This is why progressives (fiscally) scare me

[TheDude]

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.

Only two Trillion? That's good news. The debt raised nearly nine on Obama's watch, which seems to indicate some improvement. Who knows, maybe it will only increase another 1.5T before his re-election.

 

[McRocket]

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.

I will take that as a 'yes'.

Which means from the day he took office, those soldiers and the added budget cost for them, were his responsibility.

So your excuse about Obama had no choice to run huge deficits due to Iraq/Afghanistan is right out of the window.


And you ducked my other question...were you young enough, would you volunteer to serve (and possibly die) for America in Iraq or Afghanistan?

BTW, I joined the reserves when I was 18 and served my country (though I saw no combat)...in case you were wondering.

 

[McRocket]

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!

That is a rather 'juvenile' way of completely ducking what the progressives said in the OP article. And hypocritical. I recall you knocking Trumpbots time and again for ducking the issue by blaming it on Obama/Dems. And now you do the EXACT same thing.

Pathetic, juvenile and hypocritical...all in one post.


So...do you agree with what the progressives said in the OP article?

Yes or no?


Once again, I am neither Dem nor Rep.

 

[anotherlife]

There is no fiscal problem for a progressive. You just pay more taxes. Europeans already love this. Did you fail your re education camp?

 

[francoHFW]

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.

Quite a risk you are ready to take there LOL. Just keep the Republican swine out of power and we won't have the damn problem.

 

[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!

That is a rather 'juvenile' way of completely ducking what the progressives said in the OP article. And hypocritical. I recall you knocking Trumpbots time and again for ducking the issue by blaming it on Obama/Dems. And now you do the EXACT same thing.

Pathetic, juvenile and hypocritical...all in one post.


So...do you agree with what the progressives said in the OP article?

Yes or no?


Once again, I am neither Dem nor Rep.

The progressives don't want PAYGO. Just like the Republicans.

There is no difference between them. They both believe in big government.

I'm just sick of the hypocrisy around here which ignores the fact the GOP is a bigger believer in big government than the Democrats.

And just as I predicted before the mid terms, all the whining about the spending going on didn't start until the Democrats took the House.

There has been a very deliberate blackout about the massive increase in spending by the Republicans and Trump. So whatever whining you make about a couple socialists is meaningless. We have a far, far bigger problem with Trump and the GOP who actually can and did skyrocket spending.

I'm far more worried about them than some puny commie pukes with no power.

 

[McRocket]

There is no fiscal problem for a progressive. You just pay more taxes. Europeans already love this. Did you fail your re education camp?

Note - you should really stop talking to your self.

Just sayin'...


Good day.

 

[McRocket]

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!

That is a rather 'juvenile' way of completely ducking what the progressives said in the OP article. And hypocritical. I recall you knocking Trumpbots time and again for ducking the issue by blaming it on Obama/Dems. And now you do the EXACT same thing.

Pathetic, juvenile and hypocritical...all in one post.


So...do you agree with what the progressives said in the OP article?

Yes or no?


Once again, I am neither Dem nor Rep.

The progressives don't want PAYGO. Just like the Republicans.

There is no difference between them. They both believe in big government.

I'm just sick of the hypocrisy around here which ignores the fact the GOP is a bigger believer in big government than the Democrats.

And just as I predicted before the mid terms, all the whining about the spending going on didn't start until the Democrats took the House.

There has been a very deliberate blackout about the massive increase in spending by the Republicans and Trump. So whatever whining you make about a couple socialists is meaningless. We have a far, far bigger problem with Trump and the GOP who actually can and did skyrocket spending.

I'm far more worried about them than some puny commie pukes with no power.

1) If what I said is 'meaningless'? Then why did you respond with numerous posts about it?

meaningless - definition and meaning

It is - by definition - impossible for something to be meaningless if someone else notices and responds to it.

I take it exactitude is not your strong suit? I shall try and keep that in mind in future.


2) So you are saying that as long as the deficit is out of control, no one should ever start threads about anything else, deficit related?

Yes or no, please?


My STRONG guess is what you are really saying is 'so long as Trump sucks at deficits - anything anyone else does on the subject (ESPECIALLY Democrats) - should be ignored'.

Partisan politics at it's worst.

 

[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.

Quite a risk you are ready to take there LOL. Just keep the Republican swine out of power and we won't have the damn problem.

LOL...and what 'risk' is that oh person-who-seems-to-like-to-talk-to-himself?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

President Obama had to pay for TWO wars that Bush started and was paying for OFF the books.

Love the OFF the books claim.
Explain the difference for the deficit and the debt between paying for on the books and paying for off the books.
Be as specific as you can.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

From FY 2010 until FY 2017, the deficits during those years are Obama's responsibility.

Obama signed a big chunk of the spending bills for FY 2009, plus his "stimulus" was partially spent in FY 2009.

 

[francoHFW]

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!

That is a rather 'juvenile' way of completely ducking what the progressives said in the OP article. And hypocritical. I recall you knocking Trumpbots time and again for ducking the issue by blaming it on Obama/Dems. And now you do the EXACT same thing.

Pathetic, juvenile and hypocritical...all in one post.


So...do you agree with what the progressives said in the OP article?

Yes or no?


Once again, I am neither Dem nor Rep.

The progressives don't want PAYGO. Just like the Republicans.

There is no difference between them. They both believe in big government.

I'm just sick of the hypocrisy around here which ignores the fact the GOP is a bigger believer in big government than the Democrats.

And just as I predicted before the mid terms, all the whining about the spending going on didn't start until the Democrats took the House.

There has been a very deliberate blackout about the massive increase in spending by the Republicans and Trump. So whatever whining you make about a couple socialists is meaningless. We have a far, far bigger problem with Trump and the GOP who actually can and did skyrocket spending.

I'm far more worried about them than some puny commie pukes with no power.

Of course it could have something to do with the progressives wanting to Tax the rich more and spend some more on entitlements like Medicaid for all Medicare I don't know whatever plenty of things like that.

Republicans are in favor of pay and go. Because they want to cut services more so they can give another tax cut to the rich and screw up the economy again -every time they do.

 

[francoHFW]

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.

From FY 2010 until FY 2017, the deficits during those years are Obama's responsibility.

Obama signed a big chunk of the spending bills for FY 2009, plus his "stimulus" was partially spent in FY 2009.

There was the little matter of George Bush's corrupt economic meltdown Obama came to office d u h so stupid...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

From FY 2010 until FY 2017, the deficits during those years are Obama's responsibility.

Obama signed a big chunk of the spending bills for FY 2009, plus his "stimulus" was partially spent in FY 2009.

There was the little matter of George Bush's corrupt economic meltdown Obama came to office d u h so stupid...

I agree, Bush shouldn't have increased Clinton's subprime housing idiocy.
He made a bad situation even worse.

 

[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 (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.

From FY 2010 until FY 2017, the deficits during those years are Obama's responsibility.

Obama signed a big chunk of the spending bills for FY 2009, plus his "stimulus" was partially spent in FY 2009.

There was the little matter of George Bush's corrupt economic meltdown Obama came to office d u h so stupid...

I agree, Bush shouldn't have increased Clinton's subprime housing idiocy.
He made a bad situation even worse.

I could not agree more.

Though it actually started with Carter. But GWB went WILD with it (with good intentions I think - but disastrous results).

 

[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.

From FY 2010 until FY 2017, the deficits during those years are Obama's responsibility.

Obama signed a big chunk of the spending bills for FY 2009, plus his "stimulus" was partially spent in FY 2009.

Partially, but if you look at the numbers, at least 66% of the budget was already etched-in-stone when Obama took office. Traditionally, the FY when the POTUS takes office is not generally considered his responsibility.

So FY 2017 - though most of it was on Trump's watch - is mostly Obama's responsibility.

 

[francoHFW]

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.

From FY 2010 until FY 2017, the deficits during those years are Obama's responsibility.

Obama signed a big chunk of the spending bills for FY 2009, plus his "stimulus" was partially spent in FY 2009.

There was the little matter of George Bush's corrupt economic meltdown Obama came to office d u h so stupid...

I agree, Bush shouldn't have increased Clinton's subprime housing idiocy.
He made a bad situation even worse.

I could not agree more.

Though it actually started with Carter. But GWB went WILD with it (with good intentions I think - but disastrous results).

Actually dunce dupes, all George Bush's fault. Republican Regulators are always crooked and cause big bubbles and busts every time. Clinton did nothing but sign a Republican bill. Obama had a stimulus of 800 billion and every year paid huge amounts for welfare and unemployment for victims of George bushes b s. Started out at 800 billion and came down to 200 billion a couple years ago... Not a bit of it because Obama changed any laws. If the GOP didn't have propaganda and Dupes like you, they would have nothing.

 

[william104]

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.

Of course no citations to back up this bogus claim. Actually it was and is the policies of tRump and his rightwing nut jobs who added $2 trillion to the deficit and put a hurting on global markets is regressive act with the intent to go back to the stone ages.

 

[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.

Of course no citations to back up this bogus claim. Actually it was and is the policies of tRump and his rightwing nut jobs who added $2 trillion to the deficit and put a hurting on global markets is regressive act with the intent to go back to the stone ages.

And specifically which claim that I/anyone made was 'bogus'?

Of course, you will have to show unbiased proof that it was bogus (since you are making the accusation) or your claims are totally baseless.

So...

 

[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 (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.

From FY 2010 until FY 2017, the deficits during those years are Obama's responsibility.

Obama signed a big chunk of the spending bills for FY 2009, plus his "stimulus" was partially spent in FY 2009.

There was the little matter of George Bush's corrupt economic meltdown Obama came to office d u h so stupid...

I agree, Bush shouldn't have increased Clinton's subprime housing idiocy.
He made a bad situation even worse.

I could not agree more.

Though it actually started with Carter. But GWB went WILD with it (with good intentions I think - but disastrous results).

Actually dunce dupes, all George Bush's fault. Republican Regulators are always crooked and cause big bubbles and busts every time. Clinton did nothing but sign a Republican bill. Obama had a stimulus of 800 billion and every year paid huge amounts for welfare and unemployment for victims of George bushes b s. Started out at 800 billion and came down to 200 billion a couple years ago... Not a bit of it because Obama changed any laws. If the GOP didn't have propaganda and Dupes like you, they would have nothing.

Really?

And just how can it be 'all George Bush's fault' when his Bill passed both Houses (unanimously, I believe)?

Actions - S.811 - 108th Congress (2003-2004): American Dream Downpayment Act


Also, you do not seem to know much about what caused the housing boom/bust.

Without the Federal Reserve lowering rates so far for so long - none of it would have transpired.

And don't forget the banks, who were giving away mortgages to almost anyone.