Democrats to plung us $1.1 TRILLION deeper into debt (global warming, Taliban, compare)

[saganista]

Originally Posted by zz4guy

saginista - virtually every one of your posts on this thread is pointing a finger at Bush.

You'd need to take that up with Bush. If he had not been so consistent an example of disgrace and failure, a lot less finger-pointing would today be called for. As is, he bears responsibility for the broad array of errors that he in fact made.

Originally Posted by zz4guy

Bush did not pass this bill. In fact it was 95% Democrats. Do you agree with this spending or not? Why dont you stay on the thread topic.

That's correct. Bush gets at least nearly a pass on the FY2010 omnibus spending bill. Again, that bill is simply the approved funding for government operations for the year. There are usually twelve separate bills that accomplish such funding, but with the health care debate having taken up so much time this year, Congress is doing six of the bills as a single package. Nothing more to it than that.

[Barbie1964]

Originally Posted by saganista

That's correct. Bush gets at least nearly a pass on the FY2010 omnibus spending bill.

It is truly amazing how people forget about what happened over the EIGHT years that GWB was in office.
I often wonder where our country would be if he and his brother had not stolen the election from Gore.

[bipolarpunk]

Originally Posted by Barbie1964

It is truly amazing how people forget about what happened over the EIGHT years that GWB was in office.
I often wonder where our country would be if he and his brother had not stolen the election from Gore.

We would have never recovered from the Dot Com bust recession and jobs being shipped overseas would have accelerrated to unprecedented levels due to outsourcing because of HUGE taxes imposed on businesses.

We wouldn't be hearing so much about "Global Warming" as Al Gore wouldn't have time to make the 2 hour "Power Point" Propaganda film and then cash in until after his Presidency was over..

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Tell me where I'm wrong.. Since you keep telling me my facts are wrong, clearly you think you know something that I dont know. Want to fill me in or are we going to sit here all night long and play

"your facts are wrong"
"no they arent"

Re-check your facts about how many years Republicans had control of congress since 1995. I am not going to point it out, because it has been pointed out so many times already. They had more than enough time to establish what they promised : small government with limited spending. Yet, they delivered bigger govenment and increased spending, and more socialim .

So, are you ready for more? And your constant defending and promoting of the Republicans clearly answer the question: Yes, you are ready for more. You want more big government, more spending and more socialism.

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by floridasandy

i must add, though, that it is incredibly hypocritical for obama now to start attacking the banks when it was THIS democratic congress, with obama actually in it, that chose to WRITE the bill to bail out the banks /wall street in the first place.

Well, that is simply not true. Everyone knows the the bail-out boom was launched in 2008 by Bush admin. Either way, the admin has every right to tighten the screws on the banks who received federal money. That move was a 100% success and probably the ONLY reason why those banks paid back the money.

Did you hear CITI is paying back their share That's in the news today.

[zz4guy]

Originally Posted by saganista

You'd need to take that up with Bush. If he had not been so consistent an example of disgrace and failure, a lot less finger-pointing would today be called for. As is, he bears responsibility for the broad array of errors that he in fact made.


That's correct. Bush gets at least nearly a pass on the FY2010 omnibus spending bill. Again, that bill is simply the approved funding for government operations for the year. There are usually twelve separate bills that accomplish such funding, but with the health care debate having taken up so much time this year, Congress is doing six of the bills as a single package. Nothing more to it than that.

Page 14 and still dodging the question. Carry on...

[saganista]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Your right, it appears I forgot one of the congress #'s controlled by Republicans.. So lets redo the math..

I'm right? Hmmm. It appears then that it is not I who is math-challenged after all. And no, you "forgot" half of two different Congresses, not all of one.

Originally Posted by pghquest

Republican congress, 4 years balanced budgets out of 10... 40% of their budgets were balanced by your own admission.
Democratic Congress, 0 years balanced budgets out of 28... NEVER balancing a budget..
That goes back to 1965..

Really? Where did the balanced budget of 1969 come from? Would that have been the 90th Congress? Senate Democratic by 64-36. House Democratic by 247-187. Looks like more sloppy history here to me.

Originally Posted by pghquest

...should we go before that?
88th Congress, Democratic, balanced budget... No
87th Congress, Democratic, balanced budget... No
86th Congress, Democratic, balanced budget... No
85th Congress, Democratic, balanced budget... No
84th Congress, Democratic, balanced budget... No
83rd Congress, split, balanced budget... No
82nd Congress, Democratic, balanced budget... No
81st Congress, Democratic, balanced budget... No

See the pattern here.. Democrats NEVER balanced the budgets.. EVER..

Even more historical butchery. What a surprise. The 81st Congress (both houses under Democratic control) produced a balanced budget in FY1951. The 84th Congress (both houses under Democratic control) produced balanced budgets in both FY1956 and FY1957. The 86th Congress (both houses under Democratic control) produced a balanced budget in FY1960. Funny how you managed to miss all of those.

But enough with the pointless-even-after-correction Congressional data. Budgets are driven by the President, so let's review all of the balanced budgets that have occurred since World War II...

Truman = 4
Eisenhower = 3
Johnson = 1
Clinton = 4

That's it. Democrats = 9. Republicans = 3. But none in the past 50 years despite 28 tries at it. The GOP is no place to go if you are looking for fiscal responsibility.

Originally Posted by pghquest

And your bs humor about Republicans contributing nothing to the balanced budgets is only compounded by the fact that you admit Gingrich shut down the government. Why did he shut down the government?

Gingrich got too big for his britches. Having taken over Congress the previous January, he thought he would put a traditional Republican stamp on the FY1996 budget by trying to slash the usual Republican targets -- Medicare, Medicaid, the EITC, and programs for education and the environment. Clinton wasn't buying any of it, so Gingrich threatened not to pass either a needed debt limit increase or any new spending authorizations. Clinton said go ahead. So all non-essential federal operations came to a halt for 6 days in November, and then again for 22 days in December and January. National parks and monuments all closed. Need a passport or visa? Forget about it. Toxic waste clean-up? Nope. Want a firearms permit? Not happening. In the end, Gingrich lost everything (including his power and prestige), and the taxpayer was out some $800 million in back wages paid to furloughed federal employees for having stayed home and done nothing. That's the Newtster for you.

Originally Posted by pghquest

I remember CLEARLY the whining and crying both Clintons did over the spending cuts by Gingrich in order to get a balanced budget. Maybe your mind is getting fuzzy in its old age..

Nope. Still sharp as a tack, which is obviously a lot more than you can say. The shutdowns were a huge victory for Clinton and a huge black mark for Gingrich and the Republicans. No help at all to Bob Dole in the 1996 campaign. Not that he had any chance of winning against Clinton anyway.

[Barbie1964]

Originally Posted by bipolarpunk

We would have never recovered from the Dot Com bust recession and jobs being shipped overseas would have accelerrated to unprecedented levels due to outsourcing because of HUGE taxes imposed on businesses.

We wouldn't be hearing so much about "Global Warming" as Al Gore wouldn't have time to make the 2 hour "Power Point" Propaganda film and then cash in until after his Presidency was over..

You live in a bubble if you think we would be worse off. Still drinking the GWB kool-aid. Sad.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by floridasandy

let's face it, neither party balanced the budget since both parties just shift money around, keep spending, and try to make it look like it is balanced.

No, the budget position is just a matter of comparing receipts to outlays. So simple, a caveman could do it. We do, of course, have a few who are incapable of reading the resulatnt numbers out of widely published tables, but that's another matter.

Originally Posted by floridasandy

i must add, though, that it is incredibly hypocritical for obama now to start attacking the banks when it was THIS democratic congress, with obama actually in it, that chose to WRITE the bill to bail out the banks /wall street in the first place.

Actually, it was Paulson, Bush, and Bernanke who came rushing in with the bad news that their collective failures (mostly by Greenspan rather than Bernanke, as far as the Fed went) had finally led the world financial system to the brink of total collapse. And there were John Boehner and Roy Blunt right out front cheerleading for passage of what would become TARP. Might not have been quite the secret Democratic plot that you suggest.

Originally Posted by floridasandy

...they wrote the bill and did not even address bank bonuses and now obama's banking czar even says that they don't want to lose "good" talent, although i have no idea what talent means given the rate of failure with all of these bailed out firms. yikes!

You know, you all really need to make up your minds on this compensation deal. First, it's an outrage that these people are collecting such huge salaries and bonuses, and then it's an outrage that anyone tries to keep these people from collecting such huge salaries and bonuses. Might want to settle on just one of those and go with it?

[saganista]

Originally Posted by zz4guy

Page 14 and still dodging the question. Carry on...

What question is that? Does it have anything to do with the thread topic, namel the 2010 omnibus spending bill that I have commented on repeatedly, including in the post you replied to?