To our liberal friends

[Joseph & Ana 0]

HAHAHA I was waiting for the critical thinking copout. I love you Guano.

And I was waiting for that reply. But the only reaction I can muster to it is

Because you're fresh out of copouts.. You could always reuse the ones you always do.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

HAHAHA I was waiting for the critical thinking copout. I love you Guano.

And I was waiting for that reply. But the only reaction I can muster to it is

Because you're fresh out of copouts.. You could always reuse the ones you always do.

Hey Joe, perhaps this ought to be pointed out - but I am not Steve

HAHAHA I was waiting for the critical thinking copout. I love you Guano.

Are we going back to schoolyard antics or do you want to have real grown up discussion about this? I can respond either way, but I'll give you the opportunity to make your intentions clear.

Steve, you really aren't going to get a grown-up discussion out of Joe - especially with that OP.

He's as blind partisan as its possible to get, with the exception of Kaydee.

[nowhereman 1]

They won't answer the questions because they know they are hypocrits.

Let the deflection continue.

I always deflect nonsensical rhetoric, so I guess I'm guilty.

Of the nonsensical liberal rhetoric

A ####### is a #######... doesn't matter which side of the fence it comes from.

[_Simpson_ 250]

The US budget for Iraq in FY 2007 came to $4,988/Iraqi. This is triple Iraq's per-person GDP. It's like spending $121,000 per person ($484,000 per family of 4) in the US

Here are some statistics on what the Iraq war (taken from think tanks such as the Brookings Institute and from the media) has cost the U.S. as of 1/21/09 due to Bush’s folly of inserting us in the middle of a civil and religious war:

4,231 U.S. soldiers killed; 30% of them younger than 22 years old

30,984 U.S. soldiers injured, with 20% of them having serious brain or spinal injuries

30% of U.S. soldiers develop serious mental health problems within 3-4 months of returning home and suicide rates in the U.S. Army hitting an all-time high in 2008

$800 billion through mid-2009 in U.S. taxpayer money

$390,000 per year to deploy just ONE U.S. soldier

142,000 – 148,000 (depending on whose statistics you use) troops in Iraq currently

513,000 U.S. troops deployed since 2003; 197,000 of those more than once and 53,000 more than 3 times

According to February, 2007 Congressional hearings (and that was two years ago so the number is probably much higher now) an estimated $10 billion wasted and mismanaged in Iraq

Now add to those staggering numbers the impact on the Iraqi people:

An estimated more than one MILLION Iraqi citizens killed as of August, 2007 (according to the Opinion Business Research survey);

the official documented number around 100,000

2.25 million Iraqis displaced inside Iraq and 2.25 million Iraqis who are now refugees in Syria or Jordan as of May 2007;

an additional 840,000 people displaced since May 2007 – a total of well over 5 MILLION Iraqis displaced

A note: Syria has refused to allow the 1.5 million who came there to work so many of the refugees have been forced to send their daughters – even as young as 5 or 6 – to clubs to dance to get money unofficially, becoming the family breadwinners. The girls make usually $20 to 30 per day in the clubs and the fathers of these girls act as pimps for work outside the club. These girls and their families are casualties of the U.S. War on Iraq.

Bush used the fear that the Iraq War would disintegrate into chaos to get re-elected in 2004. The cost to the American people of having four more years of Bush as president has been immense. He used fear again to continue to justify the now $12 billion per month the U.S. spends to keep our troops there. This is triple the burn rate of what we spent in the early years of the war. .

I think this picture is very distasteful, Bush in front soldiers coffin with it reading mission accomplished.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The question was, what has Obama done that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

Well, from a fiscal and budget perspective, he won't be nearly as brilliant and impressive as the Gipper who managed to triple the national debt during just two terms - and that without any wars going on. He'll probably be almost as brilliant and impressive as W on that front who actually managed to swing the positive trend the national debt was on (so positive that the debt clock was turned off before he took office only to be switched on again right quick thereafter) and put it on a trajectory to more than double it over the course of a decade and actually doubling it during his two terms in office.

So, Joe, I'll give you that, the GOP still remains the most brilliant and impressive political force when it comes to recklessly racking up the national debt. Nobody will come even close.

Uh actually Obama has done worse.

Obama has already tripled or at least more than doubled the national debt? Is that what your crystal ball is telling you? Seeing that he's been in office not quite 10 months yet and seeing that his first FY just started a couple of weeks ago, I'd say the jury on how he is doing on the fiscal front is still out. Well, except for those - like yourself - that want to judge before any evidence can be presented.

Small minds...

So you're saying that the deficit going to 1 and half trillion is ok because the national debt is already 11 trillion. So technically he didn't triple the national debt... Your logic is idiotic.

Ah yes, nothing but silly rants left when your "case" falls flat. Small minds indeed if can't even master simple math which, quite obviously, you can't.

The fact of the matter is that the national debt was less than a trillion dollars when the Gipper took office and that he left with the national debt being just under 3 trillion. 1 * 3 = 3 - i.e. the Gipper tripled the debt in 8 years. The debt was 5 trillion when W took office and 10 trillion when he left. 5 * 2 = 10 - i.e. W doubled the debt in 8 years.

Those are the numbers. Refute them if you can but the mere fact that they are inconvenient for you and blow a big, fat hole into your ridiculous argument doesn't make them invalid.

Nonsense. Your argument is that the debt is so big now that its impossible for Obama to double or triple it because that would mean it will have to go to 20 trillion. So therefore he's off the hook for 1.5 trillion so far, and as Harry Reid just admitted coming up to 3 trillion after the healthcare BS is implemented.

No, my argument is that if we're going to be talking about multiplying the national debt then we should talk about multiplying the national debt.

But if you want to talk about how the national debt developed after WWII (during which period it was racked up to a whopping 121% of GDP), then we can talk about that, too. After WWII, the national debt - as a percentage of GDP - declined to as low as 32%. The debt to GDP ratio improved during 27 out of 35 fiscal years following the end of WWII

Now we're in 1981 when, you guessed it, the Gipper took the helm. The debt on GDP ratio then went onto a upward trend with the Gipper's first full year budget (FY 1982) all the way through the mid-point Clinton's first term where it peaked at 67% for FY 1995. Note that Clinton took over when the ratio was 66% - more than double what it was when the Gipper came to office.

During the latter part of Clinton's first and all through his second term, the debt to GDP ratio was brought back down to 57% - that's 6 out of 8 FY's under Clinton showing a declining trend in the debt to GDP ratio. These are also the only 6 years where the debt to GDP ration improved since the Gipper's first full budget year - FY 1982. In other words, in the last 27 years, the debt to GDP ratio worsened for all but 6 years and those 6 years had a Democrat in the White House.

We know that this trend didn't last very long once W took over. Literally with W's full budget year (FY 2002), the debt to GDP ratio ticket up and in just 8 years ended at about 90% (FY 2009 - the last budget that W submitted). It would be 85% if you take Obama's stimulus package out of consideration.

In real numbers:

Gipper: 1 trillion - 3 trillion (2 trillion)

H.W.: 3 trillion - 4.4 trillion (1.4 trillion)

Clinton: 4.4 trillion - 5.8 trillion (1.4 trillion)

W: 5.8 trillion - 12 trillion (6.2 trillion)

Debt incurred as percentage of GDP final year in office:

Gipper: 36%

H.W.: 21%

Clinton: 14%

W: 44%

So, don't sit there pretending that there's any fiscal responsibility to be had with the folks on the right of the aisle. The numbers show that there isn't.

That said, the current budget situation is very unsettling. I agree that we cannot continue on this trend. The long and short of it is that revenue sources will need to be explored and efficiencies realized. Health care reform has a lot of potential to this end and I hope that some of it will actually materialize. It's clear to anyone with a sound mind that the status quo is leading down a road of destruction - we can't continue to cut taxes hoping that this will somehow fix the budget. Or pretend that taxes won't have to be raised. It won't work.

Why are you whining?

That's all you got? Facts stink, don't they?

Hey, why are you betting on a lame horse?

Edited October 20, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog

[Joseph & Ana 0]

They won't answer the questions because they know they are hypocrits.

Let the deflection continue.

I always deflect nonsensical rhetoric, so I guess I'm guilty.

Of the nonsensical liberal rhetoric

A ####### is a #######... doesn't matter which side of the fence it comes from.

Definitely true. So how long have you been in the toilet?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Why are you just betting on a lame horse?

You guys are the ones with the horses' a$$es running the government

The US budget for Iraq in FY 2007 came to $4,988/Iraqi. This is triple Iraq's per-person GDP. It's like spending $121,000 per person ($484,000 per family of 4) in the US

Here are some statistics on what the Iraq war (taken from think tanks such as the Brookings Institute and from the media) has cost the U.S. as of 1/21/09 due to Bush’s folly of inserting us in the middle of a civil and religious war:

4,231 U.S. soldiers killed; 30% of them younger than 22 years old

30,984 U.S. soldiers injured, with 20% of them having serious brain or spinal injuries

30% of U.S. soldiers develop serious mental health problems within 3-4 months of returning home and suicide rates in the U.S. Army hitting an all-time high in 2008

$800 billion through mid-2009 in U.S. taxpayer money

$390,000 per year to deploy just ONE U.S. soldier

142,000 – 148,000 (depending on whose statistics you use) troops in Iraq currently

513,000 U.S. troops deployed since 2003; 197,000 of those more than once and 53,000 more than 3 times

According to February, 2007 Congressional hearings (and that was two years ago so the number is probably much higher now) an estimated $10 billion wasted and mismanaged in Iraq

Now add to those staggering numbers the impact on the Iraqi people:

An estimated more than one MILLION Iraqi citizens killed as of August, 2007 (according to the Opinion Business Research survey);

the official documented number around 100,000

2.25 million Iraqis displaced inside Iraq and 2.25 million Iraqis who are now refugees in Syria or Jordan as of May 2007;

an additional 840,000 people displaced since May 2007 – a total of well over 5 MILLION Iraqis displaced

A note: Syria has refused to allow the 1.5 million who came there to work so many of the refugees have been forced to send their daughters – even as young as 5 or 6 – to clubs to dance to get money unofficially, becoming the family breadwinners. The girls make usually $20 to 30 per day in the clubs and the fathers of these girls act as pimps for work outside the club. These girls and their families are casualties of the U.S. War on Iraq.

Bush used the fear that the Iraq War would disintegrate into chaos to get re-elected in 2004. The cost to the American people of having four more years of Bush as president has been immense. He used fear again to continue to justify the now $12 billion per month the U.S. spends to keep our troops there. This is triple the burn rate of what we spent in the early years of the war. .

I think this picture is very distasteful, Bush in front soldiers coffin with it reading mission accomplished.

Wait, when have libs ever been tasteful?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think this picture is very distasteful, Bush in front soldiers coffin with it reading mission accomplished.

The war was pretty distasteful too - not least how we allowed ourselves to be railroaded into it and sent troops to battle with inadequate equipment.

Most of the deaths of US service personnel were directly attributable to roadside IEDs and poorly armored humvees.

It wasn't until very recently that Robert Gates cited a Cold War law that forced steel manufacturers to supply the steel needed to build the MRAP personnel carriers that are in service now.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

That's all you got? Facts stink, don't they?

Hey, why are you betting on a lame horse?

An edit too late.

I think this picture is very distasteful, Bush in front soldiers coffin with it reading mission accomplished.

The war was pretty distasteful too - not least how we allowed ourselves to be railroaded into it and sent troops to battle with inadequate equipment.

Most of the deaths of US service personnel were directly attributable to roadside IEDs and poorly armored humvees.

It wasn't until very recently that Robert Gates cited a Cold War law that forced steel manufacturers to supply the steel needed to build the MRAP personnel carriers that are in service now.

Libs always have excuses for their bad behavior.

HAHAHA I was waiting for the critical thinking copout. I love you Guano.

Are we going back to schoolyard antics or do you want to have real grown up discussion about this? I can respond either way, but I'll give you the opportunity to make your intentions clear.

I would but it seems that libs can't help themselves with the schoolyard insults, so therefore, I need to make myself understandable to them.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its not my picture Joe, just think its weird to be more outraged at a picture than the event itself.

Kinda missing the wood for the trees, don't you think?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Why are you just betting on a lame horse?

You guys are the ones with the horses' a$$es running the government

Well, when it comes to fiscal responsibility, the GOP has nothing to offer and nothing to show but red, red and more red. They can't handle finances. That much is on the record. While the other side isn't a poster child of fiscal responsibility either, they beat the "conservatives" any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Why are you just betting on a lame horse?

You guys are the ones with the horses' a$$es running the government

Well, when it comes to fiscal responsibility, the GOP has nothing to offer and nothing to show but red, red and more red. They can't handle finances. That much is on the record. While the other side isn't a poster child of fiscal responsibility either, they beat the "conservatives" any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Yes, when ever anyone talks about the horse's a$$es running the government, your typical answer is "GOP! GOP! GOP!!!!!!!! *foams at mouth* GOP!!!"

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In fairness Joe - you don't spend a whole lot of time criticising the GOP on here now do you?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Its not my picture Joe, just think its weird to be more outraged at a picture than the event itself.

Kinda missing the wood for the trees, don't you think?

Well, Obama is putting thousands of soldiers including my Sister at risk because he's playing politics with Afghanistan. *sarcastic thumbs up to him!*

How many more need to die because they don't have enough support?

In fairness Joe - you don't spend a whole lot of time criticising the GOP on here now do you?

If we were all conservatives I'd spend a lot of time criticizing them.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its not my picture Joe, just think its weird to be more outraged at a picture than the event itself.

Kinda missing the wood for the trees, don't you think?

Well, Obama is putting thousands of soldiers including my Sister at risk because he's playing politics with Afghanistan. *sarcastic thumbs up to him!*

How many more need to die because they don't have enough support?

What do you expect Joe - Obama is a politician, politicians have always played politics with people's lives. There is a difference of course - he didn't start the war that you're complaining about. Small comfort to you (or your sister) I'm sure, but surely it illustrates the need for leaders who honestly consider "all options" on the table before putting people in the firing line.

In fairness Joe - you don't spend a whole lot of time criticising the GOP on here now do you?

If we were all conservatives I'd spend a lot of time criticizing them.

No you wouldn't Joe, that's just playing lip service to avoid accusations of bias.