Desperate White House Tries to Blame Tea Party for Downgrade,on FTN

So the first 2 years the democrats had a super majority but is it the Tea party fault. More blaming others and hypocrisy from Obama and the democrats

 

Democrats increased the National debt from $9 trillion to $15 trillion in 4 years. An increase of $6 trillion in 4 years after it took 230 years to get to $9 trillion. and you attempt to blame it on the tea party. The desperate excuses of loony liberal-land are hilarious.

 

The asinine hypocrisy of the "it's everyone's fault but ours" from the blatantly liable Spendocrats isw falling on deaf ears.

The American Electorate will show how tired they are of the never-ending "burn Rome and blame the Christians" mentality of the Left, come November, 2012.

Get readt, Leftninnies; it's coming....

 

Iraq had no connection with 9/11 plenty of countries knew that, bush all ignored it let them find the correct evidence and ignored all the rest.

He wanted to inbvade iraq 9/11 was the perfect excuse.

ANd the wars was just an example, TARP is another, tax cuts is another . You pretending all the spending is 100% democrats is quite stupid. Yes democrats spent as well, to recover the economy.

 

Didnt notice all your answers have been very weak .

First part of the under a republican president, second almost ALL of it in the worst recession people remember .

Third previous policy (bush , clinton ) also has effect and fourth yes democrats spent on health care and on recovering the economy .

Again what is your solution telling the recovery isnt fast enough is laughable if you cant tell what will help.

 

Attempting to discuss the problems confronting our nation with folks on the far right is highly frustrating for a number of reasons as follows:

1) a really dismal knowledge of U.S. and World History
2) a poor or confused understanding of political and economic systems
3) sloganeering -- basing political beliefs and goals on Madison Avenue catch phrases
4) an inability to interpret and/or comprehend Constitutional and English Common Law
5) accepting without challenge assertions made on Talk Radio or TV faux news

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

Sure keeping the banks alive and tax breaks are "wipe-every-nose social welfare program"

And underinvestment for a decade because you spend too much on useless wars result later in what we are seeing now yes.

 

And? You do realise a painting says nothing?

Show me evidence of this link. Should be good as buh looked for years and found nothing.

 

You got all 5 wrong. You need to study more and spend less time swallowing liberal nonsense.

FAIL.

 

Excuse? Have you ever looked at a map of the region? here lemme help:


Can you spot our allies in the region relative to Iraq?
And our known/suspected enemies? general hot spots? and possible associated conflicts?
You are aware we were in an decade long "cold" (but expensive) war with Iraq?
And you are now, 8 years later aware of the weakened state in which this war left Iraq?*
10 years after invading Afg, 8 yrs after invading Iraq, which country is moving away from combat into nation-building?
In 10 more years which nation will likely be more influential (as a thriving Muslim democracy) in the Muslim world?
Which is likely to yield to us more diplomatic access to the Muslim world?
Which is likely to yield long term freedoms for its citizens?
Which is likely to be the better long term investment for the American taxpayers' buck/blood?

Apply this to Afg, Iraq, and now Libya:
In Afg, we should have obliterated AQ's camps/networks there. Papered the place with flyers that if the Afghanis leased caves to AQ again, we'd be back with more boots and more toys. Then left.
Iraq answered questions, ended a stalemate, and offered an opportunity at a successful "nation-building" mission that would yield an ally in a troubled region...and yes...an FOB.
We are only in Libya in order to prop up the French/Eu economy. Period.

I can understand people's consternation over not finding WMDs back in the day.
What I cannot understand is that after 10 years of people being able to study the situation, they still cannot grasp the bigger picture.

Agreed. Politicians are elected to work for the people but they go to DC and work for their parties, and their parties work for the bundlers.

 

Iraq war, how much of the $1 trillion for both Iraq and Afghanistan do you wish to assign to Iraq? Or do you also think we should have just stuck our thumbs up our butts after 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 according to the liberal mob, OK. how much of the $1 trillion to the Iraq war? Tax cuts. Are we talking about those tax cuts that the Democratic controlled Congress extended in Dec. 2010. Their LAST act in control,of both Houses, those tax cuts? The ones that odrama signed into law on Dec. 17 2010?
So what ARE those tax cuts? They reduce the rate on the top tier from 39.6% to 35%. A 4.6 point reduction amounting to an 11% reduction. Thus saving the "RICH" about $70 billion a year in 2011 dollars. Those same tax cuts cut the rate on EVERY lower bracket an amount greater than the cut for the "RICH." The bottom bracket was reduced from 15% to 10% a 5 point or 33% reduction. Thus saving the middle class and below $300 billion per year. The "Bush" tax cuts were implemented in stages with full implementation coming in FY 2006. But lets go with the full amount from 2003 through 2010. $70 billion for the "RICH" plus $300 billion for "all others." That's $370 billion per year X 7 years = $2,590 TRILLION. With the breakdown of the "RICH" saving $490 billion and the middle class and below saving $$2,100 TRILLION. Now do you demonize the saving for the "RICH?" The savings by the middle class and below? Or ALL the tax cuts?

Before you answer, keep in mind that the last year of Republican control of Congress, the wars had been going on and the tax cuts were fully implemented, yet those horrible Republicans were able to bring in $2,568 trillion [the most revenue our government has ever enjoyed] and they only spent $2,729 TRILLION with THE 2 WARS IN PROGRESS. All welfare got paid, all public employee unions got their money. No teachers or policemen or firemen were laid off and we had a deficit of $161 billion.
Now revenue is exactly $394.5 billion less and we have a deficit of an AVERAGE over $1,500 TRILLION.

TARP, you're not a fan of TARP and neither am I.

However TARP was touted at $700 billion.

On July 13 of this year, 2011, a person named Timothy Geithner. The Secretary of the Treasury appointed by odrama even though Mr. Geithner did not know how to pay his income tax, thereby making him eminently qualified to serve on the incompetent idiots cabinet, SAID: "All of the TARP funds have been paid back except for $50 billion dollars that we deem noncollectable." Making TARP a net cost of $50 billion. Not a big chunk of deficits exceeding $1,293.5 trillion EVERY YEAR of Democratic REIGN.

So with the wars, with the tax cuts, with Bush as president, those dastardly Republicans were able to pay all our bills except $161 billion.

Now with revenue only $394.5 billion less. Democrats must spend over $3,800 trillion [OVER $1.1 trillion more than Republicans spent] Accumulate a deficit OVER $1,700 Trillion [a figure more than the total deficits accumulated under Bush with a Republican Congress] And yet must lay off people because the Democrats don't have enough money to pay our bills.

And I haven't even added in QE1 and QE2 where the Democrats printed up more money than the USA in its entire history EVER had in circulation.

Now do you understand that when the Republicans spent $2,729 TRILLION while their revenue was $2,568 TRILLION, THAT is terrible money management. What they did was BAD. It is not what we should ever tolerate from our elected officials. Only now, COMPARED, to the total insanity that is the Democratic perversion of any reasonable fiscal irresponsibility, does the Republican performance look relatively small. IT was NOT, it was terrible.

There are no words for how bad the Democratic actions are.

 

The Tea Party folks wish to see our debt paid. They just don't want to see it keep skyrocketing, and give Obama a blank check to put us into even more debt. The hemorrhaging has to stop.

 

Complete lie; Bush NEVER claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11. NEVER. Another Leftlie, told so often, they now pretend it's true.

Bush correctly named Hussein (Saddam, not Barack), as a supporter of world terror, and in violation of the terms of the ceasefire he had agreed to , to end hostilities in Desert Storm.

BOTH were absolutely True.

 

The left lie to themselves so much that they are not able to define reality from the world of the left.

 

A frontal lobotomy and electro-shock treatments are a requirement of becoming a liberal. If any signs of any attachment to reality is ever shown, the beatings continue until all association with reality is crushed.
Obviously their system is working well.

 

grrrrrrrrrrr -- rant again

 

Now..now...nice dragon...!

 

"Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."


Plenty of speeches like that of bush.

The reasaon to go to war was WMD those were never found and were mostly a fabrication of the bush gouvernement.

Face it he duped his entire nation to go to war and you re-elected him.

 

Expensive? BS that war was payed for by others, if I rememeber correctly USA made profit out of it.

And no, iraq was contained I dont see how iraq would attack any of the USA allies in that region. Tell me to who he was a threat.

BS, lybia is of NO importance to the french or EU economy.

There is no bigger picture. iraq was a whim, a mistake they tried to justify later. Plenty of countries in the region are throwing out dictators with less bloodshed AND a lot less violence.

 

No but its clear both were a mistake.

No according to facts.

And how much of the 1.3 trillion is iraq? About 800 billion I believe. ANd that probably doesnt count all the expenses hidden in other departments.

Sure after obama got as a compromise in extension of unemployment and tax reduction and credit for lower incomes. Republicans wouldnt even talk about that if he didnt allow the bush tax cuts to remain in place.

What does it matter? It strange to see people talk they dont have money for anything and then defend tax cuts for the rich and middle class, while at the same time refuse to even talk about simular incentives for lower class .

And its nice to see you play with % but translate that in actuall numbers and its easy to see that the richer the more you benefited .

Of course that wasnt after or during the biggest recession anyone can rememeber. Its little facts people like you always forget that makes such arguments stupid. Add to that the effect of a decade of low investment by the gouverbnement, added costs of wars

I am not a fan of it because it basicly was a blanc cheque. There should have been provision in it by bush and regulate the banks. In reality he made a bad situation (large banks who can have a huge impact on the economy) even worse by making them even bigger and thus make sure they will ever be supported by tax dollars should they fail.

You still simply ignore the fact that the spending now is to let the economy recover. Its tax breaks, incentives, public works that goes directly into the USA,...

Yes there are some entitlement programs but even those are spent in the USA.

Compare that to foreign wars and housing bubbles.

 

Wow, you really are too entrenched in your ideology to even consider the options and alternatives.

So be it, no point is sharing pictures with the blind.

 

When liberals consider 00.04% 'growth.' Its no wonder they think $4 trillion dollars they wasted to be a 'necessary' amount. Evidently liberals, besides being loony, unaware of actual history, and gullible beyond belief, are also seriously mathematically "challenged."