PDA

View Full Version : Whining About Government Spending!



Gayle in MD
05-14-2010, 11:07 AM
It's only about ten years too late, so unless someone can tell me how you divert a decade long depression without spending, I've had enough of the whining about government spending from the same people who voted for the Bush Administration, who spent us into a ditch!



Bush and the Republicans were the biggest spenders in history, didn't pay for a damn thing! Put us trillions into debt to China and Japan. Failed to regulate Wall Street. Subsidized corpporations that robbed all of us at the gas tank, greatly hurting our economy with their greed, just as Wall Street hurt all of us, all of it happened under REPUBLICAN CONTROL.

There is a difference between spending for things that are purely stupid, like launching wars for oil companies, and forcing democracy down the throats of people on the other side of the world, and spending to keep people in the jobs they have, policemen on the street, teachers in our schools, and trying to reverse a failed and horrendously expensive foreign policy, all at one time!

WTF do people think happens when you launch wars, cut taxes and spend like drunken sailors for six years and don't pay for any of it, while touting The Big Bush Ownership Society!?

JEEZE!

G.

LWW
05-14-2010, 12:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's only about ten years too late, so unless someone can tell me how you divert a decade long depression without spending, I've had enough of the whining about government spending from the same people who voted for the Bush Administration, who spent us into a ditch!
JEEZE!

G.

</div></div>

Do you even know what a depression is.

Here's a hint ... we aren't in one. not have we been in on in the last 65 years.

LWW

pooltchr
05-14-2010, 12:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Bush and the Republicans were the biggest spenders in history, G.

</div></div>

Keep using that line as long as you can. Obama is going to blow his record away!

Steve

LWW
05-14-2010, 12:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush and the Republicans were the biggest spenders in history, didn't pay for a damn thing!

JEEZE!

G.

</div></div>

No they aren't. The biggest spenders in history ... by far ... is the current regime. The biggest as a portion of GDP was FDR and the dems, but the regime has them in their collectivist sights.

To suggest that Bush and the republichickens outspent this crew is ludicrous and evidence of total denial on your part.

LWW

pooltchr
05-14-2010, 12:41 PM
Just remember that "government spending" means they are spending YOUR, your children's and your grandchildren's money.

The budget deficit for April, 2010 = $82 Billion. Your family’s cost? Add the ZERO to the number of Billions and you have taken on $820 of more debt in April for your family to pay.

The recent Stimulus package = $787 Billion. Put the ZERO on that number of Billions and your family’s budget hit for that bill comes to $7,870.

Total US Govt spending for 2010 is estimated to be $3.7 Trillion ($3,700 Billion). Put the ZERO on that number of Billions and your family’s cost for this year’s US Govt comes to $37,000.


Can you afford to pay your share??????????

Steve

LWW
05-14-2010, 12:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Failed to regulate Wall Street. Subsidized corpporations that robbed all of us at the gas tank, greatly hurting our economy with their greed, just as Wall Street hurt all of us, all of it happened under REPUBLICAN CONTROL.

JEEZE!

G.

</div></div>

Balderdash and poppycock.

WS was largely deregulated under Billy Jeff and the republichickens.

Obama is in "BIG OIL'S" back posket more than Bush ever thought about. And, why don't you mention the regime's funding of Soros's off shore drilling in SA?

LWW

LWW
05-14-2010, 12:45 PM
You are talking to yourself Steve.

The leftist baby boomers are enslaving their babies and grand babies for a few crumbs out of Obama's stash.

LWW

pooltchr
05-14-2010, 12:50 PM
I find it amazing that they could cry when Bush spent too much money (I will admit, I was opposed to his spending habits as well, and made it known), but can not see how Obama is spending even more. I guess spending is ok, as long as it's your guy spending it.

She doesn't seem too concerned about who is going to pick up the tab.

Steve

LWW
05-14-2010, 12:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I find it amazing that they could cry when Bush spent too much money (I will admit, I was opposed to his spending habits as well, and made it known), but can not see how Obama is spending even more. I guess spending is ok, as long as it's your guy spending it.

She doesn't seem too concerned about who is going to pick up the tab.

Steve </div></div>

I opposed the republichicken spending binge also.

What's truly funny is, if you remember, the bleat from 2001-2007 was Bush not spending enough.

LWW

LWW
05-14-2010, 01:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>$2.5 Trillion Budget Plan Cuts Many Programs
Domestic Spending Falls; Defense, Security Rise</span>

By Mike Allen and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Monday, February 7, 2005; Page A01</span>

President Bush plans to unveil a $2.5 trillion budget today eliminating dozens of politically sensitive domestic programs, including funding for education, environmental protection and business development, while proposing significant increases for the military and international spending, according to White House documents.

Overall, discretionary spending other than defense and homeland security would fall by nearly 1 percent, the first time in many years that funding for the major part of the budget controlled by Congress would actually go down in real terms, according to officials with access to the budget. ...

Some congressional officials pronounced many of the proposed cuts dead on arrival. One lawmaker involved in the negotiations said that House and Senate leaders have told the White House that no more than two dozen of the 150 proposals are likely to be accepted, although Congress might agree to reductions in some programs targeted for elimination.

"We are being tight," Vice President Cheney said yesterday. "This is the tightest budget that has been submitted since we got here." ...

And some deficit hawks welcomed what they hoped would be a hard-nosed approach to spending at a time when the deficit is projected to reach a record $427 billion <span style='font-size: 14pt'><span style="color: #CC0000">(That is in excess of $1,000,000,000,000.00 less than the current regime's deficit BTW.)</span></span> this year. "With the deficits that we're now running, I'm glad the president is coming over with a very austere budget," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said on ABC's "This Week." "I hope we in Congress will have the courage to support it." ...

Another senior official said the deficit in the Bush plan would decrease from 3.5 percent of gross national product this year to 3 percent in fiscal 2006 and 1.5 percent by 2009 <span style="color: #CC0000">(We are currently over 10% on that basis.)</span>, enough to meet Bush's pledge. In the budget for 2006, discretionary spending -- meaning other than entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare -- would rise just 2.1 percent, lower than the expected rate of inflation. Within that category, extra money would go to defense and homeland security, leaving most other discretionary programs frozen or falling. ...

Still, the administration plans to cut costly weapons programs such as an Air Force advanced fighter plane, a stealthy Navy destroyer and the next generation of nuclear submarines. Bush's missile defense program would likewise lose billions of dollars in funding in coming years.

The budget includes no subsidy for Amtrak and would eliminate $20 million for the next generation of high-speed rail and $250 million for railroad rehabilitation. Several Energy Department programs would be eliminated, as would $100 million in grants for land and water conservation. The budget proposal would cut $94 million in grants for the Healthy Communities Access Program and phase out rural health grants, the documents said. Bush touted his commitment to such programs during his reelection campaign. The president would terminate the Community Food and Nutrition Program, and cut a migrant and seasonal farm worker training program. He would renew his effort to cut a $143 million program for the removal of severely distressed housing.

Administration officials said that in some cases, programs identified for eradication would be replaced in part by increased spending elsewhere. Some cuts in specific programs would be replaced by block grants to states and localities, although critics contend that often leads to less money. </div></div>

&gt;&gt;&gt;TRUTH VS TRUTHINESSS&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3319-2005Feb6.html)

LWW

Stretch
05-14-2010, 02:19 PM
My eyes just glazed over at the streaming line of BS from the pair of them. It's like a Republican rap song. Where's P-Ditty? Just cut to the dancing girls. St.

Gayle in MD
05-14-2010, 02:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My eyes just glazed over at the streaming line of BS from the pair of them. It's like a Republican rap song. Where's P-Ditty? Just cut to the dancing girls. St. </div></div>

LOL, that's why I just put them on ignore. Really, we all should do that.

Notice how I am stalking their posts, LMAO!


Think of the tune of that old dance called The Stroll, and sing the melody whil you, Scroll......

Hear me singing....Strolloaoal /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
Love,


G.

Deeman3
05-14-2010, 03:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just remember that "government spending" means they are spending YOUR, your children's and your grandchildren's money.

The budget deficit for April, 2010 = $82 Billion. Your family’s cost? Add the ZERO to the number of Billions and you have taken on $820 of more debt in April for your family to pay.

The recent Stimulus package = $787 Billion. Put the ZERO on that number of Billions and your family’s budget hit for that bill comes to $7,870.

Total US Govt spending for 2010 is estimated to be $3.7 Trillion ($3,700 Billion). Put the ZERO on that number of Billions and your family’s cost for this year’s US Govt comes to $37,000.


Can you afford to pay your share??????????

Steve </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">Ever notice the timing of someone getting put on ignore coincides with factual data being brought to the argument? Just asking! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span>

LWW
05-14-2010, 04:54 PM
I've noticed that as well.

LWW

LWW
05-14-2010, 04:55 PM
Don't be so hard on Gayle. I don't think she's a bad person ... just brainwashed.

LWW

pooltchr
05-14-2010, 05:29 PM
Yeah, they really do hate to face reality. Did you notice that the figures posted are only in the last year? That is OBAMA'S bill...nobody else's.

Steve

hondo
05-14-2010, 07:24 PM
Don't be so hard on LWW. I don't think he's a bad person ... just brainwashed.

LWW
05-15-2010, 03:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yeah, they really do hate to face reality. Did you notice that the figures posted are only in the last year? That is OBAMA'S bill...nobody else's.

Steve </div></div>

Which is why it's Bush's fault.

I f Bush wouldn't have rand a $400,000,000,000 deficit then Obama wouldn't have to run a $1,500,000,000,000.00 deficit.

All you have to remember is that if it isn't good ... blame Bush. If it is good ... credit Obama.

I especially like the explanations about how Bush/Cheney are handing out oil drilling waivers in the 17th month of the Obama regime.

LWW

LWW
05-15-2010, 04:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you see me continuing to post on other threads, you certainly
have a right to gloat</div></div>

LWW

sack316
05-15-2010, 07:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
All you have to remember is that if it isn't good ... blame Bush. If it is good ... credit Obama.
</div></div>

In many cases, it seems to go even deeper than that. If it's bad blame Bush. If it's good credit Obama. If it's still bad, still blame Bush but find something 'good' in it and credit Obama for it.

I sometimes think the perspective, oh let's use 9-11 as an example, would be something like this were Obama president and it happened now. AA11, UA175, AA77= all Bush's fault. UA93= credit Obama for limiting the damage.

Sack

Qtec
05-15-2010, 08:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I f Bush wouldn't have rand a $400,000,000,000 deficit </div></div>

Was that all? How about Bush's bailout of Wall St and the banks? Is that included?
How about the hidden costs for the wars ans the intrest on the Nat Debt that Bush doubled?

Q

LWW
05-15-2010, 08:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I f Bush wouldn't have rand a $400,000,000,000 deficit </div></div>

Was that all? How about Bush's bailout of Wall St and the banks? Is that included?
How about the hidden costs for the wars ans the intrest on the Nat Debt that Bush doubled?

Q </div></div>

I didn't approve of it at all.

There was a senator from Illinois however ... you might have heard of him, goes by the names of Barack Obama/Barry Obama/Barry Soetero ... who voted for the TARP bill.

In fact, at the time the left was tripping over each other to lavish prais on him for his leadership in crafting the TARP bill.

Please see the posts above because you are living breathing proof that there are people who think the bill was bad because Bush was for it and think it was good because Obama was for it.

Those of us with fully oxygenated brains are either for it, or against it.

LWW

Gayle in MD
05-15-2010, 08:55 AM
Aiming that at me?

Cherry picked "Facts" don't interest me.

I put people on ignore when I notice they are eliminating facts, in order to promote a false agenda, rewrite history, and reassign the responsibility away from the incompetent, who created the disasters, over to the person who is having to get out of the disasters.


The "Fact" is, this President inherited situations from Bush, which required that he spend money to avoid loads of other very serious and dangerous consequences of Bush's legacy. Fact is, he had no good options.

Fact is nearly every historian stated that only one president ever inherited so many equally bad and prevasively disastrous, multilevel, horrendous circumstances, and even in that case, much of Obama's inherited Bush F.ups, were worse, since no other president had ever faced so many disasteres in the midst of a fairly new, and still adjusting, global econoomy, and hence, Obama's inheritance from Bush was the worst, EVER....and probably even trumped all others.

Now if you want to build a BS story that Obama is a socialist, who allowed the health insurance industry to write the Bill, then how do you choose at the same time to ignore Bush's multi trilliion dollar "socialist" pharmaceutical benefit expansion, written by the pharmaceutical industry, with no plan or proof that he could pay for any it, and no Republican asking him how it would ever be paid for, and in fact, he didn't pay for any of it....he just kept on borrowing money, and charging it on his communist country card, and spending like the X-alcoholic, cokehead that he is.

And then, if on top of that you spend eight years denying the folly of the reasons he gave, or didn't give, for why he borrowed more money than all previous administrations, combined, cut taxes, subsidized corporate corruption, launched two wars, never finishing either of them, ignored all breaking of the law by his administration, appointed lobbyists to head regulatory agencies of their former customers, trashed the Constitution, laws of the land, the Geneva conventions, and allowed a global disaster in the financial market to build into nearly a global depression, without doing one damn thing to divert it, AFTER being warned it was coming years before it arrived, yet one continues to present their posts with condescending remarks, then you end up on ignore, not because you HAVE any facts, but becaause you Don't have all the facts integrated into your partisan theories, and becuse you are rude and condescending on top of it, using "You" in a general form, of course.

I don't think one could justifiably build any case that I am not interested in facts, and surely not anyone who voted twice for Bush.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Generally speaking, of course, I generally only put people on ignore, because I have determined that they're just another blathering Bubba, repeating Teabagging, LimpaughPalinBeckizspeak, aka, stupidity. One does learn, after a while, which people come out of wrong headed, unkind, intentions. I ignore those people.

G.

pooltchr
05-15-2010, 09:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The "Fact" is, this President inherited situations from Bush, which required that he spend money to avoid loads of other very serious and dangerous consequences of Bush's legacy. Fact is, he had no good options.


G. </div></div>

Why do you continue to repeat this lie?

The fact is, the government had a budget, so that amount of money was going to be spent by the government, regardless of who the president was.

Here's the tricky part, so try to pay attention. The only money the government can spend is money they take from the taxpayers (read "from the economy"). They collect taxes, and distribute the money back into the economy. So government can not stimulate the economy, unless they either a) take more money from the economy to distribute b) borrow money from somewhere and hope the taxpayers will provide them enough revenue to pay it back, or c) print more money, which makes all the money already in circulation worth less.

Governments do not produce anything, so they can not boost the economy. Businesses produce, and therefore add to the economy. The GDP goes up only through the efforts of business and their employees.

So really, all Obama did was take a big chunk of money we didn't have, and allocate it for a trillion dollars worth of pork and pet projects to generate goodwill for his party members with the voters back home.

This is really a very simple economic concept that you continue to ignore.

Steve

LWW
05-15-2010, 10:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why do you continue to repeat this lie?

Steve </div></div>

I'm hoping that was a rhetorical question. I feel the answer is self evident.

LWW

LWW
05-15-2010, 10:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Governments do not produce anything

Steve </div></div>

Incorrect.

They produce higher rates of unemployment, broken homes, porous borders, fiat money, mountains of debt, crippled industries that were once mighty.

Now, if as I assume, you meant they produce nothing of positive value I can largely agree.

LWW

LWW
05-15-2010, 10:15 AM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/ONLINE%20ARGUMENTS/newbornLLS01.jpg

Explain it to her Gayle ... I'm sure she'll understand that salvaging Obama's legacy was more important than her inheriting the opportunities that prior generations passed on to you.

LWW