Right-Wing Media's Phony Deficit Blame Game Now Targets Pelosi
Right-wing media are now targeting Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as being to blame for the increase in the federal deficit. In fact, experts agree that almost the entire deficit can be attributed to Bush's tax cuts, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the economic recession.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Right-Wing Media Mock Pelosi's Statement On Deficit Reduction
Fox Nation Declares Pelosi's Statement On Deficit Reduction Being A "Priority" To Be "A Whopper." On January 4, Fox Nation posted video of Pelosi speaking at her final news conference as House speaker. During the clip, Pelosi said:
PELOSI: We have no regrets. This House has over and over again sent to the Senate legislation for job creation, which the Republicans in the Senate held up. Deficit reduction has been a high priority for us. It is our mantra: pay as you go. Unfortunately, that will be changed now. This administration and this Congress inherited a near depression. And so the initiatives that we took were positive for the American people. [Fox Nation, 1/4/11]
Fox Nation posted this text below the video:
At her final press conference as House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, "Deficit reduction has been a high priority for us. It is our mantra, pay-as-you-go."
The numbers tell a different story.
When the Pelosi Democrats took control of Congress on January 4, 2007, the national debt stood at $8,670,596,242,973.04. The last day of the 111th Congress and Pelosi's Speakership on December 22, 2010 the national debt was $13,858,529,371,601.09 - a roughly $5.2 trillion increase in just four years. Furthermore, the year over year federal deficit has roughly quadrupled during Pelosi's four years as speaker, from $342 billion in fiscal year 2007 to an estimated $1.6 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2010. [Fox Nation, 1/4/11]
Hoft: "Speaker Pelosi's Final Insult: 'Deficit Reduction Has Been A High Priority.'" In a January 4 Gateway Pundit post, Jim Hoft posted Fox Nation's video and text and added, "What a horrible woman." [Gateway Pundit, 1/4/11]
Doocy On Pelosi's Comments: "Maybe The Spin Should Stop Here, Madam Speaker." The January 5 edition of Fox & Friends began with a segment on Pelosi's comments. After airing part of the Fox Nation clip of Pelosi speaking, the co-hosts said:
STEVE DOOCY (co-host): Now, hold on. Maybe the spin should stop here, Madam Speaker, because when you look at what she just said -- that deficit reduction has been a high priority under her gavelship -- that flies in the face of the facts. Because when she took the big hammer from John Boehner a couple of years ago, the debt was at $8.6 trillion.
BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): Drop in the bucket.
DOOCY: That's right. As the 111th Congress concluded in December, it was at $13.8 trillion, a $5.2 trillion increase on her watch.
GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): I wish I would have brought my calculator this morning, because you need it for these kind of numbers, although I --
DOOCY: They're so big.
CARLSON: I don't know if calculators go to the trillions. So, if you want to break it down even more, Steve, the year-over-year federal deficit has roughly quadrupled, can't even say it, during Pelosi's four years as speaker. So, year over year, it's quadrupled. I guess that means that it's four times over every single year. [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 1/5/11]
Fox & Friends ran repeated segments throughout the January 5 broadcast in which they accused Pelosi of being responsible for the rising deficit during her tenure. In addition, contrary to Doocy's claim, Pelosi did not take "the big hammer from John Boehner a couple of years ago." In fact, Pelosi succeeded former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL). [Office of the Clerk, accessed 1/5/11]
Powers: "They're Saying Boehner Has An Emotional Imbalance?" In a January 5 post on Michelle Malkin's blog titled, "Pelosi Departs With a Whopper," blogger Doug Powers reposted Fox Nation's text and added, "And they're saying Boehner has an emotional imbalance?" [MichelleMalkin.com, 1/5/11]
But Experts Agree Deficit Result Of Bush-Era Policies, Wars, Economic Downturn
CBO Projected $1.2T Deficit In January 2009 Based On Spending Bush Authorized; Actual Deficit Was $1.4T. In a January 7, 2009, report, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected, based on spending authorized under the Bush administration, that the federal deficit in FY2009 would total $1.2 trillion. According to the CBO, the actual federal deficit for FY2009 was $1.4 trillion. [CBO, January 2009 and January 2010]
CAP: "Single Most Important [Cause Of The Deficit] Is The Legacy Of President George W. Bush's Legislative Agenda." In an August 2009 analysis, the Center for American Progress (CAP) concluded that about two-thirds of the then-projected budget deterioration for 2009 and 2010 could be attributed to either Bush's policies or the economic downturn:
The report explained:
As for the deficit's cause, the single most important factor is the legacy of President George W. Bush's legislative agenda. Overall, changes in federal law during the Bush administration are responsible for 40 percent of the short-term fiscal problem. For example, we estimate that the tax cuts passed during the Bush presidency are reducing government revenue collections by $231 billion in 2009. Also, because of the additions to the federal debt due to Bush administration policies, the government will be paying $218 billion more in interest payments in 2009.
Had President Bush not cut taxes while simultaneously prosecuting two foreign wars and adopting other programs without paying for them, the current deficit would be only 4.7 percent of gross domestic product this year, instead of the eye-catching 11.2 percent--despite the weak economy and the costly efforts taken to restore it. In 2010, the deficit would be 3.2 percent instead of 9.6 percent.
The weak economy also plays a major role in the deficit picture. The failure of Bush economic policies--fiscal irresponsibility, regulatory indifference, fueling of an asset and credit bubble, a failure to focus on jobs and incomes, and inaction as the economy started slipping--contributed mightily to the nation's current economic situation. When the economy contracts, tax revenues decline and outlays increase for programs designed to keep people from falling deep into poverty (with the tax impact much larger than the spending impact). All told, the weak economy is responsible for 20 percent of the fiscal problems we face in 2009 and 2010.
President Obama's policies have also contributed to the federal deficit--but only 16 percent of the projected budget deterioration for 2009 and 2010 are attributable to those policies. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, designed to help bring the economy out of the recession is, by far, the largest single additional public spending under this administration. [CAP, 8/25/09]
CBPP: "[V]irtually The Entire Deficit Over The Next Ten Years" Due To Bush Policies, Economic Downturn." The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) published an analysis of federal deficits in December 2009, most recently updated on June 28, 2010, titled, "Critics Still Wrong on What's Driving Deficits in Coming Years: Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers." The report noted:
Some critics continue to assert that President George W. Bush's policies bear little responsibility for the deficits the nation faces over the coming decade -- that, instead, the new policies of President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress are to blame. Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies (for more on that paper, see p. 4). Nevertheless, the fact remains: Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years. [CBPP, updated 6/28/10, emphasis in original]
Harvard Business Review Group Director: "[T]he Giant Deficit Is Mainly The Result Of The Collapse In Tax Receipts Brought On By The Recession." In an October 2010 post on his Reuters blog, Justin Fox, editorial director of the Harvard Business Review Group, analyzed the deficit and concluded that it was "mainly the result of the collapse in tax receipts brought on by the recession":
The Treasury Department reported on Oct. 15 that the deficit in fiscal 2010, which ended Sept. 30, was $1.294 trillion. That's less than FY 2009's $1.416 trillion, but it's still really really big. Why is it so big, though? Is it because of all that stimulus and bailout spending? Or is something else going on?
To find out, I created a fantasy world. I figured out how fast federal spending and revenue grew over the last business cycle, from 2000 through 2007, and calculated where we'd be today if those growth rates had continued through 2010. I was originally motivated to do this for a commentary that's supposed to air tomorrow night on Nightly Business Report. But I'm thinking there's not a huge overlap between Felix Salmon readers and Nightly Business Report viewers, so I'll go ahead and share what I learned.
In my no-financial-crisis, no-bailout, no-recession, no-stimulus scenario, spending kept growing at 6.22% a year, and revenue kept growing at 3.45%. You can see from the difference between the two numbers that this was an unsustainable path. But it clearly could have been sustained for a few more years.
Where would it have left us in fiscal 2010? With $2.843 trillion in federal revenue and $3.270 trillion in spending, leaving a deficit of $427 billion. The actual revenue and spending totals for 2010 were $2.162 trillion and $3.456 trillion. So spending was $186 billion higher than if we'd stuck to the trend, and revenue was $681 billion lower. In other words, the giant deficit is mainly the result of the collapse in tax receipts brought on by the recession, not the increase in spending. Nice to know, huh? [Justin Fox, blogs.reuters.com, 10/25/10, emphasis added]
Heres a great example: This is an article about choosing the sweetest watermelon.
And here is the rightwing insanity comment: "Theres no science to this...its like trying to explain BBQ. This is one of the few instances that us dumbass rural Southerners get to thumb our nose at the majority Salon urbanite hipsters. Go ahead, read the "How to"....you still won't get it right and we will never tell you how. I'm not going to tell you how to fry okra either and not going to try to convince you that it is the third best tasting dish on earth."
its like..what the hell?! No one else was talking about this sorta stuff, and he went from zero to stupid and crazy in less than three hours after the discussion started. It sure wasnt helpful.
They do this with every single issue they can twist around to their point of view. Its like they have this constant persecution complex -- Republicans project a lot, and they think that since they CLEARLY twist words, the other side will too. So they assume we have without any evidence. Most people realise they are unique beings around 2 years old (Terrible 2s) It seems to take republicans at least 150 years.
This ill-defined anger is easily parleyed into fear - something the Right W(h)ing(e) media is deliberately playing to.
This may be a repost, but it's damned-fine repost!
Uhm? Really? Where did that come from? What provoked that statement?
Maybe it's just a troll statement to garner attention?
If I were to compare two sites.. Say, Media Matters and The Blaze...what do you think the overall level of disturbed rhetoric would be for each?
Theres no comparison. The right wing does this on every forum, every post, and its disturbing and violent constantly. You constantly assert without proof, and you attack those who provide proof. You are fractally wrong.
That's actually key to the right wing rhetoric methodology. They've been steaming and cursing at a caricature of a liberal from 40 years ago that never really existed outside of a few extreme cases.
This mixes in perfectly with the dichotomous "every issue consists of two rigidly defined sides" way of thinking. Conservatives of today truly believe that whatever they stand for, liberals stand for a diametric opposite. The same goes for that which they don't like. So if a conservative claims they like "freedom" then by default, a liberal hates freedom. The same goes for the reverse. For example, if a conservative dislikes Wall Street Bailouts, then liberals must want more Wall Street Bailouts, even though the opposite is true.
Ultimately, the conservative of today has no reasonable idea what the majority of liberals want and believe in.
You are aware though, that socialism doesn't work? As evidence, I would like to point to the troubles in europe, as we speak.
Says the guy that blames Jim Crowe on the progressives and gives credit for the Civil Rights Act to conservatives. Classic.
Hmmm, no...we have Fox News and A.M. radio for that. Honestly, the conservative viewpoint is not in any trouble of not being heard. If two tea party people get together on a street corner, you can expect at least three networks to cover it. Not so much for liberal and progressive values. Your dominant conservative media have been quite successful at defining what liberals think for a very long time. Part of the blame for this is that liberals and progressives are individualists who have varying opinions even within our organizations, where as conservatives tend to be authoritarian and generally prefer a top down approach.
I love when a right-winger posts this and is then followed by a right-winger posting:
"Maybe it's all the name calling your side engages in, don't ya think?" - projectdork
Wow. That is classic. Cognitive dissonance at its very best.
If I was rich thanks to the *Continent-Wide Distribution Infrastructure and Inter-continental shipping pioneers by the US* I'd have no problem paying my fair share. After all, big companies us a lot of resources that could go to other placse. they use a lot of fuel and a lot of roads for shipping. We already cant sue 18-wheel trucks if a peice breaks off behind them and smashes a windshield.
But I suppose that the logic, however flawed, is flawed in a consistent manner: the greediest get a free pass to loot without having to pay for a single part of the infrastructure our tax dollars go to support. They also get away with huge crimes...Steal a car, years in jail. Steal billions upon billions, refuse to show where they come from, bankrupt most of the world for their own personal gain, and the cops will PROTECT them, rather than ARREST them, even as they are actively plotting even more monstrous ways to squeeze that last drop of blood from the lower class. Every time.
Bottom line chief, is you have a very distorted view of the world.
And sorry, but your claim is the least likely to be true, so you must prove it. Why WOULDNT the rich keep people down? If people can get ahead, then The Rich wont be rich anymore! If they wanted that, they should abolish money in its entirety! Which is the excat opposite of what they do.
Your statement is so completely impossible in this reality that it is hard to imagine you're even a human at this point.
You're a fraud. Come clean. Are you in high school.
I know you asked another poster, but since I've seen your nonsense before, I'll jump in. Have you ever heard of the Seastead Institute? Here is #10 from their FAQ page.
And since you are the same genius who tried to claim white police officers shooting black people is the result of liberal policies, I even bolded the relevant part for ya numbnuts. I mean chief.
And by the way, That is not what I claimed. That was your way of twisting what I said, which is that race relations have worsened in the north and have gotten better in the south, and I pointed to the high incidence of police shootings in liberal democrat areas of the country to bolster my belief. It is your side who seems to labor under the illusion that race relations have gotten worse in the south and are just fine and dandy in the north, because the republicans have a southern stratergy. I just refuted that notion.
You refuted nothing. Your a fraud. Make a note of it.
But come one, please, tell us if you are still in high school. Are you?
But just for once I would like to see you use "your" and "you're" correctly.
That's why I insist "your" still in high school.
Brilliant - you are awesome! I linked to a web site dedicated to right wing nut jobs wanting to leave the US and live on mane-made islands. And part of the reason they want this is - to pay as little taxes as possible. That's why their FAQ mentioned they would fly a flag of convenience partly to avoid paying taxes. Are you really this stupid? Does it hurt when you try to decide what to wear?
LOL! You did it again! You state that white cops shooting black people is because of liberal policies!
I'll ask again - have you met any police officers? Do find them to be "liberal"?
Your response did not address that question, nor did it address my response. I don't deny that people, not just rich people, don't want to pay high taxes to the government. What I don't agree with is the stereotype that no rich person feels they shouldn't contribute to the government. You post did not prove that stereotype to be factual.
No, you again are missing the point. If the southern stratergy is as you claim it is, then things should be worse in the south, not better. And as these cities are all considered liberal areas, then one would think that conditions for blacks would be better, not worse. You can dance around the issue all you like, but the fact remains, to be a black man in most urban northern cities, means your life expectancy is lower, your incarceration rate is higher, your educational prospect are dimmer, and your quality of life is worse, than in the south, if what you say about the southern stratergy is correct.
Hey d!ckwad - how about you show all the nice folks where I have said anything about the southern strategy? Because you can't!
I have only asked why you think white cops shooting black people has any conection to liberal policies. As well as if you know any cops because as a group - they ain't very liberal. North south east or west.
Oh, I dunno...chief?
Oh I know what debate you were having. But just here you posted this...
You clearly state I made a claim which I didn't make. When you lie about me like this - I call you a d!ckwad.
Oh I know what you attempted to do. And that is what I'm addressing, do you think police officers are shooting balck people because those cops are liberal?
And I see you haven't bothered to address your lie that I said anything about the southern strategy - keep up the trolling d!ckwad!
Great - you are sure of this. But what is your certainty based on? Cause their own site states;
Yup - lots of regular folks for sure.
Thanks again for all the unintentional laughs!
Well of course it would seem that way to an idiot.
Really? Of course not - I post when I feel inclined. Usually to poke morans (sic) such as yourself. And you have no idea about my age, success or lack thereof.
I think myself and others here have proven quite well that you are a dipsh!t. Thanks for the laughs!
A lot of rich people got that way on the labor and efforts of others, actually. Bill Gates, quite rich, did not write all of the software himself, as just one example. And, if so many people who are rich worked for it, then you have no problem with the estate tax, right? They're dead, they don't need the money anymore, and their kids can work hard and make it on their own. Right?
No, they must be mostly working class and middle class people who have the funds to buy and develop offshore real estate...
My guess is that you are a child of a rich and privileged upbringing. You've lived in a world where the rules are bent in your favor, and the mantras of conservatism "feel" good, as flawed and harmful to the country in the long run as they may.
This has been another edition of "Simple Answers to Stupid Questions."
No, the hijackers were predominantly from Saudi Arabia
www.cia.gov
I am certain that folks like projaculator will claim this web site to be "not a credible source".
Or are you making the argument that they had to have had knowledge of such operations, since they occurred in that country?
If so, they you have to also think that the leadership in Florida and even the United States had to have been aware of operations inside our own borders.
By that logic, I would have to think that you are one of those so-called "911 Truthers".
Thumbs up from me for you utter lack of self-awareness.
Obviously, like everything else they whine about, they didn't mean that it was supposed to apply to them.
This is what passes for logic in their world. She was MORE than happy to take government assistance, payed for by all of us, when SHE was on maternity leave. But now that she doesnt want more children, she doesnt think she should have to pay for it.
Its totally insane. Its like if I said "Gays shouldnt have to pay taxes because the nation who declared its independance by claiming the humans have inalienable rights has been changed to read "inalianable...Until we dont like you."
They enjoy the luxury of white republican privilege while snarling at everything that they think is icky. They just sit up their, on their pedastals made of the corpses of their own stated ideals, shouting down bigoted decrees. All while saying "Pay no attention to the curtain!" when of course, behind that curtain is money being funneled to their rich cronies and mercenaries. And the rightwing is happy to oblige.
I thought it was "none of the shame"? Having a hard time keeping your own nonsense straight, aren't ya? Starting to feel like that fantasy world you live in is crashing in all around you? It is getting very sad watching you collapse a bit at a time.
But go ahead and not respond to this post like you do to every post that destroys your empty points. Just crawl back into the hate filled ignorant whole from wence you came.
This is what passes for logic in their world. She was MORE than happy to take government assistance, payed for by all of us, when SHE was on maternity leave. But now that she doesnt want more children, she doesnt think she should have to pay for it."
Since when is maternity leave paid for by insurance?
Libertarian Utopiamerica where the roads are built, schools are maintained, and cops are paid with liquid freedom and cowboy-cash. Yes, it's a wonderland free of evil big government, where every human being born is given a plot of land rich in resources, and it's only their own laziness and lack of ingenuity that prevents them from developing that unlimited well of resources into unlimited wealth.
In libertarian Utopimerica, the big moneyed interests never form powerful lobbies and use their monetary influence to broker sweetheart deals and change laws to give them unfair advantages. Because in Utopimerica, there is no regulation, and it was those tiny bits of oversight that caused them to play fast and loose with the rules before.
Yes, libertarian Utopimerica, a place that was created by ultra rich interests to convince regular guys that we can all be rich if we just keep giving the ultra rich everything they want regardless of the consequence.
I accept the part of the blame where I speculated carelessly with oil prices to the point that it put a lot of folks dependent on oil and oil based products in an extreme bind.
I accept the part where I fabricated "evidence" of WMD's in order to invade a country that did nothing to the USA.
I accept the part where I declined to allow bin Laden to be handed over to a neutral third country to face trial, and instead elected to continue attacks on a country that the USSR had already broken apart on the rocks of.
I accept the part where I kept the costs of both wars off the books by funding them through special appropriations, rather than in the budget itself.
Which part do you accept responsibility for?
"By the way, I don't accept any of the blame" - projectdork
So, now you are a progressive as well? Wow. This slow motion collapse is really getting hard to watch, projectdork. But, please continue.
What exactly was it that caused you to (falsely) believe that he was the most qualified person running? Or did you mean that he had the most experience running losing campaigns?
I find it interesting that your candidate was at one time a Senate candidate from Maryland, then 12 years later from Illinois. From what I can see, his "career" has been riddled with controversies.
The blame does all belong on Bush. With the sole exception of where Obama did not reverse Bush's policies.
And if you didn't vote, you have no standing to complain.
We, the people, are the government.
As Lincoln said, "Government of the people, by the people, and for the people."
Anyone who has taken a political science class knows that in a democracy/representative democracy, government is defined as an entity the people establishes to carry out the business of governing (acting on their behalf and in their interest.)
It always stuns me when Americans speak of the government as an amorphous entity and seek to disengage themselves from it.
The part proportional to the amount of mess created by policies enacted by people I enthusiastically voted for.
Listen project21reps, I'm not going to get into a whole dissection of your cognitive dissonance. I think if you pay any kind of attention you will see democrats and liberals unhappy with certain policies created by the Pelosi led congress and signed by the Obama whitehouse. We see the actual pros and cons of our elected leaders. Fox news on the other hand, as pointed out by the article above that you should probably read before making a million posts, would like us to think all our economic troubles started the exact day republicans lost the majority.
Take a deep breath, try to push aside the constant outrage, and look at things as they stand. Ultimately you will find all your anger is being directed at the Democrats for not flawlessly fixing the problems of the Bush administration in an unreasonably short amount of time.
The news cycle may demand instant answers to complex problems, but that doesn't change the actual amount of time or work needed to fix them. It also doesn't help that the last session of congress obstructed EVERY attempt to fix our problems with a record 130+ filibusters...that goes beyond any semblance of normal, respectable behavior.
Quit whining about how everything is the democrats fault and all this mess is on them, and then fully supporting the blatant and unprecedented obstructionism of the republican minority in the last session of congress. You can't have it both ways.
But I do like how you stated that like he could understand it.
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/rise-new-confederacy#comments
www.dictionary.com
Ah well, I am sure that, since I spelled it out for you, you can at least cut and paste it, right?
But to play along, please cite Pelosi's malfeasance.
Ask your teacher tomorrow about "congressional aides" and what tasks they perform.
Your an idiotic fraud.
When did YOU read the bill?
I had a friend who, the day after Obama signed the bill, claimed to have read it 6 months previously, when Republican lawmakers were complaining that even they weren't being allowed access to it. Since I told him that either he was lying or he had some extremely high-level contacts in government, he hasn't contacted me.
Got anymore? You said everything.
This one is surely evidence of her "malfeasance".
Translation:
"I don't really know or understand, but Fox news and Glenn Beck have made her into a demon and dammit...I'm mad and I hate her!"
No, he is a dufus.
Well, ok, he is a dufus as well. Perhaps we could compromise on fraudufus. Or dufraud.
To say that Ms. Pelosi is responsible for the deficit shows that you don't know that it isn't possible for one member of Congress to pass legislation by him/herself.
Truman (D) Began with debt at 117% of GDP left with debt at 73%
Eisenhower (R) began at 73% and left at 56%
Kennedy/Johnson (D) began at 56% and left at 37%
Nixon/Ford (R) began at 37% and left at 35%
Carter (D) Began at 35% and left at 31%
Reagan (R) Began at 31% and left at 43%
Bush I (R) began at 43% and left at 65%
Clinton (D) began at 65% and left at 56%
Bush II (R) began at 56% and left at 83%
Obama (D) began at 83% and currently at 90%.
You can draw your own conclusions. Repubtards raise the debt at a much higher rate then Democrats.
Guess you haven't covered that in your American Civics class yet, huh?
Draw that conclusion...
Democratic congress would take effect until September of that year, well after the downward spiral had started, I am surprised that you would bring that up. I thought you were anti Democratic.
That breakdown makes me long for a time before I was born when you had decent, honorable republicans like Eisenhower.
6 trillion added to the deficit
Gas prices above $3.00 a gallon
Now that gas is above $3.00 a gallon i do not see one person calling Obama a oil monger or anything they called Mr. Bush. Places like Media Matters are biased and should be ashamed of themselves
Nice track record for the last 4 years guys, keep it up
HOPE AND CHANGE AT WORK
Do you stop to think about what you post before clicking on save?
I know you don't.
Look at this graph that compares the number of jobs created under the GWB and Obama Administrations
Oh jeez, talk about a cherry picked and distorted perspective...
In 1996 I recall paying about $1.40 to $1.70 per gallon
In 1998 I recall paying about $1.40 to $1.70 per gallon.
In 2000, I recall paying about $1.50 to $1.80 per gallon.
In 2002, I recall paying about $2.95 to $3.15 per gallon.
In 2004, I recall paying about $2.75 to $3.00 per gallon
In 2006 I recall paying about $2.75 to $3.00 per gallon.
In 2008 I recall paying about $2.75 to $3.00 per gallon.
In 2010 I recall paying about $2.85 to $3.10 per gallon.
You were either born in 2008, making you about 2-3 years old, or you are conveniently forgetting recent history to make a cheap and factually bogus partisan point.
Are we at war? I don't remember a draft, metal drives, and ration cards.
FYI, this is a corporate war, a war that allows the profiteers to steal from you and me. And yet you cheer on the theft of your tax dollars. You are a fraud, chief.
It seems to me that we would have been a lot better off, as a whole, if we had started right in on investigations and prosecution. Of course, the neocons would have raised cain about it, but since they immediately launched a slew of frivolous investigations designed to smear a sitting president the first time they got a majority in the House in 40 years, and it appears that they are about to start down the same path the second time they have a majority, they haven't a leg to stand on with crying about it. Wouldn't have stopped them.
I know you hate being so wrong all the time, but well, you're a conservative. Conservatism failed miserably. You espoused capitalism, then killed it. You espoused freedom, then snuffed it out. You said you wouldnt let the terrorists win, then you cheered as bush ensured that our whole society changed as a result of the actions of terrorists. And it was your side who decided it wasnt worth it to find the man responsible, and insted went off to fight two pointless unwinnable wars, literally invading soverign nations for made up reasons.
And while you were there, you let them kill pat tillman then blame the insurgents. You let them funnel billions nd billions and BILLIONS into Haliburton and others, with zero bid contracts. You let it go without blinking that haliburton and blackwater "lost" billions of dollars. I dont see you clamoring for that to be payed back.
Especially odd since Haliburton murderd our soldiers with their shoddy work--electrocuted while taking showers. If this was an honorable war, you wouldve stopped it then and there. No soldiers deserves to die that way, no one who is so loyal that he will risk his life for our freedom should die because despite taking UNTOLD BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, haliburton and their zero-bid contracts couldnt even get WIRES + WATER = BAD. That concept too far ahead for you?
Two wars, off the books. Funneling money to superrich corporations. BUSH bailed out the banks. Tax cuts off the books. The rich no loner paying anything. Outsorcing jobs. Destroying both manufacturing and science.
Your...species..has done so much damage to the world that itll take decade sto undo.
Why dont you go tell the republicans to let obamas 200+ appointments go up for a vote? They wont. Now you will make some false claim that democrats did the same thing when they cleary did not. You are stopping the government from working. You are causing this pain.
You're a traitor, a monster, and represent the worst of humanity in every way. You're a liar, and you think you know everything. You know NOTHING. And thats why I pity you, I pity you and the terrifying imaginary world you are channeling. Please, get some help. I cant imagine anyone with your sort of insanity having a decent, productive life. You're too full of hate and bile and lies and mistruths and halftruths and memory holes.
You are the physical embodiment of all that is wrong with the world. And you are so twisted, so warped and addled, that you think its good. You dont seem to care that YOUR OWN PARTY promised to raise the deficit the second they were in charge. YOUR OWN PARTY helped repeal DADT. YOUR OWN PARTY, including PRESIDENT BUSH admitting climate change was a problem. Now youre saying no.
You lie. You lie. You lie. Because you hate and you hate and you hate. You hate everything thats not you, everyone that doesnt agree with you. You pretend to know anything. You know nothing. And you dont even realise it.
How can you live with yourself. how can you function with such a rotten mind and a black soul? I hope you're not christian, cause bearing false witness sends you straight to hell.
Do you think that those soldiers killed by Haliburton/KBR were just cannon fodder? I'd really like to know.
Sanctimonious little piece of dog apple. You DARE to pretend to support American troops and you say something like that?
Who are you... Maxwell Smart? Inspector Gadget? You seem about as competent as either one of them.
You seem to like it that Blackwater pays its mercenaries more than soldiers. Yo useem to like it when we torture people. How about you put your moeny where your mouth is, and go out to the damn desert and fight for the freedom to say such vile things. Fraud. Coward. These words are far too nice for you. Lying monster, transparently lying monster. You disgust me.
No wonder it's so easy for politicians to tell you that the sky is purple, and you believe them.
Anyone who doesn't know about Cheney's connection to the no bid contracts and that military contractors installed showers that killed some of our soldiers in Iraq is to be pitied. Some of the soldiers' families are still trying to get some justice for the loss of their loved ones.
You're despicable.
I feel pretty certain that if you had lost a loved in Iraq one due to the ineptitude of a military contractor who had a connection to the WH, you'd be pretty upset, too.
I can also imagine that if you had a daughter who was raped and locked up in a storage container in Iraq, you'd be too upset. It was rw politicians in Congress that largely voted against Senator Franken's bill to remedy this situation. The young woman who was raped, mocked, and detained wasn't even allowed to sue the contractor. Thanks to Senator Franken and the democrats, now, she can.
Republicans love our troops. The best way to show that is apparently to put them in places where folks will shoot at them and blow them up. Given that, Halliburton electrocuting them in their showers was simply another way to show them love. Once you understand that philosophy, it becomes clear that Bush had to needlessly invade two countries that didn't attack the USA in order to show how much he loved our men and women in the Armed Forces.
So, yeah, They love the 9/11 responders.
A video I saw of one of the responders at Think Progress will remain with me until the day I die. He said that he'd always voted republican, and he was in tears that the republicans were blocking a vote on the Zadroga bill. I guess he felt like a big fool. I felt sorry for the fact that he thought they appreciated his support--until he needed theirs.
I certainly hope that he bucks the trend and actually changes his voting habits. Evidence shows that it isn't very likely to happen, but there are exceptions.
back then i was young and dumb about how politics worked. even with my lack of understanding i would wonder how we were going to pay for all this spending. well i still don't know how long it will take to recover from the mess the gop got us into.
personally i like Nancy Pelosi, i think she is smart, intelligent and effective.
to blame her for how others mishandled our economy is just silly.
do yourself a favor, do some research (use reliable sources try to find some without political agendas) educate yourself.
6 trillion added
10% unemployment
> $3.000 a gallon for gas
GWB is the only American president in recent history to express a desire to be dictator if America were a dictatorship.
No one member of Congress can pass legislation by him/herself.
Which part of this don't you understand"?
Also, 4 years ago would have been 2007. Now, explain to me just why GWB signed the bills coming out of Congress at that time?
He could have vetoed all of them.
It takes two groups of players to pass legislation: the Congress and the president.
What say you about GWB's role in signing bills that increased the deficit to record levels?
Seriously I know you meant $3.00...but that is an extremely dishonest statistic, considering I was paying about $1.60 a gallon in 1999, and about $2.85 in 2002.
You must be either three years old, or you have GOP-amnesia, where you forget everything politically inconvenient to your partisan positions.
And, there is a huge difference between spending money for personal needs/wants, and spending money to create jobs.
Former Congressman Alan Grayson demonstrated on the House floor that giving more tax cuts to the rich doesn't affect their spending.
They're able to buy anything they want whether they get a tax cut, or not.
You seem to be equating the spending habits of average Americans to those of the one-two percenters, and that's why you fail to understand that tax cuts for the rich don't create jobs.
A simple example follows. Many Americans spend their income tax refunds almost as soon as they get them on something they need/want. They have to wait to get more money before they buy extra goods/services.
The rich don't have to wait for tax refunds to spend on things they want/need. They can buy them whenever they please.
So why dont you stop being an infant for a minute, and actually open a line without a direct attack. Do you think people take you seriously? You could at least pretend to not be an utter jackass.
Pay as you go was their policy, and their mistake. Pay as you go is impossible during a recession or a war. We have both.
Focusing on the deficit is stupid in war or recession. Especially stupid when you have both. Look at the history of the debt in all this years since the beginning of the 20th century. There were several periods when the debt doubled. Every single one of them were tied to war or recession. We have both.
IOW, the only way to bring down the deficit is to end the war and bring back jobs. NOTHING else has even a chance of working.
The one thing about all that will not work is lying. So start telling the truth.
So let the liberals start shrieking "It's all Bush's fault".
That's what Obama-worshiping socialists can do, blame Bush or shriek "Racist". No wonder Pelosi got DUMPED by her party by HISTORIC margins! People saw the only things Obama-worshiping socialists can do is spend money, other people's money, MONEY WE DON'T HAVE!
Liberals are so stupid they ignore math, seeing what they believe like the delusional utopia-seeking socialists they are.
Without GWB's signature, the bills wouldn't have become laws.
Keep flailing away.
There's no way you'll ever be able to disentangle GWB from the mess that was created.
You cant shame the shameless. These people choke on their own bile for pleasure, so we cant do much really.
UGH
But at least we can be safe in knowing that the WMD's were found and Saddam was behind 9/11 - or so believes the Fox News junkies.
For all you above moron posters who buy into republican propaganda "Oh Democrats spend spend spend" you all forget that Democrats find a way TO PAY FOR THINGS, via taxes, other cuts, things of that sort.
Bush on the other hand, with the fiscal know how of a 5 year old, decided that two wars and tax cuts together were a good idea. When he came into office, Clinton left him a nice fat surplus. Where'd that money go?
Amazing how Bush supporters emulate their bumbling idiot president, spending money they don't have. That's why your credit sucks and your houses are getting foreclosed.
Remember how the Iraqi war was going to pay for itself with oil? Where's that money? Hmmm? Let's go conservative trolls here, where's the money LEBOWSKI!? WHERE IS THE MONEY!?
ARGH YOU IDIOTS MAKE ME SICK. Next thing you know they're going to say Obama was president during 9/11!
Oh by the way, way to go on tax cuts for the richest 2% of the country. I'm sure that didn't add to the deficit at all.
Actually, it wouldn't have affected any jobs. Employment is a product of demand not taxation. If an employer needs an employee in order to meet consumer demand, he is not going to fire that employee. Likewise, if an employer doesn't need an employee, no level of taxation will make him hire one.
Keep in mind the taxation we're talking about as well. An increase of 4.5% on earnings over $250k. For every $1000 an employer earns over $250k, he will pay an additional $45 in taxes. That is so minuscule as to be completely irrelevant.
If you do the math it is easy to see who benefited the most - by far.
When I mentioned the first part of my post to a local wing-nut, he said, "well, when you make more, you should have to pay more!" and I said "EXACTLTY" (just like that, all in caps :) but he still argued that rich should get cuts. Why should someone who works for a living have to pay more then someone who only moves money around?
Lower the middle class rate, raise the richest rates, get out of the middle east. That will fix the deficit in no time!
You need help - soldiers aren't employees, they're the PROPERTY of the US Government.
Look up what GI stands for and then get back to us.
You are a little snotnosed brat whose parents have spared the rod far too much.
You make the most outrageous utterances without offering sources, and when you are presented with irrefutable facts negating your agruments, you refuse to credit what is right in front of your face. Y
ou have the NERVE to demand that someone else source their info to you?
Go suck a neocon.
Until you are old enough to vote, stay out of the conversation, YOU DO NOT COUNT.
Look up what GI stands for and then get back to us. - foghorn
Yes, but projectdork does not know that. Even now, after you have explained it to him, he still does not know it. He will never know it, unless Beck tells it to him.
Yea, that about sums it up for me. Sock it to the rich as much as possible. The rich don’t contribute in proportion to their income.
Uh, no, their employees work damn hard for what they get.
That may have been true before the repeal of the estate tax. Now watch what happens.
No, I feel more strongly about the "fairness" thing. You see, the wealthiest are usually using the lions share of the all the things the government supplies, yet they have had their taxes lowered and lowered. But people that share smaller and smaller amounts of what the government provides, have had their tax rates go up by hundreds of percentage points in less then 50 years. As a Christian, I pay my taxes, I just look to the ones that have the ability to pay the most, pay their fair share. They use more roads, the get more government subsidies, they get miles and miles of infrastructure built out to their country estates by taxpayer money. They use the transportation infrastructure the most. Why do you think roads deteriorate so fast. It's not from the small cars or even SUV's. 40 ton delivery trucks do the most damage. The CEO of UPS gets millions. The CEO's of Insurance Companies gets millions. (To deny children health care no less) They get the full measure of hospitals, education that helps us have good doctors, the government subsidizing health packages for workers that most companies write off 100% and many other benefits that many people that post here could probably insert. They have been given so many advantages. Yet you want the middle class to become poor and the poor to support all that? (I suspect you think all govt. is bad. You want to get it out of your life. Research Somalia to see what that is like in reality)
I know this won't convince you because I have read some posts from you and I suspect you are either a paid troll or a really closed minded, uncaring individual, but the truth is out there. If you can, open your mind. If you are not rich, you will probably not get rich. Even if you get rich, you will have more money then you will ever need. As a personal hero of mine said, "Give away all your things to the poor and follow me" Don't be sad like that guy!
I assume that you have facts to back your claims up? And, by your frequent calls to shrink the "fat bloated government" I am guessing that you have some specific areas in which to begin this trimming? In other words, you have some specific examples of where the government has more employees than are needed, right? Provide them.
Let's discuss. Give with the ideas, and let's see just how much of this idea is yours, and how much of it is simply parroting what you have heard on tv and radio.
How about this. Keep every federal agency intact but cut the military budget in half. That'll save $300+ billion a year. Restore the Clinton era tax rates for the wealthy, and voila, we'll have a balanced budget in no time.
How's that for a start?
No one is defending our borders right now. Almost all of our military is in the Middle East right now, genius, if anyone wanted to seriously challenge our borders, it would take us MONTHS to get enough personel back here to defend those borders. You think the invaders would wait?
Sounds like someone graduated from Glenn Beck University with a degree in Bizarro-world thinking.
I believe the Constitution does call for protection and advancement of the general welfare, all those frivolous things that make us a modern society like schools, police, justice system etc... and it actually makes no mention of a standing military. A well regulated militia is not the same thing, and it wasn't back then either.
Since you want to be rid of all of them, you should be able to go through this list and give us all a comprehensive and detailed reason for abolishing each.
Some of those are state agencies, I will accept your skipping of those.
The theory that makes the most sense to me is a combination of factors caused the economy to collapse. Massive deregulation that started under Reagan, and continued through H.W., Clinton, and w., fraudulent lending, especially with the whole subprime mess, and was topped off by Bush's 2 wars and rediculous tax cuts for the wealthy.
Pretty good article about it.
liberals with federal titles pressured banks into making absurd loans to high-risk borrowers -- demanding, for example, that the banks accept unemployment benefits as collateral. Then Fannie repackaged the bad loans as "prime mortgages" and sold them to banks, thus poisoning the entire financial market with hidden bad loans.
Believe it or not, the loans went belly up, banks went under, and the Democrats used taxpayer money to bail out their friends on Wall Street.
So far, Fannie and Freddie's default on loans that should never have been made has cost the taxpayer tens of billions of dollars. Some estimates say the final cost to the taxpayer will be more than $1 trillion.
Pelosi had it in her powers for the past 4 years to stop funding the wars, stop funding the Patriot Act and Medicare Part D, just the same exact way the Repubs promise to do to Obama.
If only the Dems had the same spine as the Repubs, we wouldn't be having this argument right now.
Given that, there was almost zero time to get the ball rolling on stopping funding for the wars. Add to that that without the supermajority, the Obstructionists would not have allowed us to pull out.
After all, their idea of "supporting the troops" seems to be unnecessarily putting them in harm's way.
Given the relationship to fact exhibited by projaculator, I didn't want to burden him with too many in one post. Even though I harbor zero respect for him, I would feel badly were I to be the cause of his brain exploding.
I blame Andy and Foggy, who both have caused me to laugh explosively, spraying Coca-Cola onto my keyboard, monitor, and desk.
Ah, the projected oversimplification! Of course since the GOP media stance is LITERALLY that everything President Obama does is wrong/bad/evil, then it stands to reason that a right wing media consumer would also be tricked into believing liberals approach the issues the same way.
Partisan affiliation does not change history, it can only distort your perception of it. Bush made some huge blunders, he pandered to the big money lobbyists, and his basic economic principles and policies were proven to be disastrous.
Does that mean democrats share no blame at all for anything? Of course not! Outrage and absolutes are the domain of the right winger who is conditioned into dichotomous black and white thinking. You've been stripped of your ability to tackle an issue without resorting to cheap talking points.
See, they have you making outrageous, provocative statements in order to prevent REAL and THOUGHTFUL discussion. How do I even begin to debate with someone who comes with nothing but oversimplified, erroneous assertions? How can any meaningful dialogue happen when you aren't capable of seeing anything outside of a frame that is two perfectly opposite absolutes?
Just because you have been tricked into believing everything President Obama has done is wrong/bad/evil, doesn't mean that liberals feel everything Obama does is right/good/wholesome, or that everything republicans do is wrong/bad/evil. Get that simple idea through your head, and perhaps we can have a real debate about issues.
Here's the link.
http://factcheck.org/2010/11/pelosi-pablum-on-fiscal-discipline/
I wrote them and told them how colossally stupid that writing is, but they've left it up.
Its unbelievable that people are so dumb.
Tax cuts REDUCE REVENUE.
And to the deficit, REDUCING REVENUE = SPENDING.
The bottom line is that the deficit increases equally in both cases.
However, bush's tax cuts have added more than 2 trillion dollars to the debt, while Obama's "massive spending" (as retarded repubs say) is LESS THAN HALF OF THAT.
Then we could discuss the 700 billion dollar medicare expansion - NONE OF IT PAID FOR.
Then we could talk about the wars bush started (oops, wrong country), which also - by itself, cost more than the democrats have spent IN TOTAL.
damn, you are dumb.
common right wing affliction.
Liar. Nobody moves anywhere, except to Florida and Arizona for retirement.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/01/04/mystery_of_the_missing_millionaires_108415.html
That is why revenues increase when taxes are lowered and revenues decrease when taxes are raised.
Liar. Lower taxes increase deficits.
http://rricketts.ba.ttu.edu/Tax%20Rates%20and%20Revenues.htm
Your a fraud.
The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax RatesPublished on August 13, 2003 by Daniel Mitchell, Ph.D. WebMemo There is a distinct pattern throughout American history: When tax rates are reduced, the economy's growth rate improves and living standards increase. Good tax policy has a number of interesting side effects. For instance, history tells us that tax revenues grow and "rich" taxpayers pay more tax when marginal tax rates are slashed. This means lower income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden - a consequence that should lead class-warfare politicians to support lower tax rates.
Conversely, periods of higher tax rates are associated with sub par economic performance and stagnant tax revenues. In other words, when politicians attempt to "soak the rich," the rest of us take a bath. Examining the three major United States episodes of tax rate reductions can prove useful lessons.
1) Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue.
The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.
According to then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:
The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.
The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).
According to President John F. Kennedy:
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.
The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to "bracket creep," the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).
According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts:
At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production.
2) The rich pay more when incentives to hide income are reduced.
The tax cuts of the 1920s
The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.
The Kennedy tax cuts
Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.
The Reagan tax cuts
The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.
Harmful Spending & Complexity
Lower tax rates are important, but they are not the only critical issue. Both the level of government spending and where that money goes are very important. And even when looking only at tax policy, tax rates are just one piece of the puzzle. If certain types of income are subject to multiple layers of tax, as occurs in the current system, that problem cannot be solved by low rates. Similarly, a tax system with needless levels of complexity will impose heavy costs on the productive sector of the economy.
This WebMemo is excerpted from the author's, Daniel J. Mitchell's, Backgrounder, The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates, published July 19, 1996. The original publication, found here, contains footnotes and numerous charts.
He's a child. And a fraud.
God can't you go a day without plagiarizing?
boss: "kdork, we are going to cut your pay, but don't worry, it will increase your revenue."
kdork: "ok, boss, thanks a million. Any time you want to cut more, just go right ahead."
The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950, and have been a major contributor to the dramatic shift from large projected budget surpluses to projected deficits as far as the eye can see.
The tax cuts have conferred the most benefits, by far, on the highest-income households — those least in need of additional resources — at a time when income already is exceptionally concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.
The design of these tax cuts was ill-conceived, resulting in significantly less economic stimulus than could have been accomplished for the same budgetary cost. In part because the tax cuts were not as effective as alternative measures would have been, job creation during this recovery has been notably worse than in any other recovery since the end of World War II. Tax Returns: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Bush Administration's Record on Cutting Taxes...
But Bush and the REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS WERE NOT Democrats, THEY WERE REPUBLICANS you MORON!
Bush vetoed ONE bill from 2001 till January 2007
Bush II’s first six years (FY2001 to FY2007)
Bush II is the biggest spender since Carter.
In total nondefense spending (including entitlements), Bush I and Bush II both have records of big spending.
In nondefense discretionary spending, Bush II is the biggest spender since Ford.
Finally, in total noninterest spending, Bush II is again the biggest spender since Ford.
Bush II has benefited from low interest costs, which have partly offset high program costs in recent years. That has made Bush II’s fiscal record look a bit better than it actually is because the low interest costs are mainly thanks to four balanced budgets under Clinton.
But isn’t Congress responsible for federal spending? No, Congress shares the responsibility with the White House. Presidents set the overall tone for spending and they hold a powerful veto pen. Bush II’s big spending record, as shown in the data, is reflective of the big spending policy agenda set by his administration.
Presidential Spending...
Yeah, and here's your conservative acceptance of your shares of the blame! "Bush and his crew spent money as if they were drunk democrats",
Here's a clue "chief", it's 2011 and it's time for YOU to GROW THE FK UP!
It doesn't matter how many times a day you post when what you post sounds like a 2 year old whine!
And if "you progressives", "you progressives", "you progressives" is the best you can do, visit your loony right-wing sites like Fox, Redstate, Newsbusters and Big Gov., where that kind of sh*t plays really well.
And finally, if you're a "black man", I'm Kim Kardashian!
lol...this guy is a phony and sicko and had nerve to post some screed last week from a "white" site parroting what he called ebonics. It was disgusting!
Whatever he may be, he's become our new right wing "chew toy", providing us much comic relief and ignorance to bat around.
Based on an example given in your post, you don't have a clue of what socialism really is, and this is the example that exposes your ignorance:
"Everybody will receive the same income, so no more rich or poor."
Don't waste your lifetime waiting, the road we are tarvelling right now does not lead to a socialist society where everyone is given equality of income, it's leading to an Oligarchy (Oligarhy to Glenn Beck) where a small group of very rich multi nationalists own everything, and we keep quiet and accept what they decide we deserve.
Whaaaaat? Is this a policy change at Fox? I'm pretty sure it was always "We Decide, You Gobble It Up"
*In Bizarro world.
this is all just political brainwashing for the 2012 elections.
who was it the said a lie told long enough becomes the truth to some of the people that hear it?
Believe it or not, the loans went belly up, banks went under, and the Democrats used taxpayer money to bail out their friends on Wall Street.
Believe it or not, the loans went belly up, banks went under, and the Democrats used taxpayer money to bail out their friends on Wall Street.
So far, Fannie and Freddie's default on loans that should never have been made has cost the taxpayer tens of billions of dollars. Some estimates say the final cost to the taxpayer will be more than $1 trillion."
---Ann Coulter
do you ever think for yourself or just repost other people's thoughts for your own?
Next thing out of your mouth will probably be some stupid statement about how the CRA caused bush's financial crisis - parroting fox/limbaught/retard news.
Are you saying he is with the right wing media? Boy, are you stupid.
Have any conservatives?
Nope.
go to google, and type "what does health reform do for me".
that will expand your horizons.
HOPE AND CHANGE?
You mean after they are done spending us in to oblivion, we HOPE to have some CHANGE left in our pockets.
6 trillion to our debt by one congress? Wow great job guys.
10% Unemployment
$6 Trillion added to the debt
More spending than Washington to W Bush combined
Signature legislature in line to be repealed
$3.00 per gallon of gas
How's that for hope and change?
Seems to me that in 4 years of a Democrat controlled Congress we have went absolutely backwards from the campaign promises the Dems promised us back in 2006. Thanks for wasting our time and our money. Appreciated
The spending has gotten completely out of control since 2006 under San Fran Nan. Both Bush and Obama are to blame.
Deficit reduction should not be a partisan issue when it is a necessity. Same goes for raising the debt ceiling. It stinks, but has to be done.
not even close to the same thing.
cap deals with reality.
As the article states, experts agree that the deficit is a result of Bush era policies including the tax cuts and military spending and the recession.
I don't totally blame Bush for the recession. We've had a bubble economy since the 1980s and as jobs are continually being lost to outsourcing. The nation is in denial about its capacity to rebound economically with job creation and wages when the manufacturing base has been so decimated.
This isn't hard to understand; and yet, these computer wizard right-wingers are deaf and dumb to reality.
He signed the bills that led to the exploding deficit!
The buck stopped with him, as it does with all presidents.
He signed them. He owns them.
I hope this makes you feel better since you've asked this question several times on this thread.
Arguing over nothing.
Arguing over what the meaning of "is" is.
All wasted time and energy.
Go plant a tree, read a book to a child, or pick up some trash you see in the street.
Help your neighbor.
Be useful.
Make a difference.
But please, just shut up.
These useless arguments solve NOTHING.