GOP: Hypocrites? Or completely ignorant about the policies they backed for the last eight years? (drug, healthcare)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My take is that you must be acutely unaware of the massive spending taking place under this administration that makes any spending of the last eight years pale in comparison. Further, that Democrats have been in control for the last two years of the Bush administration. And further that the Obama administration has created the largest deficit, and the largest debt in American history.
My Dad can beat up your Dad. Until you can put some actual meat on these very brittle bones, rant is all your unsupported words work out to be.
I see very clearly that you put far more trust in your government than you should. In theory, what you say is accurate. But as anyone will tell you, increased government involvement in ANYTHING is a prescription for a perpetual spigot that cannot be shut-off. Government programs are nearly impossible to dismantle once political influence is injected. How many programs do you know that is not in some way tied to someone somewhere politically? And you think that all of a sudden the switch is flipped off and all is well? It doesn't work that way. And it especially does not work that way when you have someone like Barney Frank driving the bus.
Ha, here we are already at the last ditch Cassandra handwringing. As Barney Frank would say, thath okay.
We've been listening to the GOP endlessly complain about "Spending" for the last six months. They seem to either be acutely unaware of the last eight years under Bush which they whole heartily supported, or are unapologetic hypocrites. What is your take?
Frankly I find their constant complaining to be incredibly hypocritical and disingenuous. If they were so concerned about spending, debt, and the deficit, where in the hell were they for the last eight years? Why then did they rabidly defend the policies of their hero George W. Bush to no end, no matter how illogical or damaging it may have been? How can these people have an ounce of credibility or any integrity when they themselves advocated, cheered and put a man in office twice that did the same things they moan and groan over to no end?
This party prides itself on righteousness and candor yet embodies non of these qualities. Where is the honor? Where is the sincerity? Where is their capacity to be honest with themselves? What is forthright and truthful about all this? I see screaming, yelling, misdirection, cheap hyperbole, every possible logical fallacy argument known to man kind, and backsliders masquerading as concerned citizens for this great country. That's what I see.
Well not surprising your poll is obnoxiously bias. How about a choice for those that ARE conservative that disagreed with Bush's spending?
Yeah, some always were brain-dead and some have simply volunteered and stood in line for a lobotomy. Way out of the loop in either case.
To round out the budget issue, Bush's various Emergency Supplementals did of course wind up in the calculations of his budget deficits, but that occurred way after the fact -- long past the point where anyone could have done anything about them. By pretending that the wars were going to cost $0 every year, Bush was able to send budgets up to Congress with deficit projections that looked much brighter than what he and everybody else with a brain knew that they would be.
Obama has cut that crap out. The funds he wanted for FY2010 operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are in the budget plain as day. And those aren't the only things. While Bush-budgeting would have omitted it, Obama put a $634 billion placeholder in the budget to account for first-year health care reform costs. There is also a placeholder for emergency disaster funding. Nobody knows yet what those will be -- floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. -- but there hasn't been a year in which we didn't spend something significant on these sorts of events, so Obama put a set-aside in the budget to reflect them while Bush again always assumed that they would work out to $0. There are other examples also, and what all of them boil down to is a basic difference in commitment to being forthright and honest about what we are doing.
So you're saying that Bush was able to pull the wool over the eyes of Congress, but now, all of a sudden, Congress understands and approves Obama's Trillions in spending when they couldn't even figure out Bush's spending habits? What a fraud you and your liberal cohorts are.
How convenient that you omit the fact that Democrats could have filibustered any war/defense funding bill presented before them. But they didn't. The only person needing to cut the crap is you. The stonewalling and intentional omissions need to stop.
Last edited by AeroGuyDC; 09-02-2009 at 09:29 AM..
We've been listening to the GOP endlessly complain about "Spending" for the last six months. They seem to either be acutely unaware of the last eight years under Bush which they whole heartily supported, or are unapologetic hypocrites. What is your take?
They did not have a problem with it, which is why many conservatives refused to reelect them or even donate to the RNC. Now the fools are finding out what politics is like when they act like democrats; neither conservative democrats, independents or republicans will vote for them.
Quit spreading that lie! It simply isn't true that Clinton left a "surplus" and no deficit! You don't understand squat, Carl Sagan-ista!
Go look it up. Or just click this link to see CBO's projected 2001-2010 budget surpluses from July 2000.
The FACT of Clinton's unified and on-budget surpluses can meanwhile be confirmed from ANY actual published source. There is, after all, just the one set of numbers, and they DO NOT support your claims.
Oh please. That is the MO of most radical liberals - spend, spend, spend. Nothing has changed.
Yes, that's right...every time some foolish free-market Republican comes along and sends the economy straight into the toilet with their usual pipedream laissez-fair thinking, some Democrat has to come along and spend good money to clean up the mess. Time after time after time, it happens. Maybe we should just stop electing Republicans. Maybe America just plain can't afford them anymore.
This is all fine and good until the bill comes due - something you and your big-spending liberal cohorts fail to mention. All of the items you stated to support your (tiresome) argument will be financed off the collective backs of the middle-class. Whether it's Obama that does it or the next 10 presidents after him is irrelevant. You can flaunt all these percieved benefits and attempt to make it sound like government is the hero and rescuer extraordinare - but the fact remains that robbing Peter to pay Paul has never been sound economic theory. The "you never want to let a serious crisis go to waste" argument for big spending has reached the end of its useful life. For you to suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
I can see a lot of really depserate Paul's out there who have so far managed to avoid complete catastrophe thanks to the additional support and assistance they have been receiving. But who are all these Peter's that you believe to exist around the country? Where are they hiding? I know that I'm way up the old income ladder here, and I haven't been asked to cough up a single extra penny. In fact, I've seen my tax withholding GO DOWN, even though I'll have to give all that back come Spring. So who are these people whose welfare you are so concerned over again???
I remember when democrats and Obama told us how Bushs spending was so terrible but now its ok
No, Bush's spending is still terrible. And none of us (including Obama) is glad that we have to be spending the way Obama is. It would have been much better if the Republicans had managed to pay as much attention to the economy as they did to Terry Schiavo. Then none of this gigantic current spending would have been necessary at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadex
The wmds that Bill Clinton , Hillary and Pelosi and a long list of democrats told us were there long before Bush ever did
More Photoshopped reality. The whole truth is out there. Why do you all so consistently simply ignore it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
