Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 50

Thread: The Appalling Hypocrisy Of The Republican Party Exposed In Three Simple Charts

  1. #21
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,181
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4070495]We had 4 years of the Democrats controlling both houses including the years prior to and after the crash. We have had 2 years of complete Democratic dominance of government after the crash. Nobody trust any one including the Democrats or Obama to get us out of this mess. That's the reason the Republicans were thrown out and it's the reason the Democrats were thrown out in the last election.[/QUOTE]

    +1

  2. #22
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,181
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4070506]So then a compromised position from both sides is due? Let me see, which side is not willing to compromise here again?[/QUOTE]

    Obama is not willing to compromise.


    I agree Dawg that it would be good to end the wars but they need to be ended correctly so we don't leave the place worse than when we got there. But Dawg needs to remember that Obama has started another war in Lybia and has bombed a few other countries if the news reports can be trusteed.

    Obama's troop withdrawl is a purely political move as can be seen by the fact that soldiers will be home just before the election.

    The only candidate I think is honest about cutting spending and ending the wars is Ron Paul. Is he the solution?

  3. #23
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    Didn't we actually have a surplus when Bush started?

  4. #24
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=FF2;4070538]Didn't we actually have a surplus when Bush started?[/QUOTE]

    We had a surplus before the Japs attacked Pearl Harbor.

  5. #25
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4070506]So then a compromised position from both sides is due? Let me see, which side is not willing to compromise here again?[/QUOTE]

    There was a deal between the President and the speaker. The President bailed on it after meeting with Democrats and tried to change the deal. This is why the President is no longer part of a deal and the compromise will be between House Republicans and Senate Democrats for a smaller deal.

    The President had won and essentially went back on his word which is why we are where we are today.

  6. #26
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,370
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Trades;4070514]Obama is not willing to compromise.


    I agree Dawg that it would be good to end the wars but they need to be ended correctly so we don't leave the place worse than when we got there. But Dawg needs to remember that Obama has started another war in Lybia and has bombed a few other countries if the news reports can be trusteed.

    Obama's troop withdrawl is a purely political move as can be seen by the fact that soldiers will be home just before the election.

    The only candidate I think is honest about cutting spending and ending the wars is Ron Paul. Is he the solution?[/QUOTE]

    In another thread, I stated that we need to end the 5, 6, or 7 wars that we are in.

    Ron Paul's ideas are the way for now. Just sticking to the constitution, getting back to basics is a good direction for America to go

  7. #27
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,181
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4070559]In another thread, I stated that we need to end the 5, 6, or 7 wars that we are in.

    Ron Paul's ideas are the way for now. Just sticking to the constitution, getting back to basics is a good direction for America to go[/QUOTE]

    I like Ron Paul a lot but I am not sure he is electable but he has some great ideas. You never know. He has been in congress since 1997 and is a Republican though. Doesn't that make him one of the people that we shouldn't be listening to?

  8. #28
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4070546]We had a surplus before the Japs attacked Pearl Harbor.[/QUOTE]

    He means a budget surplus - you still had a lot of debt, but Clinton left Bush with roughly a $100 billion per year budget surplus.

  9. #29
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    even more troubling for the GOP there's a Reuters Ipsos poll that says 1) Americans are widely concerned about the debt ceiling situation and 2) about 60% favor the split proposal of cutting spending AND raising taxes that Obama put forth.

    I don't think the GOp are even serious about a deal. the longer they wait the more damage they do to the economy, and the better (at least in their mind) their chances in the 2012 elections.

  10. #30
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,181
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4070635]even more troubling for the GOP there's a Reuters Ipsos poll that says 1) Americans are widely concerned about the debt ceiling situation and 2) about 60% favor the split proposal of cutting spending AND raising taxes that Obama put forth.

    I don't think the GOp are even serious about a deal. the longer they wait the more damage they do to the economy, and the better (at least in their mind) their chances in the 2012 elections.[/QUOTE]

    Not serious because they wrote several ACTUAL plans, one a compromise with Harry Reid that Obama rejected? OK. Where is that Dem/Obama plan BTW I thought I had it on my desk somewhere...

  11. #31
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Trades;4070687]Not serious because they wrote several ACTUAL plans, one a compromise with Harry Reid that Obama rejected? OK. Where is that Dem/Obama plan BTW I thought I had it on my desk somewhere...[/QUOTE]

    putting things on paper that are never gonna pass doesn't really prove a whole lot. Except that you enjoy wasting time.

    fwiw the Obama proposal (grand plan) was very similar to the deficit committee's recommendations (that Paul Ryan voted against)

  12. #32
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Black Death;4070604]He means a budget surplus - you still had a lot of debt, but Clinton left Bush with roughly a $100 billion per year budget surplus.[/QUOTE]

    The last year of Clintons budget we were already running a deficit he didn't leave a budget that left a surplus. As you well know much of the revenue was created by the dot com bubble which had already burst before Bush took office and revenues started down before Bush's tax cuts.

    The WTC were attacked when Clinton was President and Osama was offered to his administration and didn't do anything. The subsequent attack under the Bush administration completely stopped the economy and revenue fell dramatically. On top of that the death and destruction insured a costly response.

    The Clinton surpluses were in large part created by the dot com bubble which had already burst before any Bush policy's went into effect.

  13. #33
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4070714]

    The Clinton surpluses were in large part created by the dot com bubble [/QUOTE]

    i like how Clinton's surpluses are because of the dot.com bubble (which I assume we are not giving Clinton credit for) but the deficit caused by the recession in 2008, well that's all Obama's fault. can't have it both ways either the President deserves blame/credit or he doesn't.

  14. #34
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,648
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=FF2;4070538]Didn't we actually have a surplus when Bush started?[/QUOTE]

    People always seem to forget that Bush took over during a economic disaster as well. The .com bust happened. The stock market dropped 50%. Then we had 9/11 and another massive hit to the economy. Revenues dropped. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan might seem like a mistake today. Time will tell. But the Bush tax cuts for the poor and middle class actually helped the economy at the time. By Bushes 4th year in office the economy was booming again.

    Now lets extrapolate further. The Republican congress campaigned on smaller government and constrained spending. They were successful early in the mid 90's with the contract with America. It seems that most of them got complacent once we got to surpluses. You had the Delay pork barrel congress and Bush did nothing to stop them from out of control politics as usual spending. The Republican base was frustrated but we had no alternatives. In 2006 still during the economic boom frustration at the growth of government was so high that republicans simply stayed away from the voting booth. By default the democrats took control of the house and senate and proceeded to increase the spending trajectory. Bush at that point was so weakened that he did little to constrain the Democratic congress. Spending at that time really began to explode. If you look at deficit charts we began to accelerate in 2006.

    In the end of the day both parties are at fault for our debt problems. The Tea Party was born of this frustration. Fiscal conservatives that were fed up with Republicans that say one thing (less govt) and do another (spend more). It is a misconception that they were born to counter Democrats. They are here to hold Republicans to the fire.

    In the context of our current situation it is interesting that the Democrats were simply going to ignore the debt explosion. Most don't seem to think it is even a problem. Even in the face of looming debt downgrades Democrats continue to put their heads in the sand on this issue. They want it to simply go away. We all know Obama put up a budget that expanded spending by an additional 10 trillion over 10 years. It lost in a 97-0 vote in the Senate. Then they asked for a clean debt limit increase. Again a big loser in congress.

    We have a crisis. During times of crisis we have always counted on leadership from the WH to look past party lines and do what is needed for the country. Bill Clinton was a master at this tact. The man was a statesman. Obama is the complete opposite. He governs like a congressman. In the past two months he has given countless speeches and prime time talks which are designed more as campaign red meat rather then pragmatic solutions. When Paul Ryan's budget passed the house he called both parties to a speech which he used to demagogue the plan. The ultimate insult was that he had asked Ryan to sit in the front row and take it in the but.

  15. #35
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4070723]i like how Clinton's surpluses are because of the dot.com bubble (which I assume we are not giving Clinton credit for) but the deficit caused by the recession in 2008, well that's all Obama's fault. can't have it both ways either the President deserves blame/credit or he doesn't.[/QUOTE]

    Clinton did tons of good stuff. He was for free trade, he deregulated, he cut cap gains taxes, he did some solid welfare reform and the business environment was very good. He also increased federal spending every single year by much more then the rate of inflation. Not a big issue when you have pro growth business environoment that brought in record tax revenue.

    What he did that sucked was he didn't respond when the country was attacked and we could have gotten the responsible parties for the attack on the cheap without all the death and destruction. That little screw up cost our country an outright fortune in stalled economic activity which killed both GDP and tax revenue and the need for a high cost response.

    He also changed HUD policy which had a dramatic impact on the housing boom and the bust that killed our economy.

    Bush also did some very poor things that had huge economic impact. Obama has also done damage to our economy with his failed health reform and bank reform along with a stimulus package that was to small and badly focused

    Policy does matter.

  16. #36
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,871
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Democrats have not put anything forward especially Obama on the other hand the Republicans have put 4 differnt bills forward and they weren't considered. BTW raising taxes doesn't work for one reason they never get as much income then they think they will. Plain and Simple even for an Obamanite! If this country goes bellyup there is one persone and one person only responsible Obama! The Democrats have had plenty of time and have done nothing. 2 Trillion in immediate cuts and maybe we will raise the debt ceiling or we carry this over into 2012! :usa:

  17. #37
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4070714]The last year of Clintons budget we were already running a deficit he didn't leave a budget that left a surplus. As you well know much of the revenue was created by the dot com bubble which had already burst before Bush took office and revenues started down before Bush's tax cuts.

    The WTC were attacked when Clinton was President and Osama was offered to his administration and didn't do anything. The subsequent attack under the Bush administration completely stopped the economy and revenue fell dramatically. On top of that the death and destruction insured a costly response.

    The Clinton surpluses were in large part created by the dot com bubble which had already burst before any Bush policy's went into effect.[/QUOTE]

    According to [URL="http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php"]this[/URL] website, Clinton had a $123 billion surplus in his final year in office. If there's any stastical anomaly, I'm happy to hear of it because governments are prone to use stats for their own uses.

    As for Clinton and Osama - I think he actually did do something if you go back over your history - and Al Qaida attacked the United States during the term of President Bush. Osama was killed in the term of Obama.

    The attack of Al Qaida on the United States was used by the Republicans to launch a spurious, immoral, and uber-expensive war against Iraq, given that Al Qaida and the then Iraqi regime had nothing to do with each other and in fact despised the other. A war that added hugely to your deficit and cost thousands of lives.

    Instead of killing Bin Laden, the Republicans decided it would be in their best interests to attack Iraq which actually allowed Al Qaida into that country to cause more death and mayhem as they had caused elsewhere.

    Of course, all of this extra expense is defendable according to the Republicans, after all the Great Reagan (TM - patent pending) single handedly caused the fall of the Soviet Empire by elevating hugely the spending on weaponry, when really all you need is a couple of nukes anyway. This is justifiable because the Great Reagan is indeed the Great Reagan, and not a gin-slinging, pants-wetting, senile dodderer as he was in life. What a paragon to look up to. Lifted your debt to obsene levels to line the pockets of his mates in the military, then claimed all the credit for for the inevitable. No wonder Bush 2 did what he did - just following the trailblazing path set by ol' Ron - lifted the debt yet again to stratospheric levels, cut taxes on the rich when your country could least afford it.

    Obama is a bad President, but he is a whole lot better than the alternative. The Republicans globally are known as a total joke - you might not care about that, but you will when the rest of the globe owns your country. The Republicans are the ones who will be responsible when your country topples from its super-power position into inevitable decreptitude. Your might comes from your economic status, and that has been flushed down the toilet by the Republicans whenever they've had power. What an awful, greedy and self-serving mob they are.

  18. #38
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,878
    Post Thanks / Like
    The issue isn't numbers.

    It's Obama's lack of knowing when-and-how to strike a deal and get things moving forward.

    :jets17

  19. #39
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Black Death;4071179]According to [URL="http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php"]this[/URL] website, Clinton had a $123 billion surplus in his final year in office. If there's any stastical anomaly, I'm happy to hear of it because governments are prone to use stats for their own uses.

    As for Clinton and Osama - I think he actually did do something if you go back over your history - and Al Qaida attacked the United States during the term of President Bush. Osama was killed in the term of Obama.

    [/QUOTE]

    The 2001 budget was Clinton's. Bush was the President but it was Clinton's budget. Revenue was in decline before new policy was instituted.

    Clinton actually didn't do anything to get Bin Ladin. The CIA had him and Clinton refused to take action, he considered it a law enforcement issue even though we had been attacked extensively when he was President.

  20. #40
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,779
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=AlbanyJet;4070314]It's not about the Republicans. It's not about Boehner. It's not about hypocrisy.

    It IS about Barack Obama [B]FAILING[/B] to take charge. It is about Barack Obama [B]FAILING[/B] to become the President of the United States. It is about Barack Obama [B]FAILING[/B] to provide focus, direction, and discipline in Washington, DC. Obama said that Washington, DC is now a three-ring circus. What an idiotic thing to say. Obama is one of those rings!! Doesn't he have the common sense to know that American voters see him as one of those rings? :dunno:

    The United States government is a complete mess and Barack Obama is a significant part of this mess. Obama [B]FAILS[/B] to understand that he's supposed to get ahead of and solve problems, not exacerbate them.

    The Bottom Line: Barack Obama is NOT Presidential material. He is NOT a leader or Chief Executive. He has NOT made the transition from Senator to President - and he never will. Time for Democrats to find a new candidate for President in 2012!

    Just my $0.02.

    :jets17[/QUOTE]

    you left out he was not born in the USA and he is a socialist.

    If the Rank and file of the tea party will not comprimise then nothing can be done.
    period.
    end of story.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us