Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
1) And the spending is still up compared to ANY TIME DURING PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS1) 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 ADMINISTRATIONS1) 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.
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
1) And the spending is still up compared to ANY TIME DURING PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONSMixed up the word Deficit. No, the US didn't kill more people then Saddam, but the war did.
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
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.
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
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
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?
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...
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
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.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.
Bullshit! Anyone serious about cutting the deficit, would start by cutting the defense budget. And no republican is willing to do that.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.
The tax cuts reduced government revenue and contributed to the deficit we're facing now.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.
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.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.
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
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.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.
We spent over $4 trillion US taxpayers dollars on that war and what did we get in return? Nothing! Fucking nothing! If you wanna talk about unecessary government spending, that's a good place to start.
Bullshit! Anyone serious about cutting the deficit, would start by cutting the defense budget. And no republican is willing to do that.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.
The tax cuts reduced government revenue and contributed to the deficit we're facing now.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.
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.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.
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.
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?
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.
1) And the spending is still up compared to ANY TIME DURING PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONSMixed up the word Deficit. No, the US didn't kill more people then Saddam, but the war did.
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
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.
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.
Congress Grants Bush War Powers Against IraqWASHINGTON (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.
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?
Congress Grants Bush War Powers Against IraqWASHINGTON (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.
You can't say the economy peaked and then call it a recession.
Right wing definition of "Freedom":
The complete abscence of responsibility
