Pages: 1 2

 

2009-01-28 07:03:59
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6525|Global Command
WASHINGTON (AP) - A top-ranking Republican says GOP lawmakers are worried about the level of domestic spending in the $825 billion economic stimulus bill now before the House.
But, no doubt if said spending was on a Middle East shithole or for new domestic spying you douches would be all over it.



House Republican Leader John Boehner said Republicans are "for more than just cutting taxes." But he also said the bill before lawmakers for a vote Wednesday contains spending that "has nothing to do with creating jobs or preserving jobs."
Under Bush for eight years spending went wild. There is no accounting for how much we blew. Not ONE spending bill was vetoed by george bush and that is the first time in 176 years that happened.

He did not say how he thought the vote would turn out. But Boehner did say he was gratified President Barack Obama came to the Capitol to talk over differences between Democrats and Republicans. He said on ABC's "Good Morning America" that Obama "was clear that he will continue to reach out to us and listen to our ideas."
You fucking twat, you have no ideas but how to increase the fear, chaos and uncertainty. There are no differences between Democrats and Republicans.


In fact, the GOP is DOA and will be for a generation. So do us all a favor, and go stick your head up your own ass and stfu.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/200901 … 53P01.html

https://i44.tinypic.com/5zi5ux.jpg
2009-01-28 07:15:09
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6647|USA
f you didn't like Bush spending on stupid stuff like national security, yer gunna HATE Obama spending on his socialist, cater to the irresponsible, money pits.
2009-01-28 07:17:23
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6496|so randum

lowing wrote:

f you didn't like Bush spending on stupid stuff like national security, yer gunna HATE Obama spending on his socialist, cater to the irresponsible, money pits.
So you'd rather waste trillions in Iraq etc, than spend it at home?

GJ
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2009-01-28 07:19:42
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6616|London, England
All I'm thinking is after all these bailouts and bills and wars and where the fuck is the money coming from.
2009-01-28 07:20:34
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6525|Global Command
I'm just saying, republicans have zero credibility when it comes to this.

One of W's legacys is " the Destroyer of the Republican party ".
2009-01-28 07:31:36
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6647|USA

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

f you didn't like Bush spending on stupid stuff like national security, yer gunna HATE Obama spending on his socialist, cater to the irresponsible, money pits.
So you'd rather waste trillions in Iraq etc, than spend it at home?

GJ
Like it or not we owe the Iraqi people a stable country and should not desert them.

and yeah I would rather spend money on a strong military and national defense over catering to the irresponsible.
2009-01-28 07:47:10
mikkel
Member
+383|6597

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

f you didn't like Bush spending on stupid stuff like national security, yer gunna HATE Obama spending on his socialist, cater to the irresponsible, money pits.
So you'd rather waste trillions in Iraq etc, than spend it at home?

GJ
Like it or not we owe the Iraqi people a stable country and should not desert them.

and yeah I would rather spend money on a strong military and national defense over catering to the irresponsible.
Good god, this coming from the man who used to frequently comment on how Europe bailed on Iraqi reconstruction, and just as frequently moaned about how the US had to pick up the tab for everything. Now when you need to justify the spending, you suddenly owe them a stable country, and now it's your duty. Right.

To make a blanket statement justifying GOP spending as being for the sake of "national security", a term used time and time again to pass legislation undermining the constitution and the rights of citizens, you're coming off as what you repeatedly accuse every liberal you see of being - a sheep.

Your credibility is hovering just above zero right about now.
2009-01-28 07:52:59
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6647|USA

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:


So you'd rather waste trillions in Iraq etc, than spend it at home?

GJ
Like it or not we owe the Iraqi people a stable country and should not desert them.

and yeah I would rather spend money on a strong military and national defense over catering to the irresponsible.
Good god, this coming from the man who used to frequently comment on how Europe bailed on Iraqi reconstruction, and just as frequently moaned about how the US had to pick up the tab for everything. Now when you need to justify the spending, you suddenly owe them a stable country, and now it's your duty. Right.

To make a blanket statement justifying GOP spending as being for the sake of "national security", a term used time and time again to pass legislation undermining the constitution and the rights of citizens, you're coming off as what you repeatedly accuse every liberal you see of being - a sheep.

Your credibility is hovering just above zero right about now.
Not surewhatcher talkin' about. I have always supported the war, and national defense. I have never supported a welfare state or socialism. WHere exactly is my inconsistency again?
2009-01-28 07:56:43
AutralianChainsaw
Member
+65|6194

Mekstizzle wrote:

All I'm thinking is after all these bailouts and bills and wars and where the fuck is the money coming from.
The federal reserve will be happy to print some more money...
2009-01-28 08:22:43
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6533|Long Island, New York
Lowing voted for a "socialist" under his definition, by the way. So don't really pay much attention to him.
2009-01-28 08:27:05
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6515|Πάϊ

lowing wrote:

f you didn't like Bush spending on stupid stuff like national security, yer gunna HATE Obama spending on his socialist, cater to the irresponsible, money pits.
You know it's weird. I can imagine an American getting away with a belief like that - namely that the only reason for being poor is one's lack of responsibility - something like 30 years ago. But today? It's like this economic crisis just never happened for you lowing! The American dream still going strong... Only slackers get laid off...
ƒ³
2009-01-28 08:34:30
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6525|Global Command
It will come home to roost for us all.
2009-01-28 08:35:43
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6647|USA

oug wrote:

lowing wrote:

f you didn't like Bush spending on stupid stuff like national security, yer gunna HATE Obama spending on his socialist, cater to the irresponsible, money pits.
You know it's weird. I can imagine an American getting away with a belief like that - namely that the only reason for being poor is one's lack of responsibility - something like 30 years ago. But today? It's like this economic crisis just never happened for you lowing! The American dream still going strong... Only slackers get laid off...
Not true, I have been laid off, I am just "lucky" enough to be marketable and have found other work. Responsibility for ones self and ones actions opens a lot of opportunity and choices. Far more than those offered by relying on the govt. for your daily bread.

I have no debt except for my house, and I am in no danger of loosing it. I have been recalled back to my old job.


Sorry, I took the reins of my life, instead of letting the govt. lead me. I know, how dare me!!
2009-01-28 08:39:56
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6515|Πάϊ

lowing wrote:

oug wrote:

lowing wrote:

f you didn't like Bush spending on stupid stuff like national security, yer gunna HATE Obama spending on his socialist, cater to the irresponsible, money pits.
You know it's weird. I can imagine an American getting away with a belief like that - namely that the only reason for being poor is one's lack of responsibility - something like 30 years ago. But today? It's like this economic crisis just never happened for you lowing! The American dream still going strong... Only slackers get laid off...
Not true, I have been laid off, I am just "lucky" enough to be marketable and have found other work. Responsibility for ones self and ones actions opens a lot of opportunity and choices. Far more than those offered by relying on the govt. for your daily bread.

I have no debt except for my house, and I am in no danger of loosing it. I have been recalled back to my old job.


Sorry, I took the reins of my life, instead of letting the govt. lead me. I know, how dare me!!
Well first part is very true and I agree, and as for your own case, well done. But surely you can't think it's the same for everyone?
ƒ³
2009-01-28 09:19:22
destruktion_6143
Was ist Loos?
+154|6622|Canada

lowing wrote:

oug wrote:

lowing wrote:

f you didn't like Bush spending on stupid stuff like national security, yer gunna HATE Obama spending on his socialist, cater to the irresponsible, money pits.
You know it's weird. I can imagine an American getting away with a belief like that - namely that the only reason for being poor is one's lack of responsibility - something like 30 years ago. But today? It's like this economic crisis just never happened for you lowing! The American dream still going strong... Only slackers get laid off...
Not true, I have been laid off, I am just "lucky" enough to be marketable and have found other work. Responsibility for ones self and ones actions opens a lot of opportunity and choices. Far more than those offered by relying on the govt. for your daily bread.

I have no debt except for my house, and I am in no danger of loosing it. I have been recalled back to my old job.


Sorry, I took the reins of my life, instead of letting the govt. lead me. I know, how dare me!!
so you say if someone is poor and was born into poverty, its their fault for not getting out of poverty? seriously man, you make it sound sooo easy. its not always a choice for people. if a boy is born into poverty, instead of schol he'll probably end up taking a min wage job to try and help the family. you think going to college to become "marketable" is available for everyone!? oh, and i bet u think student loans, govt grants, scholarships is socialist rite? you are making me think you are the reincarnation of joseph mcarthy more and more every time u post
2009-01-28 09:28:40
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6596|132 and Bush

335,000,000 for preventing STD's. We should all be upset. Given the history of Democratic presidents I can see why they would want to reduce the risk though.

http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1_text.pdf

https://i43.tinypic.com/2ce6lnc.png
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2009-01-28 10:15:18
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6596|132 and Bush

ATG wrote:

Not ONE spending bill was vetoed by george bush and that is the first time in 176 years that happened.
His spending was out of control and that upsets me. But lets try to be accurate.

Water Resources Development Act of 2007 was vetoed.
The Water Resources Development Act of 2007: A Pork Fest for Wealthy Beach-Front Property Owners

He also vetoed: House Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations, FY2008
Earmark Watch

He also vetoed: National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008
Pork Alert: Defense Authorization (Citizens Against Government Waste)

He also vetoed: Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 is a $288 billion, five-year agricultural policy bill being considered by the United States Congress as a continuation of the 2002 Farm Bill.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2009-01-28 14:09:45
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6286|Éire

lowing wrote:

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:


Like it or not we owe the Iraqi people a stable country and should not desert them.

and yeah I would rather spend money on a strong military and national defense over catering to the irresponsible.
Good god, this coming from the man who used to frequently comment on how Europe bailed on Iraqi reconstruction, and just as frequently moaned about how the US had to pick up the tab for everything. Now when you need to justify the spending, you suddenly owe them a stable country, and now it's your duty. Right.

To make a blanket statement justifying GOP spending as being for the sake of "national security", a term used time and time again to pass legislation undermining the constitution and the rights of citizens, you're coming off as what you repeatedly accuse every liberal you see of being - a sheep.

Your credibility is hovering just above zero right about now.
Not surewhatcher talkin' about. I have always supported the war, and national defense. I have never supported a welfare state or socialism. WHere exactly is my inconsistency again?
You amaze me lowing... you go apeshit at the suggestion of money being spent within your own society on social programs but seem totally cool with billions being spent on waging war to help countries that you hate at the expense of American lives.

I'm not saying Obama's plans are fantastic (I don't know the ins and outs to be honest) but I'm willing to bet they are more fantastic than the Neo-Con dream of a democratic, Westernised Middle East. If you're going to waste money, waste it on yourself... not on a bunch of people who don't even like you that much.
2009-01-28 14:38:44
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5581

Gotta love the Republicans. They'll do everything in their power to stop the bill and if they do and the economy gets worse they'll blame Obama for not doing anything.
2009-01-28 14:41:57
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6401|North Carolina
If Obama sets a more domestic agenda than Bush has, that would be a good thing except for the fact that he plans on spending even more than Bush did in 8 years in the space of 1 year.

Bailouts are even worse than unnecessary wars, because they cost even more.
2009-01-28 15:02:06
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6148|what

Turquoise wrote:

If Obama sets a more domestic agenda than Bush has, that would be a good thing except for the fact that he plans on spending even more than Bush did in 8 years in the space of 1 year.

Bailouts are even worse than unnecessary wars, because they cost even more.
No, bailouts are needed during a recession. You spend your way out of an economic downturn.

Spending money on a war is not profitable, because the whole country can't be war profiteers.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2009-01-28 15:08:46
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6401|North Carolina

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If Obama sets a more domestic agenda than Bush has, that would be a good thing except for the fact that he plans on spending even more than Bush did in 8 years in the space of 1 year.

Bailouts are even worse than unnecessary wars, because they cost even more.
No, bailouts are needed during a recession. You spend your way out of an economic downturn.

Spending money on a war is not profitable, because the whole country can't be war profiteers.
While it is true that FDR basically did that to get us out of the Great Depression, he also entered a war that our whole economy profited from.

Granted, entering war to stimulate the economy doesn't work anymore (as Iraq has shown), and soon...  we're going to find out the hard way that spending your way out of a recession doesn't work anymore either.

The reason I say this is because this is a different recession from most.  Debt itself created this recession.  With the Great Depression, things worked a bit differently.

This time around, if we keep up crazy spending, it's just going to kill our currency, because foreign investors are already wondering when we're going to pay back our current debts.  Spending another trillion we don't have will probably scare the world away from the dollar, which will kill our standard of living.
2009-01-28 15:09:05
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|6763

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

f you didn't like Bush spending on stupid stuff like national security, yer gunna HATE Obama spending on his socialist, cater to the irresponsible, money pits.
So you'd rather waste trillions in Iraq etc, than spend it at home?

GJ
Like it or not we owe the Iraqi people a stable country and should not desert them.

and yeah I would rather spend money on a strong military and national defense over catering to the irresponsible.
Doesn't the president owe the American people "a stable country and should not desert them"

What make Iraqi's less irresponsible than Americans?

And what is "catering to the irresponsible"?
2009-01-28 15:12:39
Warhammer
Member
+18|5676
The Bill has a lot of unneeded pork that has nothing to do with economic development, but they are there. You don't even know if the bailouts are going to be successful, and you are taking a huge risk. Best to block it instead of having it paid by future generations all for nothing. Everybody has been complaining about the bailouts Bush has been doing, yet it was through a Democratic Congress that approved it even Obama. Though it passed a lot of Republicans went against it compared to a handful of Democrats (I bet some of the Dems wanted more money waisted on stupid things, and didn't vote because some of things they wanted didn't get agreed upon the bill). A lot of Republicans voted against Bush as well with Obama now. My question is why was the bailout then so bad and the bailout now from an Obama administration is so good. A lot has been spent under the Bush administration with a Democratic Congress as well.
2009-01-28 21:53:20
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6647|USA

oug wrote:

lowing wrote:

oug wrote:


You know it's weird. I can imagine an American getting away with a belief like that - namely that the only reason for being poor is one's lack of responsibility - something like 30 years ago. But today? It's like this economic crisis just never happened for you lowing! The American dream still going strong... Only slackers get laid off...
Not true, I have been laid off, I am just "lucky" enough to be marketable and have found other work. Responsibility for ones self and ones actions opens a lot of opportunity and choices. Far more than those offered by relying on the govt. for your daily bread.

I have no debt except for my house, and I am in no danger of loosing it. I have been recalled back to my old job.


Sorry, I took the reins of my life, instead of letting the govt. lead me. I know, how dare me!!
Well first part is very true and I agree, and as for your own case, well done. But surely you can't think it's the same for everyone?
nope everything is not the same for everyone, we are not a cookie cutter society and thank God for it. Are you suggesting that I should not only work t osupport my family, but also take away from my family and give it to someone else. Ahhhhhh yes "fairness" Yeah, I think "fairness" is covered in my sig.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard