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.
All GOP Regulators were Pals of the people they were supposed to be regulating countrywide etc. It wasn't the bill or the regulations, it was The Regulators who are corrupt, just like The Regulators' oversight on Big Oil big Pharma big Health. Toxic assets being rated a+ etc etc.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.There was the little matter of George Bush's corrupt economic meltdown Obama came to office d u h so stupid...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.
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).
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.
All GOP Regulators were Pals of the people they were supposed to be regulating countrywide etc. It wasn't the bill or the regulations, it was The Regulators who are corrupt, just like The Regulators' oversight on Big Oil big Pharma big Health. Toxic assets being rated a+ etc etc.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.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).
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.
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.
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 see once again you ducked my question (I see you watching this thread like a hawk with all the Smilies you keep putting up).
Since you keep saying how America should keep fighting in Iraq/Afghanistan...
so, if you were young enough, would you join up and serve/fight (and be prepared to give your life) in Iraq/Afghanistan?
Yes or no, please?
Even if you say 'yes' it means little since you are way too old to have to back it up...but at least it would mean you are not a complete hypocrite on the subject.
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...
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."
Progressives announce opposition to Pelosi-backed rule changes
- 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."'
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.
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.
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."
Progressives announce opposition to Pelosi-backed rule changes
- 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."'
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.
Why would not the GOP vote for the PAYGO?
This is why both sides scare me, neither give a rats ass about spending unless talking about it wins them a few votes.
With the GOP controlling the House, the Senate and the White House $1,481,349,159,597 (that is 1.481 trillion) was added to the national debt.
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
That number has only been topped once, in 2009 during the recession. We did it this year under a booming economy.
Why only one side scares you I cannot begin to understand.
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."
Progressives announce opposition to Pelosi-backed rule changes
- 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."'
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.
Those people are not progressivesProgressives 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."
Progressives announce opposition to Pelosi-backed rule changes
- 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."'
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.
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."
Progressives announce opposition to Pelosi-backed rule changes
- 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."'
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.
PAYGO has been around for years and is consistently ignoredProgressives 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."
Progressives announce opposition to Pelosi-backed rule changes
- 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."'
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.
