Official Republicans In Congress Are Idiots Thread

[El Guapo 8]

That pretty much sums it up. The US has problems, but they are definitely solvable if we make reasonable changes. Unfortunately a significant portion of the population is so stupid/misguided that they can be counted on for nothing, other than to sabotage the US further. Not raising the debt ceiling would be the equivalent of cutting off your arm because you have a paper cut. No sane person could seriously advocate it. If you want to fix the debt, then change the budget that gets made EVERY SINGLE YEAR. The debt ceiling law is absolutely absurd and needs to be repealed immediately.

I actually completely agree with you, except I know we will disagree on what the reasonable changes are.

[Balloon guy 158]

I actually completely agree with you, except I know we will disagree on what the reasonable changes are.

I don'tThe notion that politicians are smart enough to not screw up everything is where you guys are flawed.They passed a law a few years back designed to make it harder for them to get kick back money directly from lobbyist, but later we found out that the real reason for this new bill was to give the incumbents a huge advantage in running for re-election. And lobbyist haven't slowed down in case you haven't noticed.You guys are pretending that the people who got us into this mess are capable of getting us out of it.The best thing in the world would be to stop them from doing anything. If the fear of 'raising the debt ceiling' will work on them,then we need this now more than ever before.And I am done listening to the financial experts who also told us we had 24 hours to pass TARP I before the sky fell, only to find out that they cherry picked who they would bail out, forced some places to take it when they didn't want to, and allowed the worst offenders to keep all their profits and helped them make new ones with the selling of foreclosed houses.The boy who cried wolf story comes to mind.I'll take my chances with the shutting down of the government for a couple months.

[brvheart 1,752]

dear sweet christ, brvso 78% of the constituency are retarded, have no concept whatsoever of what the debt ceiling means, what capping it will result in, and have bought into the tirelessly snake-oil-sold myth which proclaims the gop leadership is comprised of men of principle rather than infantile men of bile who are playing politics with the country's credit rating, which if tarnished will obviously raise the debt burden enormously for generations to come. LET'S BOW TO THE WISHES OF THESE FUCKING RETARDS, CANTOR. GOOD CALL!

That's totally irrelevant about what we're talking about, and it doesn't matter if it's a good idea or not. LLY said it would be politically stupid to them to not raise it. If 80% of the country wants something, retarded or not, then it's political suicide to do the opposite.

[hblask 1]

I'll take my chances with the shutting down of the government for a couple months.

Our MN shutdown is going great, except now bars and liquor stores are starting to run out of certain brands. Apparently, we're too stupid to buy beer without the approval of a wise bureaucrat.Today, the Democratic governor said he was giving in to the Republicans 100%. So it may be working.But then he added that he wanted a half billion in new pork-barrel spending as a condition of giving in. So I'm not sure.The point is, I agree with BG. It's time for harsh medicine, and if that means stopping all spending except Medicare and SS, then let's do it.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

http://about.bgov.com/2011/07/12/august-in...imited-choices/Interesting tool let's you decide which bills get paid and not paid if the debt ceiling isn't raised.

[Balloon guy 158]

http://about.bgov.com/2011/07/12/august-in...imited-choices/Interesting tool let's you decide which bills get paid and not paid if the debt ceiling isn't raised.

Shoot..that tool tells me there is hardly the 'big' problem they allude too.And that the first politicization of the issue was Obama when he lied about SS recipients not getting their checks.I mean flat out the guy is a class warfare lying jerkoff.He is so far over his head in that office that Sarah Palin is starting to look like a serious step up from him.

[CaneBrain 95]

That's totally irrelevant about what we're talking about, and it doesn't matter if it's a good idea or not. LLY said it would be politically stupid to them to not raise it. If 80% of the country wants something, retarded or not, then it's political suicide to do the opposite.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/14/news/econo...p1&iref=NS1Well that's a pickle for the GOP then because it appears the public thinks the no-tax pledge is a mistake. Which political suicide to choose...

[brvheart 1,752]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/14/news/econo...p1&iref=NS1Well that's a pickle for the GOP then because it appears the public thinks the no-tax pledge is a mistake. Which political suicide to choose...

They could easily vote to not raise the debt ceiling and raise taxes. One is popular, one is unpopular.

[Balloon guy 158]

They could easily vote to not raise the debt ceiling and raise taxes. One is popular, one is unpopular.

It would be hard for the dems to make an issue like they did for Bush 1 because there is no "no new taxes' pledge.And if only the taxes on the rich get raised, then the dems are really unable to say anything, because they've been begging for this since time began.I'm still against this, but its a principle thing for me, not a "The rich need the money so the economy will recover" thing.

[hblask 1]

How NOT to end a standoff: The governor and legislature of MN have agreed to a deal to re-open the state government, with no new taxes. Good news, right?Wrong. They closed the budget gap by borrowing the money from schools. Basically, it's a big F-U to the school system, especially charter schools. (I'm sure that's a big part of the reason the Democratic governor loved it -- the teacher's union must be wetting their pants with joy.) Mostly though, it's a big accounting gimmick. "Yes, we have the money.... it's just the schools that we run that don't have it." Ignore that man behind the curtain.This is what I'm worried about in Washington -- that the R's will cave with a few token gestures by the Dems, and we will be left with a worse budget problem than we have now. It's exactly what just happened here, and there's no reason to believe the DC Liars and Cheats will be any different.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

IT'S OFFICIAL: The Whole World Thinks Republicans Are Dangerous Maniacs Threatening Everyone

Hard to accuse the Germans (who are no fans of fiscal profligacy) of being motivated by politics, or some inherent reason to attack Republicans. This is just the reality of what they're doing. Here's the passage from Bild, the newspaper of the masses: "Playing poker is part of politics, as is theatrical posturing. That's fair enough. But what America is currently exhibiting is the worst kind of absurd theatrics. And the whole world is being held hostage. "Irrespective of what the correct fiscal and economic policy should be for the most powerful country on earth, it's simply not possible to stop taking on new debt overnight. Most importantly, the Republicans have turned a dispute over a technicality into a religious war, which no longer has any relation to a reasonable dispute between the elected government and the opposition." "If it continues like this, the US will be bankrupt within a few days. It would cause a global shockwave like the one which followed the Lehman bankruptcy in 2008, which triggered the worst economic crisis since the war. Except it would be much worse than the Lehman bankruptcy. The political climate in the US has been poisoned to a degree that is hard for us (Germans) to imagine. But we should all fear the consequences."Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/its-officia...7#ixzz1SBObEr8Y

[mk 11]

Watching that kingbutt Eric Cantor this morning, do you know what I was reminded of?Those old "Parents who do drugs have kids who do drugs" commercials they used to play all the time in the 80s.The current GOP leadership seems to believe that everyone will just forget that republicans are actually mostly responsible for our massive structural debt, and now they (republicans) are pretending to lecture the current administration like the fucking cokehead parent in that commercial who self-righteously chastises his kid after finding some paraphernalia, and the kid screams back, "I LEARNED IT FROM WATCHING YOU", [cut to: stunned, speechless cokeface 'Dad'] /sceneThe mainstream gop has literally zero, and i mean fucking zero, credibility when they say things like, "We care about deficits," or, "We need to rein in spending." The only political faction that has any credibility when it comes to spending is the libertarians, and hey, good for you, too bad you're all still batshit crazy.Lest anyone think I'm talking out of my ass here, I can provide chartsengrafs and stuff if need be.

[mrdannyg 274]

How NOT to end a standoff: The governor and legislature of MN have agreed to a deal to re-open the state government, with no new taxes. Good news, right?Wrong. They closed the budget gap by borrowing the money from schools. Basically, it's a big F-U to the school system, especially charter schools. (I'm sure that's a big part of the reason the Democratic governor loved it -- the teacher's union must be wetting their pants with joy.) Mostly though, it's a big accounting gimmick. "Yes, we have the money.... it's just the schools that we run that don't have it." Ignore that man behind the curtain.This is what I'm worried about in Washington -- that the R's will cave with a few token gestures by the Dems, and we will be left with a worse budget problem than we have now. It's exactly what just happened here, and there's no reason to believe the DC Liars and Cheats will be any different.

It's rare that I strongly agree with you, so just wanted to note this instance. I don't see any way the standoff does not end up being 'resolved' by accounting gimmicks and cuts that are poorly placed because they have to more directly line the pockets of the well-connected to ensure agreement.

[Balloon guy 158]

Watching that kingbutt Eric Cantor this morning, do you know what I was reminded of?Those old "Parents who do drugs have kids who do drugs" commercials they used to play all the time in the 80s.The current GOP leadership seems to believe that everyone will just forget that republicans are actually mostly responsible for our massive structural debt, and now they (republicans) are pretending to lecture the current administration like the fing cokehead parent in that commercial who self-righteously chastises his kid after finding some paraphernalia, and the kid screams back, "I LEARNED IT FROM WATCHING YOU", [cut to: stunned, speechless cokeface 'Dad'] /sceneThe mainstream gop has literally zero, and i mean fing zero, credibility when they say things like, "We care about deficits," or, "We need to rein in spending." The only political faction that has any credibility when it comes to spending is the libertarians, and hey, good for you, too bad you're all still bats crazy.Lest anyone think I'm talking out of my ass here, I can provide chartsengrafs and stuff if need be.

So here are the options:One side says: We want to cut spending and don't. Their constituents vote them out and replace them with people who say "We really want to cut spending"The other side says: We want to raise taxes, increase spending and create brand new massive government spending programs. Their constituents vote them back in.Which one is more likely to 'do the right thing'?Unless you're 'right thing' is spending more money?Republicans are the only one talking about cutting spending. Of course when they present a plan that will reduce the deficit by 20% over 10 years they are branded as crazy inane radicals who want to kill old people.But you're right, they have ZERO credibility because they increased spending during a huge economic boom, unlike the dems who have been increasing spending at a much faster rate during a huge economic downturn.

[SilentSnow 1]

So here are the options:One side says: We want to cut spending and don't. Their constituents vote them out and replace them with people who say "We really want to cut spending"The other side says: We want to raise taxes, increase spending and create brand new massive government spending programs. Their constituents vote them back in.Which one is more likely to 'do the right thing'?Unless you're 'right thing' is spending more money?Republicans are the only one talking about cutting spending. Of course when they present a plan that will reduce the deficit by 20% over 10 years they are branded as crazy inane radicals who want to kill old people.But you're right, they have ZERO credibility because they increased spending during a huge economic boom, unlike the dems who have been increasing spending at a much faster rate during a huge economic downturn.

At this point your scenarios are all just flat out lies and have no connection to objective reality. The Democrats have made countless spending cut proposals, including the current one by Obama in which he gives the Republicans pretty much everything they want- big spending cuts in exchange for very small tax increases.Also, I'm beginning to think that you might have a mental disorder. How many times do we have to explain that increasing spending during a boom is a terrible idea but increasing to counteract a recession is what you should be doing? 10 times? 100 times? 1000?

[Balloon guy 158]

At this point your scenarios are all just flat out lies and have no connection to objective reality. The Democrats have made countless spending cut proposals, including the current one by Obama in which he gives the Republicans pretty much everything they want- big spending cuts in exchange for very small tax increases.

Yep, democrats, the party of decreasing spending...

[mk 11]

But you're right, they have ZERO credibility because they increased spending during a huge economic boom, unlike the dems who have been increasing spending at a much faster rate during a huge economic downturn.

I think you're attempting sarcasm here and trying to say you think they (republicans) actually DO have credibility because they (presumably Bush Cheney et al) increased spending during the 2000s whereas the current administration increased spending in the midst of a recession.Well.This is a pretty classic example of grasping at straws--straws that are completely irrelevant to everything. It's also deeply silly. The budget is the budget. Whether the economy is growing or contracting, the government balance sheet consists of assets, liabilities and equity. The composition of the balance sheet doesn't change. Sure, when the economy is robust the government tends to collect more net tax revenue and assets increase, but: do you see that if you choose to (simultaneously, while the economy is expanding) cut tax rates (see: Reagan, Bush, Bush, Cheney, et al) these 'gains' are not actually realized because they never hit the balance sheet. Since (I think?) you were (are?) a business owner, these standard accounting terms aren't unfamiliar to you. Therefore, another term, that being an unfunded liability, will not need explanation. An example, though, could be instructive relative to your point above. When, e.g., Bush Cheney et al decided (as the deciders) to go to war in Afghanistan in 2001 and later to also go to war in Iraq in 2003, an accountant would've noted that these endeavors were liabilities, and rather massive ones at that. Said accountant (if sane) would've been likely to recommend an increase in assets (tax revenue) in order to compensate for the requisite increase in spending (so as not to have an [an] unfunded liability[ies]). When said hypothetical accountant recommended this (again, hypothetically) he/she was met with the following response (in reality):[Former Treasury Secretary] Paul O'Neill said he tried [in December 2002] to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this [that] fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. (Source: Reuters, Jan. 11, 2004)He (O'Neill) was fired like a month later.So, you know. I see your point. I just think it's stupid.

[SilentSnow 1]

Yep, democrats, the party of decreasing spending...

Yep, Republicans, the party of the "big lie". Goebbels didn't know how right he was. Obligatory clarification due to bad reading comprehension from most people- I'm not saying the Republicans are Nazis. I am however saying that they routinely use propaganda techniques that were most effectively used by the Nazis.

[mk 11]

chart

When the GOP engages in deficit spending it's because they're patriotic; when Democrats engage in deficit spending it's because they're socialists, duh.

[Balloon guy 158]

Yep, Republicans, the party of the "big lie". Goebbels didn't know how right he was. Obligatory clarification due to bad reading comprehension from most people- I'm not saying the Republicans are Nazis. I am however saying that they routinely use propaganda techniques that were most effectively used by the Nazis.

I agree with your theory of propaganda.Laying at the feet of the republicans the spending when the democrats controlled congress AND laying at the feet of the democrat president when Republicans controlled congress is propaganda.Just not the type you think it is.

[Balloon guy 158]

I think you're attempting sarcasm here and trying to say you think they (republicans) actually DO have credibility because they (presumably Bush Cheney et al) increased spending during the 2000s whereas the current administration increased spending in the midst of a recession.Well.This is a pretty classic example of grasping at straws--straws that are completely irrelevant to everything. It's also deeply silly. The budget is the budget. Whether the economy is growing or contracting, the government balance sheet consists of assets, liabilities and equity. The composition of the balance sheet doesn't change. Sure, when the economy is robust the government tends to collect more net tax revenue and assets increase, but: do you see that if you choose to (simultaneously, while the economy is expanding) cut tax rates (see: Reagan, Bush, Bush, Cheney, et al) these 'gains' are not actually realized because they never hit the balance sheet. Since (I think?) you were (are?) a business owner, these standard accounting terms aren't unfamiliar to you. Therefore, another term, that being an unfunded liability, will not need explanation. An example, though, could be instructive relative to your point above. When, e.g., Bush Cheney et al decided (as the deciders) to go to war in Afghanistan in 2001 and later to also go to war in Iraq in 2003, an accountant would've noted that these endeavors were liabilities, and rather massive ones at that. Said accountant (if sane) would've been likely to recommend an increase in assets (tax revenue) in order to compensate for the requisite increase in spending (so as not to have an [an] unfunded liability[ies]). When said hypothetical accountant recommended this (again, hypothetically) he/she was met with the following response (in reality):[Former Treasury Secretary] Paul O'Neill said he tried [in December 2002] to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this [that] fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. (Source: Reuters, Jan. 11, 2004)He (O'Neill) was fired like a month later.So, you know. I see your point. I just think it's stupid.

Cause we all know Cheney really ran the budget of the United States...as all VPs do.Oh wait, that's right, Bush was Cheney's puppet, except that Bush run the budget. Oh wait, no the budget was run by congress, wait no that was the dems.Oh wait that's right, the dems are always right and the republicans are always wrong and you call anyone who disagrees with you a blind sheep follower.Which is another sweet example of how the phrase 'open-minded' doesn't mean what you think it means.If you want to say Bush spent too much, I'm with you. he did.Spending too much is wrong, I don't care if its fiscally viable with our economic growth, I want a lean government paying its way.Pretending that the republicans are not the party more likely to make this happen (because at least their rhetoric is on the right track) while the dems don't even want to pretend they are for reducing spending (as shown by their attempts to institute a $trillion health care department on top of a weak and falling economy) reeks of 20xs more partisan blind following on your side than on ours.And last time I checked, we go to war to kick someone's butt that needs kicking, not when the accountants tell us its a good idea.Bush's fiscal plan to lower taxes resulted in a recovery from the Clinton recession he inherited. AND at the same time he went to defend the world from terrorist. Bush did way more right than he did wrong.Your side's attempts at clouding the issue by claiming the spending increases are secondary to the tax cuts show that no liberal should ever be allowed to run anything because they are completely and utterly helpless when brain power is required.IF BUSH AND THE DEMOCRATS RUNNING THE PURSE STRINGS DIDN'T INCREASE SPENDING SO MUCH, THE TAX CUTS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RELEVANT. The fact you guys ignore the increased spending and blame the problem on the lack of money coming in shows you have never run anything but your mouths.

[SilentSnow 1]

Pretending that the republicans are not the party more likely to make this happen (because at least their rhetoric is on the right track) while the dems don't even want to pretend they are for reducing spending (as shown by their attempts to institute a $trillion health care department on top of a weak and falling economy) reeks of 20xs more partisan blind following on your side than on ours.And last time I checked, we go to war to kick someone's butt that needs kicking, not when the accountants tell us its a good idea.Bush's fiscal plan to lower taxes resulted in a recovery from the Clinton recession he inherited. AND at the same time he went to defend the world from terrorist. Bush did way more right than he did wrong.Your side's attempts at clouding the issue by claiming the spending increases are secondary to the tax cuts show that no liberal should ever be allowed to run anything because they are completely and utterly helpless when brain power is required.IF BUSH AND THE DEMOCRATS RUNNING THE PURSE STRINGS DIDN'T INCREASE SPENDING SO MUCH, THE TAX CUTS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RELEVANT. The fact you guys ignore the increased spending and blame the problem on the lack of money coming in shows you have never run anything but your mouths.

-The CBO projected that the health care plan would save a trillion dollars. It might not save that much but pretending it will cost trillions is absolute nonsense. -Your military exception is pretty convenient. Less convenient is the fact that the total US debt is around 14 trillion, and that is about how much in unnecessary military spending we've done over the last few decades. If we had spent as much on the military as other countries had we might not have had any deficit at all today. -I've already explained why your defense of Bush is completely wrong. Also it is amazingly hypocritical. Considering that the recession Obama inherited was multiple times worse then by your theory Obama should be completely exempt from any spending criticism. Your side's attempts at denying the issue by claiming the tax cuts had nothing to do with the deficit show that no conservative should ever be allowed to run anything because they are completely and utterly helpless when brain power is required.Liberals clearly are not ignoring the increased spending. They have proposed multiple spending cuts. You have to be utterly clueless to deny this. I'll quickly review what I've already posted before. Historically the government has taken in about 19% of GDP in revenue. Currently we are at around 14% in revenue and 24% in spending. It seems pretty clear that a significant portion of the problem is that taxes are too low. The huge majority of the deficit came from just 4 presidents- Reagan, Bush, Bush and Obama. The huge majority of the deficit was caused by tax cuts, military spending and medicaid/medicare spending. Social security did not cause any of the deficit since until now it paid for itself and all other spending is fairly trivial. So let's assign blame if you want-Tax cuts- nearly 100% republicans.Military spending- 90 % republicans. I give democrats some blame because too many corrupt democratic politicians didn't do enough to stop it. Medicare/Medicaid- Equal blame. Both parties did nothing to solve, although Republicans have done much more to prevent a solution that the rest of the civilized world uses. So Republicans get 80% of the blame for the deficit. I don't think you can reasonably interpret the facts to give them less than 70%. Also, keep in mind that Obama's deficit increasing policies towards extending the Bush tax cuts/military spending are strongly opposed by many liberals.

[Balloon guy 158]

-The CBO projected that the health care plan would save a trillion dollars. It might not save that much but pretending it will cost trillions is absolute nonsense.

Wow, finally you guys are proving that you are all women. Only a woman could think that she is saving money by spending it.

-Your military exception is pretty convenient. Less convenient is the fact that the total US debt is around 14 trillion, and that is about how much in unnecessary military spending we've done over the last few decades. If we had spent as much on the military as other countries had we might not have had any deficit at all today.

More feminist leanings, 'why can't you be like them, they don't spend anything on the military'....oh that's right, they don't spend anything on their military because they are 100% dependent on the US to protect them. Here's a difficult mind game for you. Imagine we stopped protecting them...now what would the results be?

-I've already explained why your defense of Bush is completely wrong. Also it is amazingly hypocritical. Considering that the recession Obama inherited was multiple times worse then by your theory Obama should be completely exempt from any spending criticism.

So...Bush inherits a falling economy, and a world wide terrorist changing policy event, and recovers from the recession while dealing with the world wide terrorist changing policy...that exempts Obama from printing money and giving it to political friends while sinking any chance of an economic recovery....Yea, your going to need to esplain that to me again, I just can't follow the logic.

Your side's attempts at denying the issue by claiming the tax cuts had nothing to do with the deficit show that no conservative should ever be allowed to run anything because they are completely and utterly helpless when brain power is required.

Never said they had nothing to do with the deficits. I am claiming that tax cuts DO NOT ALWAYS results in increased deficit spending, but increased spending does. Therefore increased spending is the natural culprit for the deficit spending. Tax cuts have been shown to result in increased revenue through economic stimulation. Its not a 100% guaranteed work, but it is also not a complete fabrication to say that leaving money in the private sector results in more money moving in the private sector.

Liberals clearly are not ignoring the increased spending. They have proposed multiple spending cuts. You have to be utterly clueless to deny this.

Spending cuts don't always mean cutting spending. Liberals call slowing the level of growth a spending cut.

I'll quickly review what I've already posted before. Historically the government has taken in about 19% of GDP in revenue. Currently we are at around 14% in revenue and 24% in spending. It seems pretty clear that a significant portion of the problem is that taxes are too low. The huge majority of the deficit came from just 4 presidents- Reagan, Bush, Bush and Obama. The huge majority of the deficit was caused by tax cuts, military spending and medicaid/medicare spending. Social security did not cause any of the deficit since until now it paid for itself and all other spending is fairly trivial. So let's assign blame if you want-

Listing tax cuts as first shows your bias. If your business depends on sales of widgets, and you sell more widgets than last year but increased costs by hiring 20 new employees, you would never look at your books in the red and blame the sale price of the widgets. Of course that is one way to get into the black, but lowering costs will do the same thing without risking losing your customer base.

Tax cuts- nearly 100% republicans.Military spending- 90 % republicans.

So republicans want to protect your family and let you keep more of the money you earn...okay...then by definition the democrats want to take your money from you and risk your lives.

I give democrats some blame because too many corrupt democratic politicians didn't do enough to stop it.

Sorry, 'giving me' this small olive branch is not going to allow you to claim you are being fair, since you preface it by implying that democrats have been trying to stop the evil republicans but have just not tried hard enough. Let's ignore the democrats who voted to increase spending, let's ignore democrats who funneled stimulus money to their spouse's business for 100s of million of dollars. Let's pretend all democrats are trying so hard, but they just haven't been able to stop those evil republicans, EVEN WHEN THEY RAN THE HOUSE, THE SENATE AND THE WHITE HOUSE!

Medicare/Medicaid- Equal blame. Both parties did nothing to solve, although Republicans have done much more to prevent a solution that the rest of the civilized world uses.

Because the republicans see that it is a failed model that depends on an extremely rich neighbor protecting our border and Mexico is the only choice we have since Canada has already dismantled any serious army. Maybe you want to depend on the Mexican army to protect the world form the bad guy, but I don't see that being a good long term strategy.

So Republicans get 80% of the blame for the deficit. I don't think you can reasonably interpret the facts to give them less than 70%. Also, keep in mind that Obama's deficit increasing policies towards extending the Bush tax cuts/military spending are strongly opposed by many liberals.

Yet, he has extended the Bush tax cuts...I guess that was another example of him 'not trying hard enough'?Kind of like how he kept every single foreign policy decision Bush made from keeping torture and rendition as an option, keeping Gitmo open, increasing troop levels in Afghanistan and obeying Bush's timeline for Iraq?When you have to actually face up to the problem and not just the sound bite, you realize that Bush did things right. Except for letting the dems spend so much.To be fair, the dems did try to cut some spending under Bush. They tried to prevent paying the troops and giving them the equipment they needed after they were there for 5 years.

[brvheart 1,752]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/14/news/econo...p1&iref=NS1Well that's a pickle for the GOP then because it appears the public thinks the no-tax pledge is a mistake. Which political suicide to choose...

oops. Only 34% want a tax increase.

[mrdannyg 274]

Wow, finally you guys are proving that you are all women. Only a woman could think that she is saving money by spending it.More feminist leanings, 'why can't you be like them, they don't spend anything on the military'....oh that's right, they don't spend anything on their military because they are 100% dependent on the US to protect them. Here's a difficult mind game for you. Imagine we stopped protecting them...now what would the results be?So...Bush inherits a falling economy, and a world wide terrorist changing policy event, and recovers from the recession while dealing with the world wide terrorist changing policy...that exempts Obama from printing money and giving it to political friends while sinking any chance of an economic recovery....

So you can't save money by spending it, but you can defend people by attacking them? Awesome!