NBC Nightly News

[Jasvox]

Same old thread, new title.

Jason

[mtroute]

Originally Posted by seacapt

...That being said in an effort to call it down the middle. Bush was handed an economic house of cards when Willy Boy slithered out of the white house.

Yeah the unstable foundation of a $559 billion budget surplus really made that house of cards lean to the right...

[graphicgr8s]

Originally Posted by mtroute

Yeah the unstable foundation of a $559 billion budget surplus really made that house of cards lean to the right...

Yeah pretty easy to have a surplus when you don't spend money on basic maintenance. If you didn't fix your plumbing, have your landscaping taken care of, roof fixed, oil changed in the car, bought tires, etc. you'd have a surplus too. Eventually the piper must be paid however.

[Wheatfield]

Originally Posted by graphicgr8s

How come after all democrat presidents the next republican has to always, without fail rebuild our military?

Probably because Republican presidents liked playing GI Joe when they were kids.

[monochrome]

Originally Posted by Ratmagiclady

Public record, Monochrome. One of those things 'libruls' were 'traitors' for questioning.

There was a *lot* of stuff like that over the Bush years. Unemployment rising? Redefine 'unemployed.' Government getting bigger, call anyone a traitor for mentioning it. FEMA run by a compulsive gambler? Heckofajob, Brownie.' Climate data not to your liking? Have the denier in charge of NASA shut off the satellites and say we're going to Mars... Without oxygen.

Etc, etc, etc. There's this emergency now, but we're gonna be digging this crap out for a long while.

So cite the public record for me, please.

And add citations for these assertions while you are at it.

[Mike Cash]

Originally Posted by mtroute

Yeah the unstable foundation of a $559 billion budget surplus really made that house of cards lean to the right...

Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the figure was a 10 year projection which never actually existed....Considering the fact that the government neither has nor creates any wealth of its own, you wouldn't be disturbed by the notion of it sucking out of the hands of the citizenry $559 billion dollars in excess of projected expenditures?

[flippedgazelle]

Originally Posted by Jasvox

Same old thread, new title.

Jason

As the net-kiddies liked to say a couple of years ago, QFT.

[reeftool]

Originally Posted by Jasvox

Same old thread, new title.

Jason

Pretty much. I'll give the same old reply I gave to a similar. thread. The only difference between Democrats and Republicans are what they do with our money after they steal it from us. The deficits would be the same no matter which which party came out on top in the last election. It was Republicans who were in "control" when the meltdown happened and it was Republicans who started the bailouts. The same bunch of Wall Street and banking "experts" are advising the Dems. The big difference is that if the Republicans had won last year we would not be debating health care reform but rather whether we should have troops in Iran.

[mtroute]

Originally Posted by Mike Cash

Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the figure was a 10 year projection which never actually existed....Considering the fact that the government neither has nor creates any wealth of its own, you wouldn't be disturbed by the notion of it sucking out of the hands of the citizenry $559 billion dollars in excess of projected expenditures?

Right saving money is bad...I don't actually have a savings, i just spend less than I make. I really should spend more on lenses then? I can see how that would be a better solution. When you guys get your PhD's in economics, I'lll listen to you, until then I just hear blah, blah, blah...

[Mike Cash]

Originally Posted by mtroute

Right saving money is bad...I don't actually have a savings, i just spend less than I make. I really should spend more on lenses then? I can see how that would be a better solution. When you guys get your PhD's in economics, I'lll listen to you, until then I just hear blah, blah, blah...

I'll listen to you when you can pass high school freshman Civics. Congratulations on entirely missing the point and attempting to play it off with irrelevant bluster.

[Blue]

Originally Posted by Wheatfield

Probably because Republican presidents liked playing GI Joe when they were kids.

Actually, you should go look at some of the biographies of several Presidents including Harry S. Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, and LBJ before making blanket statements like that.

[Parallax]

Originally Posted by Blue

Actually, you should go look at some of the biographies of several Presidents including Harry S. Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, and LBJ before making blanket statements like that.

Yep. I'm betting these guys had some toy soldiers in a shoe box under the bed, too:

Navy Commander Lyndon Johnson, who received the Silver Star in WWII.
or
John Kennedy. (anybody remember PT 109?)
or
Jimmy Carter, who once said his goal was to become Chief of Naval Operations, and who's naval career primarily dealt with [GASP] nuclear power, and who was part of a group of American and Canadian servicemen who took part in cleaning up after a partial nuclear meltdown at Canada's Chalk River Laboratories reactor in 1952.

If memory serves, it was LBJ at the helm when we got deep into Viet Nam.

Senator (former U.S. Army Colonel) Truman said on June 23, 1941, the day after Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union,: "If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible............

[Wheatfield]

Originally Posted by Parallax

Senator (former U.S. Army Colonel) Truman said on June 23, 1941, the day after Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union,: "If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible............

And thus was American foreign policy set for the next 7 decades.

[Ratmagiclady]

Originally Posted by Mike Cash

Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the figure was a 10 year projection which never actually existed....Considering the fact that the government neither has nor creates any wealth of its own, you wouldn't be disturbed by the notion of it sucking out of the hands of the citizenry $559 billion dollars in excess of projected expenditures?

I'm more disturbed by the GOP electing a dude to make it happen in order to *prove* that 'government doesn't work.'

Maybe it's not 'government.' Maybe it's really just that the people who keep saying, 'Government can't work, make me the government' ...And actually spent ten years breaking stuff so a very few could walk away extremely rich... Don't even believe in what they're ostensibly doing.

Maybe where the *real* transfer of wealth occurred is too obvious and big for some to see. Or maybe some just want more. And have everyone running around like conservative identity politics is going to suddenly start helping them.

[Parallax]

Originally Posted by Wheatfield

And thus was American foreign policy set for the next 7 decades.

Unfortunately, yes.