PDA

View Full Version : Where was this "conservative" outrage about spending when Bush was in office?



Spetsnazos
03-25-2009, 09:17 AM
Conservatives are pretty hilarious when you think about it.

Take Rush Limbaugh, ur leader. The guy rages consistently about how Obama is spending so much and leading us into debt, yet, Bush was the same way and I didnt hear Rush causing a riot? Party lines are strong. When Obama does it, its bad...When Bush does it, oh well hes conservative.

Epic fail

TheStender
03-25-2009, 09:21 AM
Conservatives are pretty hilarious when you think about it.

Take Rush Limbaugh, ur leader. The guy rages consistently about how Obama is spending so much and leading us into debt, yet, Bush was the same way and I didnt hear Rush causing a riot? Party lines are strong. When Obama does it, its bad...When Bush does it, oh well hes conservative.

Epic fail

I didn't know Rush lead anything...I've never even listened to him or watched him...

...and I thought people WERE upset over Bush's spending? Where are you getting that people weren't?

Spetsnazos
03-25-2009, 09:26 AM
I didn't know Rush lead anything...I've never even listened to him or watched him...

...and I thought people WERE upset over Bush's spending? Where are you getting that people weren't?

people were upset but they werent making a million threads about how Bush is going to run us into the ground...but when Obama steps in all i see and hear from republicans is how this spending is outrageous

nail3r
03-25-2009, 09:28 AM
Why is it just conservatives? Both parties will do anything to drag down the other party when it suits them, it's called politics.

Looking outside this whole "Conservatives are this and that" "LOL republicans are scum" sort of thing, it's pathetic.

TheStender
03-25-2009, 09:30 AM
people were upset but they werent making a million threads about how Bush is going to run us into the ground...but when Obama steps in all i see and hear from republicans is how this spending is outrageous

I guess one reason would probably be that except for the 2009 budget, "Obama's" budget is a just about a TRILLION dollars more than any other of "Bush's" budgets. So, increasing it by nearly a full third is kind of big leap.

Either way, government spending is out of hand, no matter who is president. But I don't make threads about it either.

It's sad to think in the past 10 years though, it's increased two TRILLION dollars. So while Bush increased it, Obama so far shows no sign of slowing it down. Hopefully that will change. :(

lookingtogrow
03-25-2009, 09:32 AM
Conservatives are pretty hilarious when you think about it.

Take Rush Limbaugh, ur leader. The guy rages consistently about how Obama is spending so much and leading us into debt, yet, Bush was the same way and I didnt hear Rush causing a riot? Party lines are strong. When Obama does it, its bad...When Bush does it, oh well hes conservative.

Epic fail

Oh, you mean when Bush deficit spent 1/3 as much in 8 years as Obama did in less than 60 days...gee, I dunno why there wasn't as much outrage...

Speaking of epic fail...thanks for the post...

Anti_Illuminati
03-25-2009, 09:33 AM
Conservatives are pretty hilarious when you think about it.

Take Rush Limbaugh, ur leader. The guy rages consistently about how Obama is spending so much and leading us into debt, yet, Bush was the same way and I didnt hear Rush causing a riot? Party lines are strong. When Obama does it, its bad...When Bush does it, oh well hes conservative.

Epic fail

Hahahaha, yeah. Bush tripling the size of the federal government, and the BATFE is "conservative." Hahaha, repped.

mrawdtsi
03-25-2009, 09:42 AM
the difference is when Bush initially decided to declare a "war on terror" the public bought into it... so there was a very clear, and valid reason.

You didn't start to see people criticizing the Bush administration until they began to see through the BS.

thats my take...

chrisjd
03-25-2009, 09:48 AM
It's called the BAILOUT. Read up son...

TheStender
03-25-2009, 09:52 AM
It's called the BAILOUT. Read up son...

What is called the bailout?

And do you mean the bailout...or the stimulus?

JUSA
03-25-2009, 09:52 AM
the difference is when Bush initially decided to declare a "war on terror" the public bought into it... so there was a very clear, and valid reason.

You didn't start to see people criticizing the Bush administration until they began to see through the BS.

thats my take... x2

I was on board with Bush for a long time. I was stupid and saw things as black and white and I fed into this "us against them!" attitude Bush and the liberals played off of each other, not realizing that in the long run there wasn't that much difference between them.

againstall0dds
03-25-2009, 09:55 AM
Because Rush is a biased hypocrite.

chrisjd
03-25-2009, 09:57 AM
Because Rush is a biased hypocrite.

He is quite biased and a little arrogant, but he is right more often than not imo.

chrisjd
03-25-2009, 09:58 AM
What is called the bailout?

And do you mean the bailout...or the stimulus?

Bailing out AIG, bailing out the auto companys, etc etc...

Call it what you want.

TheStender
03-25-2009, 09:59 AM
Bailing out AIG, bailing out the auto companys, etc etc...

Call it what you want.

Okay, that's the bailout, which Bush put out.

So...what is your point? You just said "It's called the bailout." That's pretty vague...

codhead
03-25-2009, 10:04 AM
Conservatives are pretty hilarious when you think about it.

Take Rush Limbaugh, ur leader. The guy rages consistently about how Obama is spending so much and leading us into debt, yet, Bush was the same way and I didnt hear Rush causing a riot? Party lines are strong. When Obama does it, its bad...When Bush does it, oh well hes conservative.

Epic fail

1) Obama is spending way more than Bush

2) You're right. Bush and others that claim they are freemarketeers/conservatives can do (and have done)10x the damage to the reputation of fiscal conservatism than someone such as Obama who make no such claim. Conservatives should definitely keep an eye out/look in the mirror and practice what they preach.

Morbid_Mind
03-25-2009, 10:05 AM
How come the Democrats and liberals were, for 8 years, blasting Bush for spending like a drunken sailor, now Obama is planning on spending so much as to make Bush look like an actual fiscal conservative the Democrats are silent and think it's a "good idea."

The thinking that spending is fine when your party is in power, but bad when it's not is a disasterous one. Government spending is always bad.

One More Time
03-25-2009, 10:07 AM
Conservatives are pretty hilarious when you think about it.

Take Rush Limbaugh, ur leader. The guy rages consistently about how Obama is spending so much and leading us into debt, yet, Bush was the same way and I didnt hear Rush causing a riot? Party lines are strong. When Obama does it, its bad...When Bush does it, oh well hes conservative.

Epic fail

I was outraged...so outraged that I didn't vote for McCain (who was the same thing).


Oh and I would NEVER vote for Obama...even if he were the only one running....unless he changed almost every political stance he has.

badbart
03-25-2009, 10:16 AM
Do you guys know the dollar difference is Bush's budget compared to Obama?

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

Obama's budget is economic suicide.

ZenBowman
03-25-2009, 10:24 AM
Bush was almost as bad as Obama. The Republican party is full of lying, deceitful individuals who will do what it takes to increase government size. The Dems are just as bad, except they don't pretend to want small government.

The Libertarian Party is really the only choice for any freedom loving American.

Vitalshok44
03-25-2009, 10:33 AM
Conservatives are pretty hilarious when you think about it.

Take Rush Limbaugh, ur leader. The guy rages consistently about how Obama is spending so much and leading us into debt, yet, Bush was the same way and I didnt hear Rush causing a riot? Party lines are strong. When Obama does it, its bad...When Bush does it, oh well hes conservative.

Epic fail

The epic fail is on your part for not noticing that it was a consistent criticism all throughout his presidency, also this proves how little you listen to rush because if you did you only know that he criticized Bush many times for spending too much throughout the years.

Why is the issue on the front burner now? The answer is quite simple, during the Bush presidency he was doing it a lot more than just spending money.

Whereas Obama to this point has only done one thing, spend money.

sharkeh
03-25-2009, 10:33 AM
BOTTOM LINE: There is no such thing as a fiscal conservative anymore. The same politicians that would cut welfare programs are the same ones who would increase defense spending the next day.

Both parties suck. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity suck. Libertarians FTW

Vitalshok44
03-25-2009, 10:34 AM
Bush was almost as bad as Obama. The Republican party is full of lying, deceitful individuals who will do what it takes to increase government size. The Dems are just as bad, except they don't pretend to want small government.

The Libertarian Party is really the only choice for any freedom loving American.

Pretty much

HoosierBoy
03-25-2009, 10:36 AM
Real conservatives like Baldwin and Paul have always ranted against Bush.

NJlifter88
03-25-2009, 10:42 AM
true... libertarians are smarter than everyone else so they understood the problems with bush from the beginning :D

most republicans are willing to make apologies for people they can label conservative... it was all about following the leader during bush's tenure. they seemed to either be dumb or blinded by partisanship.

Archangel12580
03-25-2009, 10:50 AM
Just out of curiosity, what "conservatives" were all for Bush's spending and government expanditure?

Almost all true conservatives disagreed with Bush on his views of spending and larger government.

Spetsnazos
03-25-2009, 10:50 AM
Do you guys know the dollar difference is Bush's budget compared to Obama?

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

Obama's budget is economic suicide.

bush's spending was considerably larger than Clintons >_> why werent you outraged??

I'm talking about principle here, at least the Ron Paul people are consistent...seems like the republican party isnt.

JuanDenver
03-25-2009, 10:56 AM
Republican =/= Conservative :cool:

One More Time
03-25-2009, 10:58 AM
bush's spending was considerably larger than Clintons >_> why werent you outraged??

I'm talking about principle here, at least the Ron Paul people are consistent...seems like the republican party isnt.

That is part of the problem. The Dems have shown their hand as to what they are now. They are about as far left as you can go. The Republicans IMO haven't found their new identity yet.

Ironstone-
03-25-2009, 11:14 AM
OP, are you aware how much mr. obama just spent? Now how much did bush spend? I'd rather spend less than more anyday.

TheStender
03-25-2009, 11:15 AM
I'd rather spend less than more anyday.

I'd rather spend more than less myself. That would mean I had more money...

..of course when the government can spend money it doesn't have, that's not so good.

Ironstone-
03-25-2009, 11:17 AM
..of course when the government can spend money it doesn't have, that's not so good.

It would be good if someone actually told mr. obama this.

skylinenegro
03-25-2009, 11:19 AM
Do you guys know the dollar difference is Bush's budget compared to Obama?

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

Obama's budget is economic suicide.

Ok, this is just a question, but does he have another choice or than to spend?

TheStender
03-25-2009, 11:22 AM
Ok, this is just a question, but does he have another choice or than to spend?

Not spend as much? Try to cut costs and not increase them?

"I'm going broke and can't even afford rent, but I'll order cable TV and buy myself a new car, up my Netflix to 8 at a time, sign up for Gamefly, and get a membership at Lifetime. Maybe start going out to eat a few times a week too."

JCham
03-25-2009, 11:22 AM
Rush (and many conservatives) spoke out against Bush's spending.

Archangel12580
03-25-2009, 11:23 AM
Ok, this is just a question, but does he have another choice or than to spend?

Absolutely, cut and downsize within government and govermnment spending. Let capitalism do what it does, let businesses fail, let other businesses step up and grow to fill the void, let failing institutions fail so better, stronger, smarter institutions can prosper in their place..... But thats not what he wants. He wants capitalism to fail so he has an easier time selling socialism.

Spetsnazos
03-25-2009, 11:23 AM
Real conservatives like Baldwin and Paul have always ranted against Bush.

wasnt Rush Limbaugh on the national conservative thing just recently? I heard plenty of cheering for him....

Spetsnazos
03-25-2009, 11:24 AM
Rush (and many conservatives) spoke out against Bush's spending.

they were grilling him on it daily? I remember fox news singing a different tune completely about Bush...

AJbuilder
03-25-2009, 11:26 AM
Ok, this is just a question, but does he have another choice or than to spend?

Streamline and trim the bureaucracies in federal government. This includes earmarks and pork. Did you know Homeland Security spent nearly 40% of its budget on administration and paper work? That doesn't take into account salaries paid.

Transition Post Office to private sector

most importantly, cut the capital gains and corporate taxes for small and medium businesses.

Ironstone-
03-25-2009, 11:28 AM
wasnt Rush Limbaugh on the national conservative thing just recently? I heard plenty of cheering for him....

Yes it was at CPAC. People loved him.


they were grilling him on it daily? I remember fox news singing a different tune completely about Bush...

Rush didnt even mention him at CPAC.

You can find the CPAC on youtube just search "Rush Limbaugh -CPAC". Theres about 10 different parts if you want to watch them all. Its a good watch.

skylinenegro
03-25-2009, 11:33 AM
Absolutely, cut and downsize within government and govermnment spending. Let capitalism do what it does, let businesses fail, let other businesses step up and grow to fill the void, let failing institutions fail so better, stronger, smarter institutions can prosper in their place..... But thats not what he wants. He wants capitalism to fail so he has an easier time selling socialism.

But in terms of of the car industry, without helping GM and certain failing companies, the whole industry could fall. Not 1 business or 2; a whole industry. Would that be better than spending on them?

Im not saying spending is right or wrong i'm just trying to see and understand peoples views on it.

JMillion
03-25-2009, 11:33 AM
1) Bush and others that claim they are freemarketeers/conservatives can do (and have done)10x the damage to the reputation of fiscal conservatism than someone such as Obama who make no such claim.

This x infinity. Nothing has damaged the image of the "free market" more than the Bush administration, which they ironically did by being one of the most anti-free market administrations we've ever seen.

JuanDenver
03-25-2009, 11:34 AM
Yes it was at CPAC. People loved him.



Rush didnt even mention him at CPAC.

You can find the CPAC on youtube just search "Rush Limbaugh -CPAC". Theres about 10 different parts if you want to watch them all. Its a good watch.

OP is trying to make a point that conservatives werent making a fuss about bushs spending, all while ignoring conservatives didnt like him to begin with. Matter of fact, the liberal media was all over bushs spending on the war. All of the sudden theyre mum about barry and the dems spending.

He cant even tell the difference between a conservative and a republican. He loves the communist soviet union.

Ignore him plz.

KLMARB
03-25-2009, 11:35 AM
they were grilling him on it daily? I remember fox news singing a different tune completely about Bush...

That's the whole point, Fox News is not conservative. Merely trying to present both sides. As to the Bush policies, if you had really followed the conservative reaction, you'd have seen that they were against the vast majority of his domestic policy decisions, which were clearly not conservative. Why do you think there had to be a new term thought up? Remember the term "Neocon"?

Now as to Obama, no new terms are necessary, as he is suggesting nothing new, or for that matter, anything that has worked in the past...

YUL
03-25-2009, 11:36 AM
Just out of curiosity, what "conservatives" were all for Bush's spending and government expanditure?

Almost all true conservatives disagreed with Bush on his views of spending and larger government.

well, he did get re-elected. I guess the supporters outnumbered the criticizers

JCham
03-25-2009, 11:38 AM
they were grilling him on it daily? I remember fox news singing a different tune completely about Bush...

Bush also didn't go on a spending spree his first 60 days in office.

Archangel12580
03-25-2009, 11:40 AM
But in terms of of the car industry, without helping GM and certain failing companies, the whole industry could fall. Not 1 business or 2; a whole industry. Would that be better than spending on them?

Im not saying spending is right or wrong i'm just trying to see and understand peoples views on it.

The American auto industry will never die, thats just what they want you to think. They could have filed chapter 11 (which is what should have taken place), they would have been sold off in pieces at bargain basement prices, other auto manufacturers, partners and or prospective industry new comers would have bought the company up as a whole or in pieces and it would be reborn under new skin and new ownership. This is how capitalism works. You dont prop up failing companies, you dismantle them and allow the industry surrounding to grow and prosper. Where GM fails, the inception of the next big American car company would be born. Thats the beauty of capitalism. We just have to get the government out of the way of its workings...

Promoting and supporting failures with these bailouts hinders the successes of new ventures that would normally follow a company such as GM or chrysler going under.

JCham
03-25-2009, 11:40 AM
well, he did get re-elected. I guess the supporters outnumbered the criticizers

You're not thinking like a Republican though. We typically have crappy candidates so we always vote for the lesser of two evils.

YUL
03-25-2009, 11:42 AM
You're not thinking like a Republican though. We typically have crappy candidates so we always vote for the lesser of two evils.


well, it's better than wasting your vote on a marginal 3rd party extremist.

you gotta work with who'se been nominated

YUL
03-25-2009, 11:46 AM
they would have been sold off in pieces at bargain basement prices, other auto manufacturers, partners and or prospective industry new comers would have bought the company up as a whole or in pieces .

you really want to sell off a vital industry to foreign interests that don't have the well-being of America in mind? That didnt seem to work well with giving foreign ownership to US ports

what do you think the cost of entry is for the automotive industry? We're not talking opening a small-medium business here.

bubba g
03-25-2009, 11:51 AM
Conservatives are pretty hilarious when you think about it.

Take Rush Limbaugh, ur leader. The guy rages consistently about how Obama is spending so much and leading us into debt, yet, Bush was the same way and I didnt hear Rush causing a riot? Party lines are strong. When Obama does it, its bad...When Bush does it, oh well hes conservative.

Epic fail


Are you new to politics? It was the Liberals that complained when Bush was in office. Each party tries to do all they can to make the other party look bad, and to block everything they do.

That said if you pay close attention even liberals are against Obamas current spending proposals.

Obama has spent alot in the short time he has been in office, and I don't think enough time is being taken to sort things out.

I am with conservatives on this one.

SpyderTT
03-25-2009, 11:53 AM
well, it's better than wasting your vote on a marginal 3rd party extremist.

you gotta work with who'se been nominated

wow. You deserve the crap presidents that we get then if you truly believe this.

Archangel12580
03-25-2009, 12:01 PM
you really want to sell off a vital industry to foreign interests that don't have the well-being of America in mind? That didnt seem to work well with giving foreign ownership to US ports

what do you think the cost of entry is for the automotive industry? We're not talking opening a small-medium business here.

Were not talking military or weapons manufacturing here, were talking about the auto industry. The whole purpose in throwing money at these companies was and is to keep the hundreds of thousands of American jobs tied up in these business from turning into UI benefit statistics. GM, Chrysler, Ford, etc are all publicly traded companies, as it is, there are shareholders all over the world for each. The best interests for the American people has nothing to do with a brand or brand origin in this case, it has to do with jobs for the American people created by these companies. Thats the whole point of American brands and american made products, its to produce opportunity for the private sector. Thats why the term "buy american and keep americans working" was and is so vital to American made goods. Its a reason to spend a little more despite cheaper foreign made alternatives. A perfect xample of where Im going with this is Toyota, Toyota now employs thousands of Americans, they put out an amazing product and keep Americans working in the process.

So the point I was making, is that having American auto brands is good because it keeps americans working. The American auto makers are not out for the best interests of Americans for any other reason other than employing americans. If your point was valid, Honda, Toyota, etc, wouldnt have slaughtered all of the American auto manufacturers in the fields of fuel economy, resale value and various other apects of auto manufacturing/sales.

It all boils down to putting Americans to work, it doesnt take American ownership to make that happen.

Halfway
03-25-2009, 12:50 PM
Remember that 9-11 gave the Commander In Chief immunity for a good two years, his spending was obscene but was gradually ramped up as the war and entitlements grew along with DHS and other agencies

Even up to 2005, for a large majority of republicans, any critique of bush was akin to treason - there was a War on, after all.

YUL
03-25-2009, 01:56 PM
wow. You deserve the crap presidents that we get then if you truly believe this.

I guess I and the majority of Americans feel this way. How's it going out there on the fringe?

Stizzel
03-25-2009, 02:49 PM
Good question. 'Conservatives', which I can only assume you meant to mean Republicans, gave Bush a pass because Bush was on their team. Just like how Obama drones are giving him a pass on war mongering and fascism because Obama is on their team.

Meanwhile Bush and Obama are loling at how dumb we are.

stealth_swimmer
03-25-2009, 02:57 PM
you really want to sell off a vital industry to foreign interests that don't have the well-being of America in mind? That didnt seem to work well with giving foreign ownership to US ports

what do you think the cost of entry is for the automotive industry? We're not talking opening a small-medium business here.

You really think that matters? If you're interested in the well-being of America, you wouldn't let unprofitable companies flourish. We gain by getting rid of that sorta thing and focusing more attention on other things that bring in more profit. Then when we need other things, we trade. Comparative advantage is the basis of trade, and really, all market transaction. It's what makes everybody gain.


I guess I and the majority of Americans feel this way. How's it going out there on the fringe?
I don't agree with him, but how's it goin votin for the lesser of two evils? :p

Boxman
03-25-2009, 03:51 PM
Bush also didn't go on a spending spree his first 60 days in office.

That's because he was on vacation that whole time.

nutsy54
03-25-2009, 04:06 PM
Conservatives are pretty hilarious when you think about it.

Take Rush Limbaugh, ur leader. The guy rages consistently about how Obama is spending so much and leading us into debt, yet, Bush was the same way and I didnt hear Rush causing a riot? Party lines are strong. When Obama does it, its bad...When Bush does it, oh well hes conservative.

Epic failDid you create this thread simply to highlight your stupidity and ignorance of the topic?

Rush has constantly attacked the insane spending when Republicans were in control of Congress when Bush was President, and then when Democrats were in control of control when Bush continued to sign their deficit-laden bills. Hell, he blames that moronic spending as one of the main reasons the Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006.

PS: And before you start your standard attacks against me, all you'll find in this Forum is endless posts from me, similarly disagreeing with and attacking President Bush for the massive deficits and debt he allowed to pile up during his administration.

Time to go find a topic that's actually based in Facts.

nutsy54
03-25-2009, 04:15 PM
That's because he was on vacation that whole time.Wow, good way to hurl a random and baseless insult, while simultaneously avoiding any connection with Facts, Reality, or the Topic actually being discussed :rolleyes:


PS: If you really want to play the falsified "vacation" game - apply the exact same criteria used against Bush (which I bet you don't even know), then look at Obama's record for the past two months. The results will probably shock you for how much he's been "away" from the Oval Office, and therefore "on vacation".

Ironstone-
03-25-2009, 04:49 PM
Heres RUSH at CPAC for those that would like to have a look. 10 in total. Each vid is 7-9mins in length and they are all in order.

_qtvtBGWgBc&feature=channel_page
YKW_2v3__xE&feature=channel_page
HVFtyonw5FE&feature=channel_page
0G4EYti4qyw&feature=channel_page
1MyDsRWwQvc&feature=channel_page
ujdk97UXODM&feature=channel_page
G8Gi633mnHo&feature=channel_page
S8JP4Bfpbbg&feature=channel_page
SzccwwMbrIc&feature=channel_page
6iP24vYXE5o&feature=channel_page

Ironstone-
03-25-2009, 06:44 PM
Ignore him plz.

I only wonder when he will hit "troll status"..

ghengisconor
03-25-2009, 06:56 PM
I think this thread illustrates a huge point.

And that is



there is a wide gapbetween what Republicans are, and what conservatism is. Republicans =/= conservatism. If the last 30 years has not punched that into your brain, then it never will. The irony of Republicans expanding the scope of the federal government while whistling 'limited government' should not be all that great. For one, Republicans have been acting like liberals for a long time. Case in point; John McCain, who cancelledhis touring during the elections to garner support for government intervention.

There is no such thing as a contradiction, and it would behoove some of y'all to consider that MAYBE the Republican party is not conservative all, but rather, stands as a neo-liberal faction. Everytime you have a self-described 'conservative' demanding the government to be used to hinder the freedom of another, whatever it may be, check your premises; they're probably NOT a conservative.

It's come to the point that I think there ought to be a new descriptive way to label people. Those who demand more government control can be described as statists. And right now, there are so very few non-statist indivdiuals in our federal government.

Inev
03-25-2009, 06:59 PM
Conservatives are pretty hilarious when you think about it.

Take Rush Limbaugh, ur leader. The guy rages consistently about how Obama is spending so much and leading us into debt, yet, Bush was the same way and I didnt hear Rush causing a riot? Party lines are strong. When Obama does it, its bad...When Bush does it, oh well hes conservative.

Epic fail

was ****ing pissed at all the bush spending. But Obama is an even bigger spender than bush. All the true conservatives were (pissed at bush).

This is a good opportunity to pick out people who are bias.

Stizzel
03-25-2009, 07:05 PM
I only wonder when he will hit "troll status"..

He's got a valid point. Lots of 'conservatives' gave Bush a pass just because he campaigned on a very libertarian platform, and also because Bush had the R, so he was on their 'team'.

Most of them woke up over the last couple years, but for a long time they tolerated Bush if not supported all the crap he did.

Now Obama supporters are doing the same thing. And through it all no one is willing to support a third party and break this idiotic paradigm. Don't be surprised when Republicans do it all again when republicans retake control of Washington.

stealth_swimmer
03-25-2009, 07:20 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvOcnizHRBU
wvOcnizHRBU


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7wj9Imi1dk
J7wj9Imi1dk


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yg6ekFHz4A
8yg6ekFHz4A

paolo59
03-25-2009, 07:29 PM
Obama is set to quadruple any deficit that Bush ever produced. The Congressional Budget Office estimates a one trillion dollar deficit each and every year for the next ten. Despite what Obama may forecast for the economy, and halving the annual deficit in 4 years, It is highly improbable. Our great leader, along with a mindless, compliant Dem Congress, is set to place the United States on a ruinous road. The current President of the EU is not far off the mark with his statement concerning chairman Obama.

paolo59
03-25-2009, 07:33 PM
He's got a valid point. Lots of 'conservatives' gave Bush a pass just because he campaigned on a very libertarian platform, and also because Bush had the R, so he was on their 'team'.

Most of them woke up over the last couple years, but for a long time they tolerated Bush if not supported all the crap he did.

Now Obama supporters are doing the same thing. And through it all no one is willing to support a third party and break this idiotic paradigm. Don't be surprised when Republicans do it all again when republicans retake control of Washington.

Our politicians, far from presiding over a "lean and mean" federal government, are far to accustomed to simply throwing money to the four winds hand over fist. Neither party has proven itself fiscally responsible.

Kempert
03-25-2009, 07:34 PM
Bush increased the deficit WHILE running our economy into the ground, why dont we give obama more than sixty days to see what his spending does for the economy.

Stizzel
03-25-2009, 07:36 PM
Bush increased the deficit WHILE running our economy into the ground, why dont we give obama more than sixty days to see what his spending does for the economy.

lololololol

We've had 8 YEARS of spending increases and now you want to see what the effects of MORE spending are going to do?

Whats your timeline? When can we finally start calling shenanigans?

Morbid_Mind
03-25-2009, 07:37 PM
Bush increased the deficit WHILE running our economy into the ground, why dont we give obama more than sixty days to see what his spending does for the economy.

If Policy X doesn't work, it's clear that we just need more of Policy X.

ryan250
03-25-2009, 07:39 PM
Conservatives are pretty hilarious when you think about it.

Take Rush Limbaugh, ur leader. The guy rages consistently about how Obama is spending so much and leading us into debt, yet, Bush was the same way and I didnt hear Rush causing a riot? Party lines are strong. When Obama does it, its bad...When Bush does it, oh well hes conservative.

Epic fail

You're very unaware.

Do you understand how much OBAMA HAS SPENT ALREADY.

I'm so sick and tired of this **** already. Read a ****ing fact for once.

yes mad

Kempert
03-25-2009, 07:43 PM
Well my last paycheck was bigger because of Obama. Yes that is leading to a bigger deficit for now, but doesnt this tax cut help some people have enough money to keep their house and not add to the credit and housing problem?? Maybe your right, he should not bail out any companies and let them crumble, let wall street crumble, not help out the middle class. Maybe he should give the richest americans ANOTHER tax cut. oh wait that was bush, and obama has said they will expire in 2010 and they will not be continued after they expire

ghengisconor
03-25-2009, 07:45 PM
Well my last paycheck was bigger because of Obama. Yes that is leading to a bigger deficit for now, but doesnt this tax cut help some people have enough money to keep their house and not add to the credit and housing problem?? Maybe your right, he should not bail out any companies and let them crumble, let wall street crumble, not help out the middle class. Maybe he should give the richest americans ANOTHER tax cut. oh wait that was bush, and obama has said they will expire in 2010 and they will not be continued after they expire

you'd make a brilliant kindergarten teacher.

Kempert
03-25-2009, 07:47 PM
you'd make a brilliant kindergarten teacher.

If you are so brilliant then what did bush do to solve the recession and how is my post so wrong

Morbid_Mind
03-25-2009, 07:47 PM
Maybe he should give the richest americans ANOTHER tax cut. oh wait that was bush, and obama has said they will expire in 2010 and they will not be continued after they expire

Thanks for that fact filled adventure


If you are so brilliant then what did bush do to solve the recession and how is my post so wrong

Bush did the same thing Obama is doing. Obama is doing it on a more grand scale. You didn't like the policies when Bush had his name attatched to them, but now they're just spectacular because Obama is proposing them :rolleyes:

Stizzel
03-25-2009, 07:49 PM
If you are so brilliant then what did bush do to solve the recession and how is my post so wrong

What did Bush do? He INCREASED SPENDING!

Now Obama's solution is MORE spending on top of Bush's previously record breaking figures. I wonder if its going to work? I guess we'll just have to hope for change!

Enjoy your $13/week in tax breaks. Just try to ignore the fact that Obama has sent 10 trillion to wallstreet. How many $13 paychecks is that?

nutsy54
03-25-2009, 07:49 PM
Well my last paycheck was bigger because of Obama. Yes that is leading to a bigger deficit for now, but doesnt this tax cut help some people have enough money to keep their house and not add to the credit and housing problem??$400 per year will be enough to save someone's home and mortgage payment? That's less than $8 per week. . .


Maybe he should give the richest americans ANOTHER tax cut. oh wait that was bush, and obama has said they will expire in 2010 and they will not be continued after they expireWhy do people like you conveniently ignore that the Bush tax cuts were for. . . Everyone in the country? With the largest impact felt by those who earned the least. So. . . When taxes for the evil rich go up, will you also be supporting taxes for everyone else going back up to their previous levels?

Archangel12580
03-25-2009, 07:52 PM
I just want to say this for all the left supporters who just repeat what they are told about conservatives. To start, Bush was not a conservative, he was a moderate and borderline liberal republican who practiced very liberal forms of giverning. Conservatives were very against the huge amounts of spending and government expansion. Conservatives know that conservative radio and media personalities were against Bush's actions because we all listened to the outcries the entire time, out cries from the conservatives. The only people who would think conservatives supported Bush's actions are liberals who dont understand the principles and core values behind conservativism and are only repeating what theyve heard from the far left goon squad. It is also quite obvious that those who are asking where the conservative outrage for Bush Bush's action was/is have never bothered to listen to anything more than out of context liberal fed sound bites of these conservatrive personalities. Because if you were actually listening to true conservatives, you would have heard the message loud and clear.

So to answer the OP's question, its not a matter of "Where was this "conservative" outrage about spending when Bush was in office?"

Its more along the lines of, "Why werent you listening to the conservative outrage over Bush's outlandish spending and government expanditures and take the warnings into consideration before you went and voted for a liberal who is 10 times worse than Bush ever was?"


Liberals do not have core values, their belifes and principles are constantly changing and morphing into whatever populis opinion holds merit at any given moment. For instance, you can not be a true catholic/morman/christian and a liberal at the same time as liberalism defies catholicism/mormanism/christianity core principles and values in favor of populis opinion. Quite the contrary for conservatives as their principles and core values have remained the same since the inception of this great nation as they are the same core principles and values our founding fathers built this country upon. Remember people, this is a fact a nation founded under god, whatever your religious beliefs may be, thats something you cant change, alter or erase from the infrastructure of this great nation. Our constitution, our declaration, our bill of rights.. These are blue prints for the direction and goals our forefathers intended for this country. Liberals seek to change and alter these blueprints and that is where they will ultimately fail as in doing so, you are attempting to change everything that has made this nation the envy of the world. The United States of America is the worlds last great hope for liberty, freedom and indiviual prosperity for all, regardless of race, creed, religion or status. We are a nation of hope and a nation of values and principles set forth by our founding fathers. That is what conservatives believe and the preservation and continuation of those values and principles is what conservatism is.

In the end, our nations fate lies int he hands of the conservatives, preservation of this great nation and continuation of the intended directions and paths our forefathers laid out lies in the ability of conservatives to come together and educate beyond the reach of the liberal fog.

ghengisconor
03-25-2009, 07:52 PM
If you are so brilliant then what did bush do to solve the recession and how is my post so wrong

Bush didn't solve the recession. Your post is hilarious wrong. On its face. And as applied.

DCarruso
03-25-2009, 07:53 PM
Well my last paycheck was bigger because of Obama. Yes that is leading to a bigger deficit for now, but doesnt this tax cut help some people have enough money to keep their house and not add to the credit and housing problem?? Maybe your right, he should not bail out any companies and let them crumble, let wall street crumble, not help out the middle class. Maybe he should give the richest americans ANOTHER tax cut. oh wait that was bush, and obama has said they will expire in 2010 and they will not be continued after they expire

Sucka! :Dl How much is your paycheck bigger? We know AIG is $170 billion bigger! How many hundred billions has all the Wall Street firms and banks got from Obama? And how much you get? LOL SUCKA!!!! You are happy with the peanut shell you get? lol Good for ya!

Paul Allen got $1 billion tax break from obama! Ha! How much are you getting again? :D

Kempert
03-25-2009, 07:54 PM
$400 per year will be enough to save someone's home and mortgage payment? Than than $8 per week. . .

Why do people like you conveniently ignore that the Bush tax cuts were for. . . Everyone in the country? With the largest impact felt by those who earned the least. So. . . When taxes for the evil rich go up, will you also be supporting taxes for everyone else going back up to their previous levels?

My check was about $35 dollars more. So that is $70 a month. Why can't anyone come up with real thoughts on how to fix the deficit instead of ripping my posts apart. Spending is out of control, yes, but how do you fix the economy without spending money? How do you fix the housing problem and credit problem?

Kempert
03-25-2009, 07:57 PM
Sucka! :Dl How much is your paycheck bigger? We know AIG is $170 billion bigger! How many hundred billions has all the Wall Street firms and banks got from Obama? And how much you get? LOL SUCKA!!!! You are happy with the peanut shell you get? lol Good for ya!

Paul Allen got $1 billion tax break from obama! Ha! How much are you getting again? :D

The bailout should have conditions on what companies spend it on. If obama didn't have any conditions on what the money was spent on then that is really stupid and irresponsible to do with taxpayers money. Now, AIG executives had contracts for the bonus checks. I guess there is no way legally they could avoid them. I like the idea that passed the house about taxing taxing those bonuses 90%

DCarruso
03-25-2009, 07:57 PM
My check was about $35 dollars more. So that is $70 a month. Why can't anyone come up with real thoughts on how to fix the deficit instead of ripping my posts apart. Spending is out of control, yes, but how do you fix the economy without spending money? How do you fix the housing problem and credit problem?

If you are interested in learning...

http://www.hussman.net/wmc/wmc090217.htm

http://www.hussman.net/wmc/wmc090223.htm

Archangel12580
03-25-2009, 07:57 PM
If you are so brilliant then what did bush do to solve the recession and how is my post so wrong

You mean the recession he inherited from Clinton? He cut taxes for the upper 2% and the recession lessened, the economy stabilized and continued to grow..... That is, until the subprime mortgage collapse. Which might I add was forseen by many republican leaders towards the end of bush's first term. The republicans made attempts to tackle the forseen disaster before the ultimate catastrophe occured.. And guess who de-railed the republicans efforts to stop the oncoming disaster? Thats right, the democrats.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rg3LcSNylA

nutsy54
03-25-2009, 07:58 PM
My check was about $35 dollars more. So that is $70 a month. Why can't anyone come up with real thoughts on how to fix the deficit instead of ripping my posts apart. Spending is out of control, yes, but how do you fix the economy without spending money? How do you fix the housing problem and credit problem?(a) The "Stimulus" bill included a $400 tax credit per employee. That's all you get "extra" after your 2009 taxes are filed, regardless of how your withholding changed.

(b) We've provided plenty of thoughts, BUT - if you don't even understand the basic facts and policies that are being discussed (such as the $400 credit), then how can you intelligently post on this topic?

(c) Thoughts? How about STOP SPENDING MONEY WE DON'T HAVE! Followed by tax cuts. Real, effective tax cuts - for everyone.

(d) Spending massive amounts of money hasn't "saved" the economy for the past decade, why will it magically become the solution now?

(e) How to fix the problems? Let people and companies who made f*cking stupid financial decisions FAIL. Instead, we're forcing every taxpayer (and their children and grandchildren) to pay for moronic choices made by others.

Stizzel
03-25-2009, 07:59 PM
My check was about $35 dollars more. So that is $70 a month. Why can't anyone come up with real thoughts on how to fix the deficit instead of ripping my posts apart. Spending is out of control, yes, but how do you fix the economy without spending money? How do you fix the housing problem and credit problem?

Please dont breed.

Thanks

-Humanity

DCarruso
03-25-2009, 08:00 PM
The bailout should have conditions on what companies spend it on. If obama didn't have any conditions on what the money was spent on then that is really stupid and irresponsible to do with taxpayers money. Now, AIG executives had contracts for the bonus checks. I guess there is no way legally they could avoid them. I like the idea that passed the house about taxing taxing those bonuses 90%

Again, you are worrying over peanut. The bonus is like $200 mil. But AIG just blew $170 BILLIONS. Clean! GONE! $170 billions! Spent! It went to payoff AIG's gambling debt, basically. But you are pissed over the $200 mil..... Just like you are happy about the $70 a month that you get......

nutsy54
03-25-2009, 08:02 PM
I like the idea that passed the house about taxing taxing those bonuses 90%So, you "like the idea" of first allowing something to occur, then pretending you're shocked and outraged, then retroactively implementing punishment via the tax code?
Do you have any idea how much destructive power that precedent hands to Congress?

What happens someday, when "they" decide that you are earning "too much" (or "they" disagree with something else you've chosen to do), and therefore need to be punished as a result?

Stizzel
03-25-2009, 08:02 PM
Again, you are worrying over peanut. The bonus is like $200 mil. But AIG just blew $170 BILLIONS. Clean! GONE! $170 billions! Spent! It went to payoff AIG's gambling debt, basically. But you are pissed over the $200 mil..... Just like you are happy about the $70 a month that you get......

A debt held by offshore banks.

And now even Obama is admitting nothing can be done to save AIG, so the objective now is to let them fail gradually. Meaning more bailouts for a company that will send our money out of the country and has no hope of ever being productive again.

lightningwatche
03-25-2009, 08:05 PM
Conservatives are pretty hilarious when you think about it.

Take Rush Limbaugh, ur leader. The guy rages consistently about how Obama is spending so much and leading us into debt, yet, Bush was the same way and I didnt hear Rush causing a riot? Party lines are strong. When Obama does it, its bad...When Bush does it, oh well hes conservative.

Epic fail

Conservative talk radio screemed against the 700 billion dollar bailout that Bush signed, the whole time it was under consideration.

Many conservatives no longer trust the Republican party, and are trying to figure out who how to get our voice back. They believe the Republicans and Democrats are two heads of the same monster that loves Federal power.

DCarruso
03-25-2009, 08:06 PM
The only change Obama has brought, is to piss away taxpayer money 100X harder and faster than the previous administration did. Why do we even have an election? Wall Street owns and runs Washington DC. Always has. Always will. This Community Organizer from Chicago is no match for Wall Street. They play him like a song.

Kempert
03-25-2009, 08:12 PM
Under current law, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire after December 31, 2010, and the Alternative Minimum Tax, still unindexed for inflation, continues to dip deeper down into the income distribution. As a result, under current law, CBO projects that the fiscal year 2013 deficit won?t be just half of the current fiscal year?s $1.37 trillion deficit (which includes the cost of the recovery package); it will be just $285 billion?or just over one fifth of the current year deficit.

Say you want to continue tax breaks for the ?middle class? though?as President Obama wants to do. CBO estimates that extending the middle-income components of the 2001 tax cuts would cost $140 billion in 2013 (about half the cost of extending all of the 2001 and 2003 cuts). Continuing AMT relief would bring the total cost of extended tax relief in 2013 to $303 billion and the total deficit in 2013 to $588 billion. Hey, that?s closer to half of this year?s $1.37 trillion deficit, isn?t it?

Archangel12580
03-25-2009, 08:13 PM
Well my last paycheck was bigger because of Obama. Yes that is leading to a bigger deficit for now, but doesnt this tax cut help some people have enough money to keep their house and not add to the credit and housing problem?? Maybe your right, he should not bail out any companies and let them crumble, let wall street crumble, not help out the middle class. Maybe he should give the richest americans ANOTHER tax cut. oh wait that was bush, and obama has said they will expire in 2010 and they will not be continued after they expire

Heres how you get out of this mess, It worked for Reagan after Obama number 1 (Jimmy Carter)..


I feel the following would have done a ton better for the economy than that wasted porkulis bill...

1. Suspend all government spending, with the exception of vital necessities for 1 full calendar year.

2. Drastically cut and dispense of government spending, unnecessary programs and pet projects in efforts to drastically overhaul and reduce the size of government

3. Suspend all state and federal taxes for 6 months.

4. Following, cut state and federal taxes buy 5-7% in addition to the Bush tax cuts for the upper 2% income brackets, lower capital gains taxes by 5-7%, cut taxes on the lower 98% by 7-9%.

And then the rest of the economy recovery package.....

5. Re-instate the up tic law back into the market.

6. Offer incentives for investers, small business owners and employers to encourage investments and expansion, promote growth and prosperity rather than penalize it.

7. Offer additional tax breaks and incentives for those who keep their methods of manufacturing in the domestic marketplace. Inspire businesses to stay domestic rather than seek cheaper foreign alternatives.

8. Offer tax breaks and incentives for consumers who purchase domestic branded and manufactured vehicles.

9. Dismantle failing banks and restructure, dispurse and re-assign accordingly.

10. Undo the de-regulation of the mortgage and lending market originally put in place during the clinton administration. Making home loans less of a risk for banks.

11. Offer a decrease in sales tax of 4% for all purchases over $500. Inspire Americans to spend money, no better way to do so than by offering an incentive.

12. Heavily regulate welfare and unmeployment insurance programs by implementing absolute cut off time tables, administering mandatory completion of state funded job training courses and assign job placement case agents for every single applicant. Offer incentives for those who complete courses and return to the workforce within the assigned time frame. We should no longer be offering incentive for individuals to remain unemployed, rather offer tools and incentives to succeed.

Reaganomics 101....

And as far as the housing crisis, you dont do a damn thing. Those who shouldnt have gotten loans in the first place and have no means to afford their homes will default and they should be left alone, not assisted or bailed out in any way. The banks should have been left to fail and they have the FDIC in place to dismantle and re-assign assets for this very reason. Smaller banks and even some other sound and stable larger banks and financial institutions would have in turn become more lucrative with all of the potential growth possibilities posed by a large bank dismantling. Who knows what could have come from the opportunities the FDIC would have passed around. Then moving forward, you replace regulations that were originally lessoned by democrats with their beliefs that owning a home is a right, not a privilage. Sorry, its not a right, it is a privilage and regulations need to be in place to make sure this never takes place again. Take our losses and move on. We would have gone through the recession and made it out just fine had the government just gotten the hell out of the way and let capitalism work.

Any other failing businesses need to fail, let capialism work. Businesses fail, dismantle and are sold through out the respective industries. Smaller businesses will grow from the bigger failures, they themselves will become bigger and out from under all of that, new companies will be formed. The point is, you dont support failure. Thats the beauty of capitalism. Success is rewarded, failure makes way for new potential success. The strong survive, the weak perish.

nutsy54
03-25-2009, 08:15 PM
Here's a concept: Spend only what is projected as revenue! End this stupid game of comparing deficits from previous years, because that's all a lie. The 2010 budget can be written with ZERO deficit, and even a surplus, if Congress and the President are actually willing to make the "hard decisions" they keep promising.

Instead, $1 Trillion per year of new debt. For the next decade. And forever after that.

Change :rolleyes:

Ben76
03-25-2009, 08:27 PM
I guess I and the majority of Americans feel this way. How's it going out there on the fringe?

the majority of americans apathy towards politics, and trust in the 2 party system is what got the constitution destroyed, countless wars started, and our financial crisis. Maybe if more people were on "the fringe" we wouldn't be having problems.

paolo59
03-25-2009, 08:41 PM
Here's a concept: Spend only what is projected as revenue! End this stupid game of comparing deficits from previous years, because that's all a lie. The 2010 budget can be written with ZERO deficit, and even a surplus, if Congress and the President are actually willing to make the "hard decisions" they keep promising.

Instead, $1 Trillion per year of new debt. For the next decade. And forever after that.

Change :rolleyes:

Bingo! It isn't rocket science is it? LOL A deficit is just that, a deficit. If you're in the red, it's not a good thing! You can't spend yourself out of a deficit in the "real world." It is absolutely amazing. Every early morning news program, not to mention your local news at 5:00 has segments on how your family can "tighten its' belt." How to save, how to wisely cut back, how to live within the reduced means that one may be experiencing. Just how the hell is it that on the obviously reduced scale of a family income, the answer is fiscal responsibility and living within your means, but when it comes to the federal government, every economic principal is turned on its' head?

Stizzel
03-26-2009, 06:04 AM
Please dont breed.

Thanks

-Humanity


I am sorry I'm not as educated as you in politics and the government spending. don't ever bring my family up when you are sitting behind your computer. That shows you are a real pussy because i know you wouldn't say anything like that to my face. In fact, from your post history all you do is sit behind your computer, and post about politics on a bodybuilding website? WTF are you on a bodybuilding website and only posting about politics. You are THE MAN bud

:confused:

You smokin crack brah?

YUL
03-26-2009, 06:14 AM
. All the true conservatives were (pissed at bush).

.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Are you "more" conservative than me? Is this some kind of contest?

so, true cons=good=you

not true cons=not you=bad?