Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Romney announces VP pick


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
233 replies to this topic

#211 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,018 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 16 August 2012 - 09:23 AM

Its amazing that an Australian is engulfed in American style two-party Karl Rove'ian politicking.

What I mean is.. since when is criticism of Obama an intimation that I support Bush at all? That includes your statement plus insinuation that because my criticism of Obama is so heavy handed that means Americans were better off under Bush. They would have been better off without both.


Better off under Ron Paul? .. you would have had to move North for health care even sooner under RP .. or maybe Huckabee was more your ilk?? .. :picard:

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#212 Zamboni_14

Zamboni_14

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,550 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 03

Posted 16 August 2012 - 09:36 AM

Better off under Ron Paul? .. you would have had to move North for health care even sooner under RP .. or maybe Huckabee was more your ilk?? .. :picard:


just because he didn't like either, doesn't mean he liked RP better. I don't like either Bush or Obama either... and I wouldn't have voted for either RP or Huckabee.

#213 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,087 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 16 August 2012 - 09:52 AM

I think it's safe to say that Bush certainly got the ball rolling but Obama (and congress) didn't exactly enact austerity. In fact they kept all the Bush spending and tax cuts and followed them up with even more. They didn't kick the can down the road, they accelerated bad policy.

The only thing that resembles a tough decision or fiscal prudence will be the fiscal cliff - nicely timed to hit after the election but before the innaugeration. Obviously it was approved by Obama but it will be interesting to see how everything gets spun moving forward.

Bush set the precedent for a number of heinous policies that were heavily criticized by Obama like the NSA-AT&T issue, Wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, signing statements (a mirror image of Clinton's line item veto which last I checked was ruled unconstitutional), and so on, that Obama has instead followed to the T.

Bush's fiscal policies worsened as his term went on, and Obama was like Bush the 3rd term.

The logical path to follow is getting the US's fiscal house in order, then implementing a single payer system where the cost of healthcare can be accounted for and appropriated. At the moment throwing a single payer system onto the budget mess that the US had would be just as detrimental, the private healthcare boon called Obamacare is far worse given it doesn't even address the insanely high cost of services compared to other first world nations and perpetuates the terrible private healthcare system. So, to crawl before you can walk, budget (i.e. deficits and liabilities) needs to be solved first as an immediate issue (an insolvent government can't do much), then once those politicians prove they can be somewhat trustworthy with that kind of government expansion, then universal.

just because he didn't like either, doesn't mean he liked RP better. I don't like either Bush or Obama either... and I wouldn't have voted for either RP or Huckabee.

Don't know why you're even giving him the light of day. Not worth it. No discussion value whatsoever.

Edited by zaibatsu, 16 August 2012 - 09:52 AM.


#214 Slaytanic Wehrmacht

Slaytanic Wehrmacht

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 861 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 11

Posted 16 August 2012 - 09:54 AM

Sanctimonious must be zaibatsu's middle name.
Posted Image

#215 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,018 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 16 August 2012 - 10:03 AM

just because he didn't like either, doesn't mean he liked RP better. I don't like either Bush or Obama either... and I wouldn't have voted for either RP or Huckabee.


Earlier in the thread, I do believe RP was held up as someone who would have most of the answers .. plus Paul Ryan .. the "Ayn Rand denier" .. what a joke .. I sometimes wonder why I bother commenting on the whole political mess as everyone skews the information to suit their own "agenda" ..

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#216 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,368 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 16 August 2012 - 10:09 AM

Earlier in the thread, I do believe RP was held up as someone who would have most of the answers .. plus Paul Ryan .. the "Ayn Rand denier" .. what a joke .. I sometimes wonder why I bother commenting on the whole political mess as everyone skews the information to suit their own "agenda" ..


RP wouldn't be the answer but he would be a good step - elimating the costly foreign wars and slashing other government spending would be a good first step.

Doubtful he would do tax reform (aka simplification) without cutting taxes but reforming taxes is even harder than raising them which he would also do.

It can not be stressed enough how critical it is for the US to avoid insovlentcy and they are toying with it. It seems noone wants to acknowlege this. The he said/she said garbage doesn't help in the least since both major parties are responsible for jacking up the deficit. In fact the only person that has been consistant at voting down entitlements AND the outrageous foreign policy is RP.

Perfect? No. But better than the rest of the clowns.

#217 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 16 August 2012 - 10:14 AM

Sure I have the sources, the US Treasury on my part which I cited earlier already, I'll cite them again since you failed to read them:


Points out that Bush left at ~ $9-$10 trillion, as I said I used $10 trillion "conservatively".

Your latest hilarious post says Obama came in with a debt of $12,311,349,677,512, and Bush left with $10,699,804,864,612.

For this to be true, Bush would have had to spend nearly $2 trillion in 3 weeks unless there was some magical President between January 1st 2009 and January 20th 2009 that not even the US government wasn't aware of.

All in all, you can't even keep up with your own sources, you're desperately doing your best to find anything hence why citing websites akin to MoveOn.org or BlameBushForObamasFailure.org, but thankfully you aren't bothering to decipher what your source's "sources" are saying and the more the debate goes on, both 1) it's clear you aren't critically looking at your own sources, if even reading them at all, just cut and pasting anything from a slanted anti-Bush website and 2) you're getting left far behind on this debate.


Knife meet gun.....again.

In October 2009, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) gave the reasons for the higher budget deficit in 2009 ($1,410 billion, i.e. $1.41 trillion) over that of 2008 ($460 billion).

The major changes included: declines in tax receipt of $320 billion due to the effects of the recession and another $100 billion due to tax cuts in the stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA); $245 billion for theTroubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and other bailout efforts; $100 billion in additional spending for ARRA; and another $185 billion due to increases in primary budget categories such as Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and Defense – including the war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq. This was the highest budget deficit relative to GDP (9.9%) since 1945.[41]

The national debt increased by $1.9 trillion during FY2009, versus the $1.0 trillion increase during 2008


And if you can manage to squeeze brain juices from the tea-bag like brain of yours, you'd also come to the realization that Obama's budget was submitted near mid-May 2009, nearly half way into the 1st fiscal year of his 1st term(and I say 1st, because with Romney/Ryan as a ticket to go up against there will undoubtedly be a 2nd) Bush also, as Zamboni rightly pointed out, 'kicked the can' to Obama, who picked it up and a put the 2 wars that Bush started onto the books instead of paying for them through supplementary appropriation spending gimmicks to avoid having to put them on the books, which Bush did.

Obama Bans Gimmicks, and Deficit Will Rise

Published: February 19, 2009

WASHINGTON — For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller. The price of more honest bookkeeping: A budget that is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear, according to administration officials.

The new accounting involves spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicarereimbursements to physicians and the cost of disaster responses.

But the biggest adjustment will deal with revenues from the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax system enacted in 1969 to prevent the wealthy from using tax shelters to avoid paying any income tax.

Even with bigger deficit projections, the Obama administration will put the country on “a sustainable fiscal course” by the end of Mr. Obama’s term, Peter R. Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said Thursday in an interview. Mr. Orszag did not provide details of how the administration would reduce a deficit expected to reach at least $1.5 trillion this year.

Mr. Obama’s banishment of the gimmicks, which have been widely criticized, is in keeping with his promise to run a more transparent government.

Fiscal sleight of hand has long been a staple of federal budgets, giving rise to phrases like “rosy scenario” and “magic asterisks.”
The $2.7 trillion in additional deficit spending, Mr. Orszag said, is “a huge amount of money that would just be kind of a magic asterisk in previous budgets.”

“The president prefers to tell the truth,” he said, “rather than make the numbers look better by pretending.”

Recent presidents and Congresses were complicit in the ploy involving the alternative minimum tax. While that tax was intended to hit the wealthiest taxpayers, it was not indexed for inflation. That fact and the tax breaks of the Bush years have meant that it could affect millions of middle-class taxpayers.

If they paid it, the government would get billions of dollars more in tax revenues, which is what past budgets have projected. But it would also probably mean a taxpayer revolt. So each year the White House and Congress agree to “patch” the alternative tax for inflation, and the extra revenues never materialize.

Nearly $70 billion of the just-enacted $787 billion economic recovery plan reflected the bookkeeping cost of adjusting the alternative tax for a year.

The White House budget office calculates that over the next decade, the tax would add $1.2 trillion in revenues. But Mr. Obama is not counting those revenues, and he is adding $218 billion to the 10-year deficit projections to reflect the added interest the government would pay for its extra debt.

As for war costs, Mr. Bush included little or none in his annual military budgets, instead routinely asking Congress for supplemental appropriations during the year. Mr. Obama will include cost projections for every year through the 2019 fiscal year to cover “overseas military contingencies” — nearly $500 billion over 10 years.

For Medicare, Mr. Bush routinely budgeted less than actual costs for payments to physicians, although he and Congress regularly waived a law mandating the lower reimbursements for fear that doctors would quit serving beneficiaries in protest.

Mr. Obama will budget $401 billion over 10 years for higher costs and interest on the debt.

He will also budget $273 billion in that period for natural disasters. Every year the government pays billions for disaster relief, but presidents and lawmakers have long ignored budget reformers’ calls for a contingency account to reflect that certainty.

http://www.nytimes.c...udget.html?_r=1



Bang bang 'bagger.

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#218 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,018 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 16 August 2012 - 10:22 AM

RP wouldn't be the answer but he would be a good step - elimating the costly foreign wars and slashing other government spending would be a good first step.

Doubtful he would do tax reform (aka simplification) without cutting taxes but reforming taxes is even harder than raising them which he would also do.

It can not be stressed enough how critical it is for the US to avoid insovlentcy and they are toying with it. It seems noone wants to acknowlege this. The he said/she said garbage doesn't help in the least since both major parties are responsible for jacking up the deficit. In fact the only person that has been consistant at voting down entitlements AND the outrageous foreign policy is RP.

Perfect? No. But better than the rest of the clowns.


Yep .. that all sounds good, as they would have legalized "drugs", death sentences for abortion Doctors and recipients, plus everyone could own their own UZI and wear it on their hip!! .. I love it .. that alone will lower the population by 5% in the first term .. :lol:

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#219 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,368 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 16 August 2012 - 10:41 AM

Yep .. that all sounds good, as they would have legalized "drugs", death sentences for abortion Doctors and recipients, plus everyone could own their own UZI and wear it on their hip!! .. I love it .. that alone will lower the population by 5% in the first term .. :lol:


Well ending the war on drugs along with the foreign ones would be great IMO.

He may be anti-abortion but the supreme court isn't so it wouldn't matter though it's obviously a concern.

He might be anti gun control but he's pro state rights and most gun control laws are on the state level. There's places that are strict and places that are not and heck in some places there's already enough Ak47s out there illegally that they have a street name!

But hey what good would it be being hyper partisan and non objective if you couldn't fear monger? Ah for the good old days when that was just a method of the evangelical right.... :rolleyes:

#220 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,087 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 16 August 2012 - 10:48 AM

Knife meet gun.....again.

I'm the teabagger gun nut though remember? Put down the knife. :bigblush:

And if you can manage to squeeze brain juices from the tea-bag like brain of yours, you'd also come to the realization that Obama's budget was submitted near mid-May 2009, nearly half way into the 1st fiscal year of his 1st term(and I say 1st, because with Romney/Ryan as a ticket to go up against there will undoubtedly be a 2nd) Bush also, as Zamboni rightly pointed out, 'kicked the can' to Obama, who picked it up and a put the 2 wars that Bush started onto the books instead of paying for them through supplementary appropriation spending gimmicks to avoid having to put them on the books, which Bush did.

I'd point out how once again you're in way over your head, but clearly it hasn't hit you yet, as mentioned:

This was a Democrat written budget:
http://budget.senate.../fiscalyear2009

Senate Passes FY 2009 Budget Resolution (June 4, 2008)

Washington, DC – The Senate today gave final approval to the fiscal year 2009 budget conference report. The five-year fiscal plan balances the budget; makes needed investments in energy, education, and infrastructure; and cuts taxes on the middle class. Importantly, the plan assumes no tax increase. It was adopted by the Senate on a bipartisan vote of 48-45. With an affirmative House vote expected Thursday, this will mark the first time Congress has adopted a budget during an election year since 2000.
“We have passed a fiscally responsible budget today,” said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND). “This plan provides tax relief for the middle class. It makes critical investments in energy, education, and infrastructure. And it returns the budget to surplus in 2012 and 2013. Passing this budget represents a major accomplishment.”


^ Hardly a guy on this hilarious "Blue Dog Coalition" given how many Democrats sided with him.

The 2008 Senate Vote:
http://www.senate.go...on=2&vote=00142

The 2008 House Vote:
http://clerk.house.g...008/roll318.xml

This was the 2008 budget that Bush signed.. written by Democrats, almost unanimously passed by Democrats, with 1 Senate Democrat voting No, 14 House Democrats voting No. Republicans primarily voted against it.

While Obama didn't have his own budget revisions, he also can sign bills which automatically add to the budget, and I should mention had a fricken Democrat controlled Congress, filibuster proof for 4-6 months, nearly filibuster proof for 2 years yet added more debt in 2 years than Bush's entire first term. He could have amended the budget much sooner if he thought his own party's Congress was spending too much, he had all the clout necessary to do so. Can't blame Bush for that.

Bang bang 'bagger.

Hey, flame away, call me teabagger in your typical passive aggressive fashion, make me out to be a Bush lover, that's your best shot at trying to bring me down in this fight. Your terrible arguments are getting served up on a platter for the forum and your buddies to see. I have far more knowledge on this subject than you do, if I were you I'd invest more into your study of "Bush teabagger budget 2009" Google searches, or at least learning what humility means.

Edited by zaibatsu, 16 August 2012 - 10:57 AM.


#221 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,018 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 16 August 2012 - 11:23 AM

Well ending the war on drugs along with the foreign ones would be great IMO.

He may be anti-abortion but the supreme court isn't so it wouldn't matter though it's obviously a concern.

He might be anti gun control but he's pro state rights and most gun control laws are on the state level. There's places that are strict and places that are not and heck in some places there's already enough Ak47s out there illegally that they have a street name!

But hey what good would it be being hyper partisan and non objective if you couldn't fear monger? Ah for the good old days when that was just a method of the evangelical right.... :rolleyes:


Too true .. I appreciate your view and your candor too .. :)

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#222 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,018 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 16 August 2012 - 11:25 AM

I'm the teabagger gun nut though remember? Put down the knife. :bigblush:


I'd point out how once again you're in way over your head, but clearly it hasn't hit you yet, as mentioned:

This was a Democrat written budget:
http://budget.senate.../fiscalyear2009
[/size][/font][/color]
^ Hardly a guy on this hilarious "Blue Dog Coalition" given how many Democrats sided with him.

The 2008 Senate Vote:
http://www.senate.go...on=2&vote=00142

The 2008 House Vote:
http://clerk.house.g...008/roll318.xml

This was the 2008 budget that Bush signed.. written by Democrats, almost unanimously passed by Democrats, with 1 Senate Democrat voting No, 14 House Democrats voting No. Republicans primarily voted against it.

While Obama didn't have his own budget revisions, he also can sign bills which automatically add to the budget, and I should mention had a fricken Democrat controlled Congress, filibuster proof for 4-6 months, nearly filibuster proof for 2 years yet added more debt in 2 years than Bush's entire first term. He could have amended the budget much sooner if he thought his own party's Congress was spending too much, he had all the clout necessary to do so. Can't blame Bush for that.


Hey, flame away, call me teabagger in your typical passive aggressive fashion, make me out to be a Bush lover, that's your best shot at trying to bring me down in this fight. Your terrible arguments are getting served up on a platter for the forum and your buddies to see. I have far more knowledge on this subject than you do, if I were you I'd invest more into your study of "Bush teabagger budget 2009" Google searches, or at least learning what humility means.


You are a very aggravating person Used 2 Be .. but then as my dear Mom always says .. "consider the source"

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#223 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 16 August 2012 - 11:42 AM

I'm the teabagger gun nut though remember? Put down the knife. :bigblush:


I'd point out how once again you're in way over your head, but clearly it hasn't hit you yet, as mentioned:

This was a Democrat written budget:
http://budget.senate.../fiscalyear2009
[/size][/font][/color]
^ Hardly a guy on this hilarious "Blue Dog Coalition" given how many Democrats sided with him.

The 2008 Senate Vote:
http://www.senate.go...on=2&vote=00142

The 2008 House Vote:
http://clerk.house.g...008/roll318.xml

This was the 2008 budget that Bush signed.. written by Democrats, almost unanimously passed by Democrats, with 1 Senate Democrat voting No, 14 House Democrats voting No. Republicans primarily voted against it.

While Obama didn't have his own budget revisions, he also can sign bills which automatically add to the budget, and I should mention had a fricken Democrat controlled Congress, filibuster proof for 4-6 months, nearly filibuster proof for 2 years yet added more debt in 2 years than Bush's entire first term. He could have amended the budget much sooner if he thought his own party's Congress was spending too much, he had all the clout necessary to do so. Can't blame Bush for that.


Hey, flame away, call me teabagger in your typical passive aggressive fashion, make me out to be a Bush lover, that's your best shot at trying to bring me down in this fight. Your terrible arguments are getting served up on a platter for the forum and your buddies to see.



Your argument was regarding the 2009 fiscal year. Since when was 2008 under Bush ever an issue, since Obama wasn't sworn in till January of 2009? Terrible arguments?? Why don't you actually stick to one instead of hopping and flopping all over the place. Passive-Agressive?? I don't think anyone would characterize me as passive in my aggression against the stupidity of your arguments. I know you're a tea-bagger you don't have to hide behind your sarcasm to make it evident, some truths, such as your 'baggerness are self-evident....and we hold this truth as such.

You're out to lunch on the supermajority argument as well. Did you look into what was happening for those 6 months? And what they were focusing on with the brief time they actually had that majority in play??

Sen. Franken wasn't sworn in until July 8th, 2009 because the Republicans tied him up for nearly 8 months in recounts and delays. Only then, July 8th, did the Dems have 60 seats, needed for a 'super-majority'.

6 weeks later Sen. Kennedy died, but that doesn't matter because the Senate was in Summer Recess from August 8th to September 7th.

So, the 'super-majority' was technically intact for about 4 weeks in that period....as Sen. Kennedy was dying while battling cancer.

A replacement for Kennedy was appointed on September 25th, 2009, when Sen. Kirk was appointed as a seat filler for approx. 4 months....while an election was going on, which ended the 'fillibuster-proof' super-majority.

In that time, the Dems used the super-majority to get Obama's signature 1st year program passed even while facing every procedural obstruction the Republicans could throw at them, to finally get the bill passed on Christmas Eve, which was barely enough time to get the biggest health care legislation passed in American history, in generations.

Keep swinging that knife 'bagger, eventually you'll cut your own throat.

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#224 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,087 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 16 August 2012 - 11:51 AM

Your argument was regarding the 2009 fiscal year. Since when was 2008 under Bush ever an issue, since Obama wasn't sworn in till January of 2009? Terrible arguments?? Why don't you actually stick to one instead of hopping and flopping all over the place.

You are throwing a fit about the 2009 fiscal budget, which if you bothered reading what I cited, was written by the Democratic Congress and passed almost unanimously by Democrats, then signed by Bush in mid 2008. I don't have the time to give you a complete education on government, for that I'd suggest a class since you know so little, and evidently Google and Wiki can't teach you fast enough.

If that to you is all over the place, I'd suggest popping a Ritalin and/or Xanax so you can calm down and focus.

Passive-Agressive?? I don't think anyone would characterize me as passive in my aggression against the stupidity of your arguments. I know you're a tea-bagger you don't have to hide behind your sarcasm to make it evident, some truths, such as your 'baggerness are self-evident....and we hold this truth as such.

Nope, no teabagger here. I know, however, being wrong won't stop you from perpetuating myths, and I also know that disagreeing with you leads to you throwing a hissy fit.

You're out to lunch on the supermajority argument as well. Did you look into what was happening for those 6 months? And what they were focusing on with the brief time they actually had that majority in play??

Like I said, Republicans didn't even need a supermajority during Bush's term to get done the things they wanted. Maybe you won't fault Democrats for not taking advantage of their opportunities, or, well, faulting them for anything else, but I love reading these excuses like Democrats needed a plurality of sorts in order to get anything done because the evil minority Republicans were in their way. They got their 2009 fiscal year budget which Bush signed, oh wait, Bush's fault. :lol: Oh wait, Obama, having 8 months into fiscal year 2009, to Bush's 3, decided to spend all of what Bush (and especially his own party's Congress) appropriated, then spend more, oh wait, Bush's fault. :lol:

Sen. Franken wasn't sworn in until July 8th, 2009 because the Republicans tied him up for nearly 8 months in recounts and delays. Only then, July 8th, did the Dems have 60 seats, needed for a 'super-majority'.

6 weeks later Sen. Kennedy died, but that doesn't matter because the Senate was in Summer Recess from August 8th to September 7th.

So, the 'super-majority' was technically intact for about 4 weeks in that period....as Sen. Kennedy was dying while battling cancer.

A replacement for Kennedy was appointed on September 25th, 2009, when Sen. Kirk was appointed as a seat filler for approx. 4 months....while an election was going on, which ended the 'fillibuster-proof' super-majority.

In that time, the Dems used the super-majority to get Obama's signature 1st year program passed even while facing every procedural obstruction the Republicans could throw at them, to finally get the bill passed on Christmas Eve, which was barely enough time to get the biggest health care legislation passed in American history, in generations.

Keep swinging that knife 'bagger, eventually you'll cut your own throat.

Or maybe you'll make enough excuses for Democrats that you'll back yourself off a cliff? You are doing some serious backflips and playing dumb to boot. :lol:

Waiting for something more innovative than calling me a teabagger.

Edited by zaibatsu, 16 August 2012 - 11:55 AM.


#225 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 16 August 2012 - 11:58 AM

You are throwing a fit about the 2009 fiscal budget, which if you bothered reading what I cited, was written by the Democratic Congress and passed almost unanimously by Democrats, then signed by Bush in mid 2008. I don't have the time to give you a complete education on government, for that I'd suggest a class since you know so little, and evidently Google and Wiki can't teach you fast enough.

If that to you is all over the place, I'd suggest popping a Ritalin and/or Xanax so you can calm down and focus.


Nope, no teabagger here. I know, however, being wrong won't stop you from perpetuating myths, and I also know that disagreeing with you leads to you throwing a hissy fit.


Like I said, Republicans didn't even need a supermajority during Bush's term to get done the things they wanted. Maybe you won't fault Democrats for not taking advantage of their opportunities, or, well, faulting them for anything else, but I love reading these excuses like Democrats needed a plurality of sorts in order to get anything done because the evil minority Republicans were in their way. They got their 2009 fiscal year budget which Bush signed, oh wait, Bush's fault.


Or maybe you'll make enough excuses for Democrats that you'll back yourself off a cliff?

Waiting for something more innovative than calling me a teabagger.


I wasn't arguing about or for the Democrats in Congress. Their reference was for the larger argument about Obama's 2009 fiscal year, which you took on a tangent, because your teabagging brain can't handle actual facts which makes it jump around trying to find footholds in tangential arguments.

And I'm fine acknowledging you as a teabagger......since the teabag fits.

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#226 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,087 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 16 August 2012 - 12:06 PM

I wasn't arguing about or for the Democrats in Congress. Their reference was for the larger argument about Obama's 2009 fiscal year, which you took on a tangent, because your teabagging brain can't handle actual facts which makes it jump around trying to find footholds in tangential arguments.

And I'm fine acknowledging you as a teabagger......since the teabag fits.

So if Democrats are responsible for writing the fiscal year 2009 budget, which Republicans overwhelmingly voted against yet failed because they didn't have Congressional majority, and Obama had Democrats write the bills to allocate him even more funds to spend, it looks like well over 75% of the blame for fiscal year 2009 can go to Democrats, well over 50% of that going to Obama, since he was President for 8 months of fiscal year 2009. If Bush somehow took over Democrats minds in 2008 to write the fiscal year 2009 budget, then Obama in 2009 could have easily un-done it ALSO having Democrats to write bills for him. You're so lost in your teabagger / Blame Bush for Everything mode you can't even make a coherent argument.

But most of your post is personal attacks, so if you're done debating and just want to focus on your Dr. Phail personal analyses (i.e. flaming), you can join Tearloch7 and Ratiocinator/pucklovinicehockey on ignore so I don't get banned getting into a pointless flame war. I might keep you off, however, if you can actually make me laugh with your flaming. The anything-that-disagrees-with-me = teabagger angle has been played for years now, highly unoriginal, and unfunny.

#227 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,018 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 16 August 2012 - 12:13 PM

Ignorance is bliss it seems .. "keep your hands off my Medicare" .. oh wait, I get Healthcare cheaper elsewhere? .. "pack up the van, Elsie .. we're headin' north to free-dumb" .. :lol:

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#228 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 16 August 2012 - 12:21 PM

Paul Ryan On Medicare Cut: Obama Did It First

WARREN, Ohio — Republican vice presidential contender Paul Ryan says he never would have included a $700 billion Medicare cut in his budget if President Barack Obama hadn't done it first.

"He put those cuts there," Ryan said Thursday, responding to a reporter's question while eating a hot dog in a restaurant. "We would never have done it in the first place."

Medicare, the health care program for tens of millions of seniors, has become a key issue in the race for the White House.

The Wisconsin congressman is perhaps best known for authoring a controversial budget plan that would transform Medicare into a voucher-like system. He and Romney say the change is needed to preserve the popular program for future generations.

The Republican candidates have launched a new strategy recently to criticize Obama for taking more than $700 billion in Medicare funds to help pay for his health care overhaul.

"The president was talking about Medicare yesterday. I'm excited about this," Ryan said during a morning campaign stop in North Canton. "This is a debate we want to have, this is a debate we need to have and this is a debate we're going to win."

But Ryan did not mention that his own budget proposal included the same cut. A reporter pressed him on the issue during an impromptu stop at a local hot dog restaurant.

Ryan pointed out that he voted to repeal the president's health care law, which would have repealed the Medicare cut. The Senate did not take up the bill.


:lol:

He did it fiiiiirst!

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#229 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,087 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 16 August 2012 - 12:28 PM

Ryan should seriously plead the fifth and let his campaign guys do all the talking. Surely his stomach can fit a few more hot dogs. He could always pretend his mouth is full.

Edited by zaibatsu, 16 August 2012 - 12:29 PM.


#230 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 16 August 2012 - 12:36 PM

So if Democrats are responsible for writing the fiscal year 2009 budget, which Republicans overwhelmingly voted against yet failed because they didn't have Congressional majority, and Obama had Democrats write the bills to allocate him even more funds to spend, it looks like well over 75% of the blame for fiscal year 2009 can go to Democrats, well over 50% of that going to Obama, since he was President for 8 months of fiscal year 2009. If Bush somehow took over Democrats minds in 2008 to write the fiscal year 2009 budget, then Obama in 2009 could have easily un-done it ALSO having Democrats to write bills for him. You're so lost in your teabagger / Blame Bush for Everything mode you can't even make a coherent argument.

But most of your post is personal attacks, so if you're done debating and just want to focus on your Dr. Phail personal analyses (i.e. flaming), you can join Tearloch7 and Ratiocinator/pucklovinicehockey on ignore so I don't get banned getting into a pointless flame war. I might keep you off, however, if you can actually make me laugh with your flaming. The anything-that-disagrees-with-me = teabagger angle has been played for years now, highly unoriginal, and unfunny.


Again, i never said the Dems didn't write the budget in 2009, did I? And yet again, you fail to connect why Obama's spending was so high coming out of Bush's 2008 'kick the can' fiscal plan. You certainly won't give Obama credit or give acknowledgment to the fact that Obama had to put 2 wars and their future expenses officially 'on the books' into his budget, from the beginning of his term till now. Nor deal with the spending required with the TARP payments, the auto-bailouts, the fall-out from 8 years of market de-regulations and other fiscal mismanagement of the previous administration such as Medicare Part D, 2 tax cuts to the wealthiest of Americans, and on and on.

It's not coherent to you because you have your fingers in your ears while shouting "la-la-la-la-la" aka being willfully obtuse to the arguments and facts being presented to you in revealing how and why the national debt is in its current state under Obama, which was the initial discussion that you left to go on your tangent.

You can't comprehend coherently simply because you are not able to beyond or as a result of your own right-wing conservative lunacy.....aka tea-baggery.

Put me on ignore....it's fine by me. I'll continue to laugh at your comments though, because 'everybody loves a clown', especially ones dressed up as T-bags.

.

Edited by Sharpshooter, 16 August 2012 - 12:38 PM.

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#231 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 16 August 2012 - 12:42 PM

Bush set the precedent for a number of heinous policies that were heavily criticized by Obama like the NSA-AT&T issue, Wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, signing statements (a mirror image of Clinton's line item veto which last I checked was ruled unconstitutional), and so on, that Obama has instead followed to the T.

Bush's fiscal policies worsened as his term went on, and Obama was like Bush the 3rd term.

The logical path to follow is getting the US's fiscal house in order, then implementing a single payer system where the cost of healthcare can be accounted for and appropriated. At the moment throwing a single payer system onto the budget mess that the US had would be just as detrimental, the private healthcare boon called Obamacare is far worse given it doesn't even address the insanely high cost of services compared to other first world nations and perpetuates the terrible private healthcare system. So, to crawl before you can walk, budget (i.e. deficits and liabilities) needs to be solved first as an immediate issue (an insolvent government can't do much), then once those politicians prove they can be somewhat trustworthy with that kind of government expansion, then universal.


Don't know why you're even giving him the light of day. Not worth it. No discussion value whatsoever.


I do admit I find humor in what others think of US policy when they dont even live there. Its does give a different point of view. I steel myself against the temptation to mock.

Your post is again spot on. Obama campaigned one way then simply carried on the Bush foreign policy to a T . I think even Rumsfeld would blush. Even Cheney makes no complaint about it.
Posted Image

#232 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 16 August 2012 - 12:44 PM

I do admit I find humor in what others think of US policy when they dont even live there. Its does give a different point of view. I steel myself against the temptation to mock.

Your post is again spot on. Obama campaigned one way then simply carried on the Bush foreign policy to a T . I think even Rumsfeld would blush. Even Cheney makes no complaint about it.


Then why all the fuss from the Republicans?? They should be ecstatic that they have Bush 2.0 in the WH, no?

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#233 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,368 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 16 August 2012 - 01:09 PM

:lol:

He did it fiiiiirst!


And they will say they we're simply implementing a spending cut they thought would be in the spirit of comprimise since the democrats initially proposed it.

But who cares about policy when it's all about the rhetoric contest!

#234 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,384 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 16 August 2012 - 01:10 PM

This is ridiculous - everyone in here has been warned about personal attacks yet, they continue. To set the record straight, when a report is filed the expectation is that you allow for mods to intervene and, in that, step back. But if both sides stand in there swinging, this is the only answer....

Posted Image





Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.