republicans and Trump have been accelerating our deficits since taking power.

Very deliberate..

And now they are starting this hoax again that the big spenders are the Democrats.

Exactly as I predicted before the mid-terms.

Here we go!

 

[McRocket]

Progressives announce opposition to Pelosi-backed rule changes

'Top Democrats unveiled a series of proposed changes to House rules Tuesday night, including the creation of a select committee on climate change and an exemption to a ban on hats that would allow members to wear religious headwear on the floor of the House.

The big picture: The rules overhaul is already being opposed by progressive Democrats Ro Khanna and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who have said they will vote against the package because of the "pay as you go" (PAYGO) rule — which requires any increase in entitlement spending be offset by paring back other entitlement programs. If more than 16 Democrats defect and no Republicans vote for the package, the Democratic majority won’t be able to pass the package as is.

What they’re saying:

Khanna: "[PAYGO] is terrible economics. The austerians were wrong about the Great Recession and Great Depression. At some point, politicians need to learn from mistakes and read economic history."

• • Ocasio-Cortez: "PAYGO isn’t only bad economics, as Ro Khanna explains; it’s also a dark political maneuver designed to hamstring progress on healthcare and other legislation. We shouldn’t hinder ourselves from the start."'

Progressives announce opposition to Pelosi-backed rule changes



The current budget deficit for FY 2019 is - pro-rated - running at over $1.8 trillion!?!

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/mts/mts.pdf

This is COMPLETELY nuts during peacetime.

Then the Democrats put forth a solid (if not perfect) proposal to not allow new entitlement spending without similar cuts in other entitlement spending/new taxes (I would have MUCH preferred if it was just cuts in spending - but whatever).

Then some Progressives come out and basically say; 'Hey, forget that. We should be able to spend whatever the heck we want.'.

THAT is what REALLY scares me (fiscally) about Progressives. While Dems and Reps seem to pay just lip service to fiscal discipline - which is bad enough - Progressives seem to not care about it AT ALL.
And than they roll out the old 'spending is irrelevant when it comes to education/healthcare/guaranteed jobs/etc.'.

That is INCREDIBLY short-sighted and irresponsible to just spend on anything they deem important and screw the fiscal responsibility they have to America's future.

Progressives motives are admirable. But their seemingly TOTAL lack of fiscal responsibility is, IMO, potentially dangerous.

One of the first things the GOP did when they took power under Bush was allow PAYGO to expire.

Now ask yourself, retard, why the GOP did not implement PAYGO since taking power again.

Ask yourself why you haven't noticed the GOP has DOUBLED the deficit since taking power. A deficit which was DECLINING before they took over.

Ask yourself why you haven't noticed Trump just submitted the biggest massive spending bill in human history. A bill which exceeds Obama's worst year by a trillion dollars.

What does any of this have to do with me or this thread?

I am 100% against any government EVER posting a fiscal deficit during peacetime...for ANY reason.

You got it now?


And what EXACTLY does ANY OF YOUR drivel have directly to do with the OP?

 

[g5000]

"Deficits don't matter" - Uber-progressive Dick Cheney.