PDA

View Full Version : A few inconvenient truths for Reid and Obama.



Sev
08-05-2011, 01:17 PM
How will the our Harpy dispute this???


<span style="color: #000000">
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/0...nherited-meme/

A few inconvenient truths getting in the way of the “inherited” meme

August 5, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

As Barack Obama continues to blame his predecessor for the tanking economy and the chronic unemployment that Obama promised to avoid with his big stimulus package more than two years ago, and as other Democrats get aboard the Blameshift Express, Byron York attempts to set the record straight. He focuses on the claim that eight years of spending and “reckless tax cuts” by the Bush administration bankrupted the country. When one looks at the numbers, the Democratic argument doesn’t stand up at all:

This week a Florida Democratic representative, Corrine Brown, explained her vote against the debt-ceiling agreement by citing “eight years of horribly reckless spending and excessive tax cuts for the rich under President Bush and the Republican Congress.”

Some critics have trouble with even the most basic facts. George W. Bush was indeed president for eight years. But do Brown and her colleagues remember that Congress was fully controlled by Republicans just four of those eight years? The GOP ran the House from 2001 to 2007, Bush’s first six years in office, while Republicans only controlled the Senate from 2003 to 2007. (In Bush’s first three months, the Senate was divided 50-50 until the May 2001 defection of Republican Sen. James Jeffords gave Democrats control.)

As far as tax cuts are concerned, Bush did indeed cut taxes for the wealthy — along with everybody else who paid income taxes. But does Brown remember that tax revenues actually increased in the years after the Bush tax cuts took effect?

<span style="color: #990000"><span style='font-size: 20pt'>Revenues fell in Bush’s first two years because of a combination of the tech bust and the start of the tax cuts. But then things took off. After taking in $1.782 trillion in tax revenues in 2003, the government collected $1.88 trillion in 2004; $2.153 trillion in 2005; $2.406 trillion in 2006; and $2.567 trillion in 2007, according to figures compiled by the Office of Management and Budget. That’s a 44 percent increase from 2003 to 2007. (Revenues slid downward a bit in 2008, and a lot in 2009, when the financial crisis sent the economy into a tailspin.) “Everybody talks about how much the Bush tax cuts ‘cost,’” says one GOP strategist. “We’re saying, no, they led to a huge increase in revenue.”</span></span>

And deficits shrank. After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus in 2001, the Bush administration ran up deficits of $158 billion in 2002; $378 billion in 2003; and $413 billion in 2004. Then, with revenues pouring in, the deficits began to fall: $318 billion in 2005; $248 billion in 2006; and $161 billion in 2007. <span style="color: #990000"><span style='font-size: 20pt'>That 2007 deficit, with the tax cuts in effect, was one-tenth of today’s $1.6 trillion deficit.</span>
</span>
<span style="color: #006600"><span style='font-size: 26pt'>York notes that it wasn’t until Democrats took over Congress in 2007 — including one Democrat named Barack Obama in the Senate — that deficits began exploding.</span>
</span>
Next, Harry Reid said that the loss of eight million jobs came during “the Bush eight years” in a floor speech this week, a claim that Politifact rated as “pants on fire”:

“My friend (Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.) talks about no new taxes,” Reid said. “Mr. President, if their theory was right, with these huge (tax cuts) that took place during the Bush eight years, the economy should be thriving. These tax cuts have not helped the economy. The loss of eight million jobs during the Bush eight years, two wars started, unfunded, all on borrowed money, these tax cuts all on borrowed money — if the tax cuts were so good, the economy should be thriving. If we go back to the prior eight years during President Clinton’s administration, 23 million new jobs were created.”

<span style="color: #990000"><span style='font-size: 20pt'>A reader asked us whether Reid was correct that there was a “loss of eight million jobs during the Bush eight years.” So we looked into it.

As always, we looked at jobs numbers compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the government’s official source of employment data.

During Bush’s eight years in office — January 2001 to January 2009 — the nation actually gained a net 1.09 million jobs. (Because there were gains in government jobs, the private sector actually lost 653,000 jobs during that period.)

This isn’t remotely close to what Reid claimed. Reid’s office didn’t respond to our request for information, but we think we know what he was referring to.
</span></span>
From the economy’s peak to its low point, the nation lost 8.75 million jobs. Here’s the problem: The peak for jobs came in January 2008, while the low point for jobs came in February 2010. This means the starting point for Reid’s measure came seven years into Bush’s eight-year tenure, and the low point occurred about a year into Barack Obama’s tenure.

<span style='font-size: 23pt'><span style="color: #CC0000">In other words, Reid had a point in saying that there was a “loss of eight million jobs” — but it didn’t come “during the Bush eight years.” The loss of eight million jobs occurred during a roughly two-year period shared more or less equally between Bush and Obama.
</span></span>
Well, the data is easily retrievable from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (now that it’s finally back on line), so let’s take a look at seasonally-adjusted private-sector employment over the last twenty years. I’ve compiled the total number (seasonally adjusted) of private-sector jobs each month over the last 20 years and put them into this chart:

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t278/Sevelli/Political/private-employment2.jpg

The blue colors of this graph show when Democrats held complete control of Congress, while the white areas show when Republicans held complete control. The two purple areas show when Democrats controlled the Senate, as York notes above, and when Republicans controlled only the House. This gives a much different picture of when job losses occurred, and who controlled policy in Congress when it happened.

When Democrats talk about “eight years of job losses” during the Bush administration, just show them this chart.</span>

LWW
08-05-2011, 02:54 PM
Pearls before swine brother.

If you chained the cabal down and explained it to them until the end of time, the simply couldn't process that their beloved party has pimped them.

Sev
08-05-2011, 03:18 PM
They need their own private island.

Soflasnapper
08-05-2011, 03:54 PM
This 'control of Congress' crap sounds compelling, but is not.

In what way do you say the Democratic Party controlled Congress did anything major about spending or government receipts of revenue?

I believe there was nothing added to spending or subtracted from revenues by anything the Democratic Congress in the last 2 Bush years did.

For you always had the GOP able to block anything in the Senate they wanted, and the president always had a veto power.

Curious, do you have any idea how to justify this implicit position the talking point implies, or do you just blindly accept it because the party and calendar changed?

Just as a reminder, when the Democratic control came into effect, the whole year of 2007 until October was under the 2007 Fiscal Year, which had been passed with the GOP in control of both houses of Congress plus controlling the WH.

So any budgetary influence was limited to 1 year and 3 months, not 2 years. Not that they changed any major program or funding levels, in any case, in that abbreviated time frame. Isn't that the stone cold fact?

Soflasnapper
08-05-2011, 06:46 PM
Without the partisan spin, here's a more dispassionate and accurate accounting:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Contemporary issues and debates

[edit] Cause of decline in U.S. financial position

Both economic conditions and policy decisions significantly worsened the debt outlook since 2001, when large surpluses were forecast for the following decade by the CBO. The Pew Center reported in April 2011 the cause of a $12.7 trillion shift in the debt situation, from a 2001 CBO forecast of $2.3 trillion cumulative surplus by 2011 versus the estimated $10.4 trillion public debt in 2011. The major drivers were:

Revenue declines due to two recessions, separate from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 28%
Defense spending increases: 15%
The Bush Tax cuts (EGTRRA-2001 and JGTRRA-2003): 13%
Increases in net interest: 11%
Other non-defense spending: 10%
Other tax cuts: 8%
Obama Stimulus: 6%
Medicare Part D: 2%
Other reasons: 7%[2]

Similar analyses were reported by the New York Times in June 2009,[52] the Washington Post in April 2011[53] and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in May 2011.[54] Economist Paul Krugman wrote in May 2011: "What happened to the budget surplus the federal government had in 2000? The answer is, three main things. First, there were the Bush tax cuts, which added roughly $2 trillion to the national debt over the last decade. Second, there were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which added an additional $1.1 trillion or so. And third was the Great Recession, which led both to a collapse in revenue and to a sharp rise in spending on unemployment insurance and other safety-net programs."[55] A Bloomberg analysis in May 2011 attributed $2.0 trillion of the $9.3 trillion of public debt (20%) to additional military and intelligence spending since September 2001, plus another $45 billion annually in interest.[56]

The extent to which the deficit and debt increases are a cause or effect of wider systemic problems is frequently debated. For example, in January 2008, then GAO Director David Walker pointed to four types of "deficits" that cause the overall fiscal problem: budget, trade, savings and leadership.[57]</div></div>

From Wiki's 'US Federal Budget' page, here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget)

Note that Obama's stimulus spending contributed almost as much as half (46%) the contribution of W's tax cuts.

Sev
08-05-2011, 09:08 PM
You actually trust wiki?

ugotda7
08-05-2011, 09:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You actually trust wiki? </div></div>

Hell, he probably typed that info into Wiki himself.

LWW
08-06-2011, 02:50 AM
Actually it doesn't say that at all.

What it does say is that democrook stupidonomic policies which have decimated federal revenue contributed 215% of what they claim the tax cuts cost ... the Obama stupidonomic stimulus another 46% ... additional inyerest from democrook stupidonomic policies another 85% ... and other stuoidonomic spending cost another 77% of the accused costs of the Bush tax cuts.

On top of that, the CBO assumptions on the costs of the tax cuts always make the stupidonomic assumption that if the cuts were never there, everything else would have still happened exactly the same.

LWW
08-06-2011, 02:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You actually trust wiki? </div></div>

Hell, he probably typed that info into Wiki himself. </div></div>

He certainly didn't take the time to comprehend it.

Qtec
08-06-2011, 04:30 AM
Do you have a SPECIFIC link to this lie?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">democrook stupidonomic policies which have decimated federal revenue </div></div>

Idiot.

After 6 years of Bush tax cuts, revenue was back where to it was 6 years earlier! Some progress for the TRILLION $ that it cost.

For 30 years now the myth that tax cuts increase revenue [ Voodoo Economics ] has been faithfully repeated by GOP politicians and nutjobs like you.

ALL the evidence says otherwise. Accept it.

Also, [ GW is a fact, not a conspiracy!....etc etc etc.]

Q

LWW
08-06-2011, 04:52 AM
And again you embrace the lie.

Back to reality ... US federal income in 2003 was$1,782.3B. In 4 years that had increased to $2,568B. That's an increase of 44.1%.

The the democrooks took congress.

In the 4 years following, revenue fell to $2,173.7B. That's a drop of 15.2%.

Now, even if you take into account the democrook debacle ... revenue is still up 22% over the last 8 years.

Now ... why then do we have a deficit so large?

From 2003 to 2007 spending rose from $2,159.9B to $2,728.7B. That's a 26.3% increase.

Then it gets worse.

From 2007 through 2011 spending rose to $3,818.8B ... that's a 39.9% increase.

Now, here's the killer. Had we held spending to the 2003 level, we would this year be running a surplus ... using the same formula the Clintonista used to claim a surplus ... of $13.8B.

That's before we take into account that the left's stupidonomic policies caused the economy to contract and grow far slower than it had in the past.

And, before you try to bleat "WHO LIVES ON 2003 MONEY" all figures are inflation adjusted.

So, in reality, in excess of 100% of our deficit comes from the increased spending of the democrook party during the last 4 years.

Less than 0% of the deficit comes from the Bush era tax cuts ... less than 0% comes from the 2 wars ... less than 0% comes from Medicare Part D.

My source ... THE OBAMA REGIME. ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/)

Soflasnapper
08-06-2011, 11:50 AM
Other than perhaps erroneously allowing the existing Bush programs to grow as they had been set up to grow in their enactment, what specifically did the Democratic controlled Congress do, according to you, to either blow up spending by so much as you say, or decrease revenues?

And how did the GOP in the Senate, or W in the WH, let them get away with some very large Democratic idea, so as to get it passed through both Houses and somehow get W to sign it, instead of vetoing it?

Isn't it the fact that there was no new major Democratic spending, or cutting in revenues, by anything enacted into law through the Congress and signed into law by the POTUS?

So you wave your hands in some magic trick to say they were responsible, when nothing different was done?

Qtec
08-07-2011, 03:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Isn't it the fact that there was no new major Democratic spending, </div></div>

I have posed this Q many times before but still no answer.

Q

LWW
08-07-2011, 06:12 AM
So there was no demokrookk stimulus plan ... no OBAMACARE ... none of that actually happened ... the demokrookks rigged the books to make it appear as if they had spent an additional $2,860.4B since 2007 when they actually had not?

WOW! (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/)

Soflasnapper
08-07-2011, 02:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So there was no demokrookk stimulus plan ... no OBAMACARE ... none of that actually happened ... the demokrookks rigged the books to make it appear as if they had spent an additional $2,860.4B since 2007 when they actually had not?

WOW! (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/)
</div></div>

Obamacare passed into law and started costing money in '07?

Amazing, if true.

Maybe it was the 'surge' that began to cost so much extra money around that timeframe? (Not especially a Democratic Party preferred proposal.)

LWW
08-07-2011, 04:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obamacare passed into law and started costing money in '07?</div></div>

Nobody said that of course ... although the congressional push started to charge hard right about then.

Now, other than a lame attempt at deflection, what was your point in presenting such a sill Alinsky argument?

What's that?

You didn't actually have a point, you just wanted me to attempt to defend a position I never actually took?

Imagine that.

Soflasnapper
08-07-2011, 04:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> So there was no demokrookk stimulus plan ... no OBAMACARE ... none of that actually happened ... the demokrookks rigged the books to make it appear as if they had spent an additional $2,860.4B since 2007 when they actually had not?</div></div>

Perhaps I misunderstood why you mention Obamacare in the same sentence as the large additional spending you blame on them.

Hard to make much sense of your word salads at times, I admit.

This is tiresomely repetitive with you.

To recap, the federal government spending was set in '07, through to September 30th 2007, by the prior GOP Congress in '06 (with W's signature). As the spending of the US government is reported ON THE FISCAL YEAR BASIS, none of whatever increase that happened, you say, in FY '07 had anything to do with the Democrats making vast new spending programs, or any new spending at all. That was spending either baked in the cake from before, or initiated newly (if there was new spending, in FY '07) by the GOP, as THEY set the budget for FY '07 themselves.

So any new Democratic spending in the final Bush term would have been put in place by them no sooner than October 1 of '07 (the beginning of FY '08). And there still doesn't appear to be any answer from you as to what, if anything, you claim the Democrats did that jacked up the spending in FY '08.

I know I've likely had you scurrying to your go-to right wing sites to try to find something-- ANYTHING-- that can answer this question. And based on a nil result answer from you, despite multiple requests for your explanation on this, you haven't found anything that can bear up to scrutiny as doing what you've claimed.

Qtec
08-08-2011, 12:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Obama: No More War Spending Tricks</span>


In his address last night on the economic crisis, President Barack Obama made it official: <u>No more budgetary sleight-of-hand at the Pentagon.</u>

As we have noted here before, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the U.S. military has largely paid for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through emergency spending measures, in effect keeping wartime costs off the books.</span> In addition to masking skyrocketing budget growth at the Department of Defense, this process has allowed the services to treat budget supplementals as a piggy bank for new procurement. Members of Congress may have grumbled about poor oversight, but they have largely acquiesced.

Obama’s message? Not anymore.

"That is why this budget looks ahead ten years and accounts for spending that was left out under the old rules – and for the first time, that includes the full cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," he said. "For seven years, we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price." </div></div>

Q

ugotda7
08-08-2011, 12:46 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"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Obama: No More War Spending Tricks</span>


In his address last night on the economic crisis, President Barack Obama made it official: <u>No more budgetary sleight-of-hand at the Pentagon.</u>

As we have noted here before, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the U.S. military has largely paid for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through emergency spending measures, in effect keeping wartime costs off the books.</span> In addition to masking skyrocketing budget growth at the Department of Defense, this process has allowed the services to treat budget supplementals as a piggy bank for new procurement. Members of Congress may have grumbled about poor oversight, but they have largely acquiesced.

Obama’s message? Not anymore.

"That is why this budget looks ahead ten years and accounts for spending that was left out under the old rules – and for the first time, that includes the full cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," he said. "For seven years, we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price." </div></div>

Q </div></div>

Nobody's been hiding the price.....and that's not the problem. Hey look, it's right here - http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

Damn you are just so clueless and gullible - a true liberal wet dream

Qtec
08-08-2011, 01:12 AM
If I said, "it says so in the Bible" and as proof I gave you a link to the<span style='font-size: 17pt'> whole </span>Bible, most people would call that idiotic.

Be specific if you want to be taken seriously.

Does your mother know you are up this late?

Q

LWW
08-08-2011, 02:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> So there was no demokrookk stimulus plan ... no OBAMACARE ... none of that actually happened ... the demokrookks rigged the books to make it appear as if they had spent an additional $2,860.4B since 2007 when they actually had not?</div></div>

Perhaps I misunderstood why you mention Obamacare in the same sentence as the large additional spending you blame on them.

Hard to make much sense of your word salads at times, I admit.

This is tiresomely repetitive with you.

To recap, the federal government spending was set in '07, through to September 30th 2007, by the prior GOP Congress in '06 (with W's signature). As the spending of the US government is reported ON THE FISCAL YEAR BASIS, none of whatever increase that happened, you say, in FY '07</div></div>

And again with the Alinsky tactic lies.

I made no claim at all as to demokrook spending increase IN 2007. I said SINCE 2007.

I did, and still do, believe that anyone quasi fluent in English with an iota of intellectual integrity would realize that "SINCE 2007" would mean 2008 and after ... being that a congress seated in 2007 would set a budget for 2008*.

Next false argument that you would like to attempt to assign to me ... that I will crush before you and the dembots collectivist eyes?

* - 2010 demokrookk congress excluded as they acted as total cowards by refusing to do their duty under the COTUS.

Soflasnapper
08-09-2011, 01:08 PM
You can explain how it was, and what it was, that the Democrats did in the last two calendar years of Bush, which both avoided the GOP's Senate filibusters, and the president's veto power, which caused any new large spending burst.

Continuing, or refusing to end, GOP-Congress-passed, and GOP president signed initiatives, do not count as THEIR new spending or programs.

Since you haven't been able to show ONE SINGLE THING that was done, perhaps there wasn't anything particularly they did (other than continue programs already in place from the first 6 years of W's reign of error)?

LWW
08-09-2011, 04:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You can explain how it was, and what it was, that the Democrats did in the last two calendar years of Bush, which both avoided the GOP's Senate filibusters, and the president's veto power, which caused any new large spending burst.</div></div>

I could ... but you wouldn't get it.

Let's leave it at this ... when the demokrookks took congress I predicted that a Faustian deal would be struck where congress would sign off on war funding as long as Bush signed off on increased spending, and the deficit would explode.

And ... lo and behold spending increased in the last 2 Bush era budgets by $1,042,800,000,000.00.

Soflasnapper
08-10-2011, 09:47 AM
Lo and behold, indeed!

It's a simple question, LWW.

We know your outline of what happened already. This explains why you think your outline of what happened, happened.

But what are the DETAILS of what happened, to have caused this increased spending? The war spending continued, you say. In return for allowing vast extra spending, you claim.

WHAT WAS IT? That vast extra spending, that W traded for allowing the war spending, by your claim? You know, either new Democratic-produced policy spending, or hugely increased GOP program spending induced by the Democrats? (Yes, the Democrats always were pushing to spend a lot more money on things like port security, but so far as I recall, they never got that spending passed into law.)

You haven't been able to find it, if you've even bothered to look. Why do you think it's there at all?

Because your world would be shattered, and everything you claim, proved false, if it isn't?

It's no good going through life in denial, if you're wrong. Far better to discover and admit the truth. I'm pulling for you here, buddy.

LWW
08-10-2011, 03:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lo and behold, indeed!

It's a simple question, LWW.

We know your outline of what happened already. This explains why you think your outline of what happened, happened.
</div></div>

No, it's an idiot's question and an Alinsky tactic.

The spending totals speak on their own ... whether or not someone can itemize how many paper clips were purchased is irrelevant.

Soflasnapper
08-10-2011, 05:05 PM
I agree it's a question that requires knowledge of the federal budget (over years), or a little bit of homework (as the major categories of federal spending are amply available, in time series accounting for the budget, from official sources).

To call it what you do (an idiot's question and an Alinsky tactic) is false, unfair, and unreasonable.

It seems to me only verification that you neither know what you are talking about (in this and many cases), and do not care to inform yourself about what you so confidently talk about, so as to know if what you say is right or not.

Or cannot find from an almost limitless amount of spin sources you rely on, any plausible explanation of what something the Democrats did in the two last years of the Bush administration exploded spending on anything.

Qtec
08-11-2011, 12:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You can explain how it was, and what it was, that the Democrats did in the last two calendar years of Bush, which both avoided the GOP's Senate filibusters, and the president's veto power, which caused any new large spending burst. </div></div>

I have asked this Q many times and never had an answer.

Q

LWW
08-11-2011, 05:28 AM
Just because you refuse to accept any answer which doesn't agree with the party propaganda doesn't mean that it hasn't been explained to you ad infinitum.

Soflasnapper
08-11-2011, 11:42 AM
And you constantly omit the part that even IF the Democrats DID (try to) put in new huge programmatic spending, the GOP had adequate institutional tools (their filibuster in the Senate, and the president's veto power) to block anything new from the Democrats.

Therefore, any such responsibility allegedly mainly due to the Democrats, instead of an entirely shared responsibility of the two parties, would have to claim they somehow got the GOP over a barrel of extortion to force their new plan or spending into law over GOP/W objections.

To simplify what you need to show, then, just show us where THAT happened. The wily (sorry, it is to laugh!) Democrats played hardball (snort! guffaw! yeah right!) with the GOP and the GOP had to knuckle under, POTUS veto power and all.

Isn't it true that it never happened that way from 2007 through to the end of 2008?

LWW
08-11-2011, 12:01 PM
You don't pay attention much do you?

Soflasnapper
08-13-2011, 01:38 PM
I've been keenly paying attention to your dodging, weaving, and refusing to answer the question that is very simple, although it's been asked of you many many times.

LWW
08-13-2011, 03:04 PM
Because you lack the intellectual integrity to recognize an answer doesn't mean no answer was given.

But ... just to see you squirm in denial fits ... here it is again.

Bush and the demokrookks ... and Bush was a leftist RINO along with several senate RINO's ... made a Faustian deal where the congress would yammer incessantly about war spending to appease their base, and then approve it anyway. In return Bush and the RINO's would yammer incessantly about frivolous spending to appease their base, and then approve it anyway.

This is a perfect example of why, on great issues, political compromise is the worst of all choices.

We need, as a nation, to decide if we truly want to be the nation that the COTUS describes and which our ancestors made great ... or if we want to be another failed Euro worker's paradise.

Instead, we are neither ... and buried in debt to the point we never be able to be either.

Soflasnapper
08-14-2011, 12:13 PM
Yes, I've understood that is your theory of what happened, now for some time.

What I've asked is what EVIDENCE you can cite to show any facts remotely showing this theory is accurate.

As again and again you fail to provide any shred of evidence indicating your theory is correct, one must consider the likelihood that there is no such evidence, and your theory, while not impossible, isn't actually true.

LWW
08-14-2011, 03:21 PM
Would accept the data that the OBAMA WHITE HOUSE (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/) published?

LWW
08-14-2011, 03:24 PM
Increases of $179,000,000,000.00 in entitlement spending. (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/10/the-democratic-congresss-2008-budget-a-tax-and-spending-spree)

LWW
08-14-2011, 03:25 PM
Increases of $127,000,000,000.00 in SCHIP spending. (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/10/the-democratic-congresss-2008-budget-a-tax-and-spending-spree)

LWW
08-14-2011, 03:25 PM
Increases of $44,000,000,000.00 in student spending. (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/10/the-democratic-congresss-2008-budget-a-tax-and-spending-spree)

LWW
08-14-2011, 03:26 PM
Increases of $47,000,000,000.00 in private banking student loan spending. (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/10/the-democratic-congresss-2008-budget-a-tax-and-spending-spree)

LWW
08-14-2011, 03:27 PM
$10,400,000,000.00 in subsidies for "TERRORISM INSURANCE." (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/10/the-democratic-congresss-2008-budget-a-tax-and-spending-spree)

LWW
08-14-2011, 03:28 PM
Increases of $21,000,000,000.00 in farm subsidies. (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/10/the-democratic-congresss-2008-budget-a-tax-and-spending-spree)

LWW
08-14-2011, 03:29 PM
Increases of $2,400,000,000.00 in milk subsidies. (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/10/the-democratic-congresss-2008-budget-a-tax-and-spending-spree)

LWW
08-14-2011, 03:30 PM
Increases of $275,000,000,000.00 in discretionary spending. (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/10/the-democratic-congresss-2008-budget-a-tax-and-spending-spree)

LWW
08-14-2011, 03:31 PM
11,351 new pork barrel projects. (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/10/the-democratic-congresss-2008-budget-a-tax-and-spending-spree)

LWW
08-14-2011, 03:32 PM
Removing a provision to ban the trading of pork-barrel projects for votes. (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/10/the-democratic-congresss-2008-budget-a-tax-and-spending-spree)

LWW
08-14-2011, 03:32 PM
Weakening provisions aimed at stopping earmarks that financially benefit lawmakers. (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/10/the-democratic-congresss-2008-budget-a-tax-and-spending-spree)

LWW
08-14-2011, 03:33 PM
Transferring Senate earmark enforcement powers from the neutral Senate parliamentarian to the partisan Senate Majority Leader. (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/10/the-democratic-congresss-2008-budget-a-tax-and-spending-spree)

LWW
08-14-2011, 03:34 PM
Permitting votes onbills before disclosing earmarks. (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/10/the-democratic-congresss-2008-budget-a-tax-and-spending-spree)

LWW
08-14-2011, 03:34 PM
Weakening a provision requiring that earmarks be listed on the Internet before congressional votes. (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/10/the-democratic-congresss-2008-budget-a-tax-and-spending-spree)

LWW
08-14-2011, 03:35 PM
$2,000,000 to the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service. (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/10/the-democratic-congresss-2008-budget-a-tax-and-spending-spree)

LWW
08-14-2011, 03:36 PM
$1,000,000 to the Clinton School of Public Service. (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/10/the-democratic-congresss-2008-budget-a-tax-and-spending-spree)

LWW
08-14-2011, 03:37 PM
$1,500,000 to the AFL-CIO Working for America Institute. (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/10/the-democratic-congresss-2008-budget-a-tax-and-spending-spree)

LWW
08-14-2011, 03:37 PM
$100,000 to the Hunting and Fishing Museum of Pennsylvania. (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/10/the-democratic-congresss-2008-budget-a-tax-and-spending-spree)

LWW
08-14-2011, 03:39 PM
http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/8EED744C102BB59A70DF31F329E689C3.gif

<span style='font-family: Comic Sans MS'><span style='font-size: 26pt'>OH DEAR!</span></span>

LWW
08-14-2011, 03:40 PM
http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/F47FD1DE01390F5A9CC848B4C5F32D8C.gif

<span style='font-family: Comic Sans MS'><span style='font-size: 26pt'>OH MY!</span></span>

LWW
08-14-2011, 03:41 PM
http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/D830B37AE24F361DECDDF22B8F32B93D.gif

<span style='font-family: Comic Sans MS'><span style='font-size: 26pt'>GOOD GRIEF!</span></span>

LWW
08-14-2011, 03:42 PM
Anything else I can help you with?

LWW
08-15-2011, 04:19 PM
Your silence is deafening.