Is that the best excuse you can come up with???
Bernanke is a BUSH appointee and also an idiot.
Change you can believe in.
- Thread starter brett636
- Start date
Is that the best excuse you can come up with???
Bernanke is a BUSH appointee and also an idiot.
1989
Well-Known Member
Is that the best excuse you can come up with???
Bernanke is a BUSH appointee and also an idiot.
BREAKING NEWS..........THIS JUST IN..........BUSH IS NO LONGER OUR PRESIDENT.
I bet you believe that Democrates inherited this whole deficit too.
diesel96
Well-Known Member
Numerous liberals/progressives/Dem's and people on the far left have been and currently are vehemently criticizing Obama for doing these things. Overwhelmingly, with some admitted exceptions, Bush critics on the left are being principled and consistent in criticizing Obama. Most have not switched and started cheering these things on, so your assertion is factually false.....
Personally I've addressed FISA/Survaliance issue before and you no my stance on it.
"Bernanke is a BUSH appointee and also an idiot.
That means Hussein loves being surrounded by idiots....the circle is complete. Say hi to San Fran Nan and ricochet Reid.
More....Are you falling for the predictable GOP strategy demonizing symbolic targets drumming up Rep/Con Neanderthal-like emotionals staring at caveman drawings....field mouse, accorn, birth cert, Reid, Pelosi, Frank ......It's so easy (distracting Rep's) a caveman can do it....
Sammie
Well-Known Member
In November of 1861 Lincoln fired General-in-chief Winfield Scott
In August of 1861 Lincoln fired General Fremont for refusing to remand his order to free the slaves in Missouri
In July of 1862 he fired General Halleck, appointing General Pope
In August of 1862 General Pope is sent packing after he was defeated at the Battle of Bull Run, and Lincoln rehired McClellan
In November of 1862 Lincoln fired General McClellan
In January of 1863 Lincoln fired General Burnside
In June of 1863 Lincoln fired General Hooker and replaced him with General Meade
He did all of this to get the two generals who were capable of prosecuting the war, Grant and Sherman.
If Lincoln is such a role model to Obama, Obama needs to get rid of, for starters, "bank agents" Ben Bernanke,Tim Geithner, Larry Summers and Nancy Pilosi who made up 11th Commandment as they went along; "Thy bank stockholders shall be protected above all others to the extent of their political influence".
In August of 1861 Lincoln fired General Fremont for refusing to remand his order to free the slaves in Missouri
In July of 1862 he fired General Halleck, appointing General Pope
In August of 1862 General Pope is sent packing after he was defeated at the Battle of Bull Run, and Lincoln rehired McClellan
In November of 1862 Lincoln fired General McClellan
In January of 1863 Lincoln fired General Burnside
In June of 1863 Lincoln fired General Hooker and replaced him with General Meade
He did all of this to get the two generals who were capable of prosecuting the war, Grant and Sherman.
If Lincoln is such a role model to Obama, Obama needs to get rid of, for starters, "bank agents" Ben Bernanke,Tim Geithner, Larry Summers and Nancy Pilosi who made up 11th Commandment as they went along; "Thy bank stockholders shall be protected above all others to the extent of their political influence".
Amen to that. Seems they all have tax problems. Yeah so do I. I do not like paying them, although it seems most of them just dont pay them.
Was that Bernake today that couldnt divulge where the 2.2 trillion went or the banks would be afraid and come forward and ask for more. Good. If you cant ask, you dont need.
Was that Bernake today that couldnt divulge where the 2.2 trillion went or the banks would be afraid and come forward and ask for more. Good. If you cant ask, you dont need.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
Understand the first dog he selected was rejected due to tax problems.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
And with all these appointments the US Treasury has reaped thousands of unknown back taxes. All he has to do is appoint every democrat to a government job and the deficit will be gone.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Numerous liberals/progressives/Dem's and people on the far left have been and currently are vehemently criticizing Obama for doing these things. Overwhelmingly, with some admitted exceptions, Bush critics on the left are being principled and consistent in criticizing Obama. Most have not switched and started cheering these things on, so your assertion is factually false.....
Personally I've addressed FISA/Survaliance issue before and you no my stance on it.
I don't think I am factually wrong at all D. I do know your stand of FISA/Surveillance and you were correctly vocal on it when Bush was abusing executive priviledge to circumvent constitutional limitations but now that Obama and his own legal team are now maintaining this stance, while you and your democrat cohorts who ran these pages wild during the Bush years sit literally silent while "YOUR" President doing the same thing!
I WANT TO ISSUE A CHALLENGE TO THE BROWNCAFE READERS! I admittedly do not read all posts here as quite frankly I doubt anybody does but more eyes are better than 2 so here's the deal. I contend that D, TOS and Jagger have severe double standards (quite frankly no worse than the many red staters here who howl now against Obama's "socialism") but my challenge is to help me find posts by the 3 names individuals that are critical of the Obama Adminstration (and with the same intensity) where this adminstration has followed lock step to the Bush adminstration. That's my challenge. Post the link, bracket the quotes, whatever because so far from these 3 I've seen no utterance of objection to anything Obama has done when had Bush and the republicans done this, the posting would have been of a different tone.
Now before you Red Staters go hogwild, let me back up history a moment. You rant now about Obama's stimulus plans and one of the things republicans have screamed about is the buried tranfer costs to the individual States in the outlying years otherwise known as unfunded mandates. When what republicans forget is the infamous 10 year economic stimulus bill of 2003' that was waltzed through Washington by Bush and the republican Congress. Hmm! Let's see, 2002' economic problems hit as economy is slipping, 2003' we intervene and get a big gov't stimulus plan and for the next 5 years things go okie-dokie and then the balloon busts. Now in 2008' economy in the toilet, 2009' we intervene and get a big gov't stimulus and............. Anybody dare bet me about the outcome 5 years from now? If you dare look at history, these so called 10 year plans are very predictable.
Does anyone ever tire of the same old movie? Truth is, no matter the party affliation, in Washington, they are all vampires!
D,
Republicans were given the keys to the Kingdom. They literally controlled all 3 branches of gov't with even 7 of the 9 SCOTUS appointees being from republican adminstration (a fact they love to ignore when the court rules in a way they dislike
) yet what did they do with those keys and to the principles they ran on? Literally betrayed the very conservative principles (very much so of the fiscal side) on which they told the people they would adhere too. As a result, they took a bad turn and never looked back because the few who spoke out got ignored and look at the very mess we find ourselves now. Even stately pass republican adminstration officials who themselves weren't known to true core principles warned of overreach by the current party leadership and yet full steam they went forward.Now your party is doing the very same thing and like those red state lemmings, you are sitting there not uttering a word of objection based on the very principles you held during the Bush years. As it appears to me now, you are proving yourself nothing more than a party hack in the same manner that you accused others here of being for the other political side.
The truth is President Obama I believe is under intense pressure to maintain the course because I believe Washington is not run by the will of voters at election time. In another thread I posted Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket" and between himself and of course the words of President Eisenhower as he left the White House, we know the military/industrial complex is a very powerful apparatus but one should look further.
Did you ever consider the fact and I'm sure you'll agree that General Electric is a huge player in this complex but are you also aware that Gerard Swope who at the time was the President of General Electric was called to federal service by FDR and was the architect of the infamous National Recovery Adminstration? Do you honestly think these big business interests are going to sit there at the feet of power and deal themselves and the taxpayer a equal and fair hand? Do you honestly believe Obama is going to completely ignore the merchantile powers that have run Washington for the last 100 plus years after they all but destroyed true free market economics in their own interest of monopoly/cartel control of our economy and set about to setup a hybrid of II Duce's Fascist utopia of Corporatism? Did you every google FDR and II Duce and see all the kind things FDR had to say about his corp. utopia before II Duce turned coat and joined Hitler and Hirohito in the original Axis of Evil!
If you sit on your hands and not speak up like the republicans failed to do, then you can bet bottom dollar that your party will sprint for the plantation fences just as fast as the republicans did and in 4 to 8 years you'll sit there scratching your head wondering how in the world this mess actually got worse and it will! Progressives and Liberals actually began the republican party back in the day and this accelerated atthe turn of the century with the emergence of McKinley and TR. In fact, the name progressive was so muddy by the time FDR emerged on the scene that these statist hyjacked the name liberal from the classical liberal tradition and the rest is history but the simple fact is, the democrat party, the party of Jefferson/Jackson became a statist party but their one hope was maintaining the principles of civil liberteries. Sadly in many respects, that got tossed on the ashpile of history by the Clinton years and now Obama has re-opened the door to that same blood sucking crowd and where are the voices of outcry?
If you guys don't speak out to your President now, he's off the reservation for good and you'll wonder what went wrong but by then it's too late politically, economically and socially. Now if you want to spend 8 years like Limbaugh and parade everything done and then once the party is over, try and regain some creds without looking the hypocrite, then be my guest! To hear Limbaugh now invoke FA Hayek is IMO like Judas invoking the name of Jesus to Saint Peter at the pearly gates! I wonder if Limbaugh ever dared to read this by Hayek? No offense but I'd bet Limbaugh reaction would most likely match yours to this idea of Hayek's so there you go!
Stop being silent and making the same mistake the last crew that ran Washington made. If principles were correct with Bush then they hold equal sway with Obama!
Stand up for them no matter what!
Friend to Friend!
brett636
Well-Known Member
bRETT,
Again, another Rush limbaugh example repeated by you. What Obama was talking about was the PRODUCTION AUTOMOBILE.
Carl Benz just made the first motor powered carriage. NOT the first production automobile.
Now, I realize you never heard what obama actually said, just the distortion of a drug addict who will say anything just to promote a failed ideology.
The Rush syndrome. A phenomenon that is actually hurting the right wing vs helping it. By being an obstructionist, he is finding himself at Odds with the RNC. By insulting Michael Steele, Rush is asking for a beatdown by republicans. Steele, recently called Rush what he is: an infotainer.
Rush, upset by being called a "nothing" has gone on the attack on Michael Steele. This will work to the Dems benefit as it has made Rush more vocal on his extreme views about the republican party.
Thank you Michael Steele.
As far as the budget and spending, you right wing kooks need to remember one thing, President Bushed NEVER included spending on either war and deferred that cost to the next president. Now you want to cry about deficits, yet forget that the majority of that debt was caused by your president and the republican congress. Over 1 trillion on 2 failed wars deferred to our young president to deal with.
This banking crisis started in september 2007 when president BUSH ignored the warning signs and ALL the banks were reporting HUGE debts each month ranging from 10 to 20 billion. When banks starting writing off 10's of billions of dollars in losses, all he did was give them some cash in early 2008 and defer the eventual crash of the banking sector for 2009.
This falls squarely on BUSH's shoulders. He furthered the extention of this recession by printing money he didnt have to send us a stimulus check in 2008.
These 2 actions extended the recession he ever so convieniently denied for a year.
BUSHED raised the debt ceiling 9 times since he was sworn in and took the deficit to its highest levels in history.
The recession began in december 2007 and continues today. Americans know this and realize it was the republicans who caused it to happen.
Brett, with the chart you posted, maybe you didnt realize what you posted. I realize that Rush convinced you of the nonsense you posted, but what you failed to realize is the reality of the chart.
Take a look from 1980 to 1992 and look how far REAGAN took the deficit, then look at 1992 to 2000 and see how a democratic, big spender, welfare waster, entitlement giveaway president reduced that debt, then look at your hero GW BUSHED and see how from 2000 to 2009 he destroy the economy.
In 2000, he had the largest surplus for a new president, and in 8 years he ruined a country.
Why not take a pencil and add up the deficits of REAGAN, BUSH 1 and BUSH 2 and then ask yourself if these 3 republican morons are directly responsible for the destruction of american fiscal responsibility? They are right there on your chart. Again, thanks for posting it for all to see.
Now, the new president has to do something to stop the bleeding from the deep wounds inflicted on a country by a president who many believe was a ch*t for brains.
Ya know, the many times I stop by to read what the right wing posts on this site, I am always amazed at the level of denials you all have.
Its too bad, this country needs us to be americans, and yet, the republicans want to be a divided country and keep things in the toilet.
Brett, Rush is an idiot, a convicted drug addict, and a man without a formal education. IF you want to listen to an idiot that badly, why not stop by GW Bush's ranch and sit a spell.
I've never run across someone who can type so much and yet say so little. I got my point across with a couple sentences and a simple graph. My suggestion to you is to get a job so you don't feel so much hatred to those of us who work for a living and therefore hold the conservative values that you find espoused by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Etc.
1989
Well-Known Member
bRETT,
This banking crisis started in september 2007 when president BUSH ignored the warning signs and ALL the banks were reporting HUGE debts each month ranging from 10 to 20 billion. When banks starting writing off 10's of billions of dollars in losses, all he did was give them some cash in early 2008 and defer the eventual crash of the banking sector for 2009.
This falls squarely on BUSH's shoulders. He furthered the extention of this recession by printing money he didnt have to send us a stimulus check in 2008.
These 2 actions extended the recession he ever so convieniently denied for a year.
Where was congress? The head of the banking commitee didn't do anything.
I remember the bank bailout started in October of 2008, which on my calendar in the end of the year. I don't condone giving banks money, but banks need liquidity to function.
I remember Pelosi screaming stimulus in the summer/fall of 2007. I also recall that Pelosi was the last to revise and first to sign the bill...Bush was the last to sign it. Do you realize we have 3 branches of government?
National Debt Graph: Bush Goes for WWII Stimulus
How We Get Out of the Great Depression II
By Steven Stoft, March 2, 2009
Here we go again: Hoover got us in, and WWII got us out. Bush got us in, and
to his credit, starting trying to get us out. Though, mostly he threw money at bankers.
In the Great Depression, Roosevelt tried deficit spending, but he was too timid. Then he stopped in 1937 and the economy nose-dived. It took the humongous deficits of WWII to pull us out of the Great Depression. Those deficits blasted the economy from depression into overdrive.
Of course after the war, we had to pay off a huge national debt, but during that time, from 1946 to 1980, the economy was mainly quite prosperous. We hit a bad recession when Reagan took office, and his early deficit spending made sense (though he didn't know it). But then he continued to drive up the debt through the boom years that followed. That didn't make any sense.
We are now headed into the worst slump since 1938, and you better hope Obama can fix it because that was not a pretty time. Unfortunately, as in the Great Depression, the extreme conservatives would rather trash the country than have our government succeed. They are much worse than Bush.
The main thing to remember is that, with consumer spending going down, business is going to lay people off—not hire them. You can't blame business for this. It's just a vicious cycle the economy gets into. Any you can't blame consumers for not spending in bad times. The only way out of this, if we don't want to wait 10 or 20 years, is for the government to spend, pay unemployment insurance, or give tax breaks to people who will spend (not the rich). Of course there's also the problem of the banks. Obama should stop saving the bankers, and just take over the bad banks. Once they're working they can be sold back to the private sector.
How We Get Out of the Great Depression II
By Steven Stoft, March 2, 2009
Here we go again: Hoover got us in, and WWII got us out. Bush got us in, and
to his credit, starting trying to get us out. Though, mostly he threw money at bankers.
In the Great Depression, Roosevelt tried deficit spending, but he was too timid. Then he stopped in 1937 and the economy nose-dived. It took the humongous deficits of WWII to pull us out of the Great Depression. Those deficits blasted the economy from depression into overdrive.
Of course after the war, we had to pay off a huge national debt, but during that time, from 1946 to 1980, the economy was mainly quite prosperous. We hit a bad recession when Reagan took office, and his early deficit spending made sense (though he didn't know it). But then he continued to drive up the debt through the boom years that followed. That didn't make any sense.
We are now headed into the worst slump since 1938, and you better hope Obama can fix it because that was not a pretty time. Unfortunately, as in the Great Depression, the extreme conservatives would rather trash the country than have our government succeed. They are much worse than Bush.
The main thing to remember is that, with consumer spending going down, business is going to lay people off—not hire them. You can't blame business for this. It's just a vicious cycle the economy gets into. Any you can't blame consumers for not spending in bad times. The only way out of this, if we don't want to wait 10 or 20 years, is for the government to spend, pay unemployment insurance, or give tax breaks to people who will spend (not the rich). Of course there's also the problem of the banks. Obama should stop saving the bankers, and just take over the bad banks. Once they're working they can be sold back to the private sector.
GEE, whos faces are on the biggest deficits?? Hmmm?
Republican hypocrites would have you believe the democrats are the wasteful spenders despite the realities of fiscal records.
And, you right wing kooks wonder how you lost control of the senate, house and white house?
Oh yeah, it was the liberal medias fault, not party line fiscal irresponsibility.
Get clue folks, or I can sell you one.
Again, why you lost the white house.
tieguy
Banned
.. Anybody dare bet me about the outcome 5 years from now? If you dare look at history, these so called 10 year plans are very predictable.
Sounds like we need to do an economic stimulus plan every 4.5 years.
If we had the same set of economic indicators create each downturn then I would agree with you. There probably was a predictable downward movement before clinton left office. Bush inherited a mild recession. However 9/11 precipitated the first significant downturn.
The mortgage crisis and the oil squeeze combined probably triggered the second.
Republicans were given the keys to the Kingdom. They literally controlled all 3 branches of gov't with even 7 of the 9 SCOTUS appointees being from republican adminstration (a fact they love to ignore when the court rules in a way they dislike
I believe the issue that got congress to go democratic was more the Iraq war then the republicans showing socialist tendencies. The economy was hitting a lot of positives when the Libcons took congress. Americans will set their fiscal principles aside if the economy is strong and they are working. The Iraq war at that time had the look of going on indefinitely and the libcons played it up to gain control of congress. Some of your staunchest conservatives may have objected but the rest of knew we had elected a more middle of the road republican. Its tough to get a president that possess all the traits you want. Bush like him or hate him was a leader. He believed in tax cuts and he believed in some socialistic style programs some of which had success. For some reason people forget that GW originally sold himself as a compassionate conservative. He was not and did not sell himself as a staunch unbending conservative.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
.. Anybody dare bet me about the outcome 5 years from now? If you dare look at history, these so called 10 year plans are very predictable.
Sounds like we need to do an economic stimulus plan every 4.5 years.
If we had the same set of economic indicators create each downturn then I would agree with you. There probably was a predictable downward movement before clinton left office. Bush inherited a mild recession. However 9/11 precipitated the first significant downturn.
The mortgage crisis and the oil squeeze combined probably triggered the second.
Republicans were given the keys to the Kingdom. They literally controlled all 3 branches of gov't with even 7 of the 9 SCOTUS appointees being from republican adminstration (a fact they love to ignore when the court rules in a way they dislike
I believe the issue that got congress to go democratic was more the Iraq war then the republicans showing socialist tendencies. The economy was hitting a lot of positives when the Libcons took congress. Americans will set their fiscal principles aside if the economy is strong and they are working. The Iraq war at that time had the look of going on indefinitely and the libcons played it up to gain control of congress. Some of your staunchest conservatives may have objected but the rest of knew we had elected a more middle of the road republican. Its tough to get a president that possess all the traits you want. Bush like him or hate him was a leader. He believed in tax cuts and he believed in some socialistic style programs some of which had success. For some reason people forget that GW originally sold himself as a compassionate conservative. He was not and did not sell himself as a staunch unbending conservative.
Many of your points are good ones Tie but you made one real good and correct point that I'd like to further add too. Bush did implement some socialist ideas and I guess whether they worked or not is open to debate but if Bush being the success you say he was using socialism, then why the massive objection to Obama and the democrats using socialism? Is it the amount of socialism? Seems to me that if a little worked good, a lot would work better so why the upset with Obama's socialism?
Another thing, when Bush ran the show and when people objected to Bush (reality it was Bush policy) the standard pat cry from the red state amen corner was "you are being unpatriotic because the nation is at war!" In other words, voicing objection to a sitting President was just unpatriotic.
Well what about now with a new President in the White house and we are still at war?
I do think the so-called "conservative" hype on the republican party is about all political hype or a down right lie IMO. The republican party is a rather middle of the road, a mixed socialist style idea of governance with a bit less heavy hand in some areas and a bit more heavy handed in others but socialist none the less. I think the republican party should come out and be honest and stop trying to pretend to be something they are not but then if they did that, an enough percentage of voters would walk away and democrats would have a sure lock on every election and republicans know this. The big question going forward will be can the republican party salvage the lie and keep the % voters from going rogue?
BTW TOS: Your last 2 posts were dead on the money. Nice finds!
Similar threads
