Tea Baggers to GOP: Fcuk You

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Why are you making it a partisan issue?

The Republicans and Democrats are the same regime - both redistribute our money to corporations.

Call me a "**" if you like - I hate both of them with a passion.

They don't get it.

[Danno 1,228]

Again, how did the tea baggers miss 20 years of GOP fiscal irresponsibility?

We didn't have 20 years of GOP. As you pointed out, Clinton undid some of Reagan's bad policies

and we had peace, prosperity and a balanced budget for a while.

When Obama promised "change", the last thing people expected him to do was to double down

on Bush's most reckless and short-sighted policies.

Math first:

Gipper: 8, H.W.: 4, W: 8

8 + 4 + 8 = 20 years of fiscally irresponsible GOP administrations

No, people do not want Obama to double down on Bush's failed presidency. And I don't think he will. But you gotta give the man an opportunity rather than start beating down on him the day he wins the election. Hell, the folks that hang out at the tea bagging parties have criticized Obama before he even took office. Let's at least be honest here.

- Claiming x president "doubled the debt" is not an accurate representation.

I have doubled my debt many fold over the years yet my "debt to income ratio" has not.

When the economy expands such as it has done Under Reagan and others, the amount can increase to match it with little ill effect.

Thats why the using the debt 2 GDP is a much more true picture.

-The first TEA PARTY I recall of any size was on april 15 (tax day).

Obama was in office and implemented a number of controversial things by then.

So I think you are wrong when you claim -we were tea-bagging Obama before he was even in office.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Again, how did the tea baggers miss 20 years of GOP fiscal irresponsibility?

We didn't have 20 years of GOP. As you pointed out, Clinton undid some of Reagan's bad policies

and we had peace, prosperity and a balanced budget for a while.

When Obama promised "change", the last thing people expected him to do was to double down

on Bush's most reckless and short-sighted policies.

Math first:

Gipper: 8, H.W.: 4, W: 8

8 + 4 + 8 = 20 years of fiscally irresponsible GOP administrations

No, people do not want Obama to double down on Bush's failed presidency. And I don't think he will. But you gotta give the man an opportunity rather than start beating down on him the day he wins the election. Hell, the folks that hang out at the tea bagging parties have criticized Obama before he even took office. Let's at least be honest here.

- Claiming x president "doubled the debt" is not an accurate representation.

I have doubled my debt many fold over the years yet my "debt to income ratio" has not.

When the economy expands such as it has done Under Reagan and others, the amount can increase to match it with little ill effect.

Thats why the using the debt 2 GDP is a much more true picture.

-The first TEA PARTY I recall of any size was on april 15 (tax day).

Obama was in office and implemented a number of controversial things by then.

So I think you are wrong when you claim -we were tea-bagging Obama before he was even in office.

Care to delineate what those controversial policies were? I suspect you can't. Danno, you don't like the president for whatever reason, but it certainly isn't his policies. I'm not claiming your racist here, but you were one of the ones condemning america to a fate worse than death right after the election. You've never given the president a chance, and I suspect you never will.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Why are you making it a partisan issue?

The Republicans and Democrats are the same regime - both redistribute our money to corporations.

Call me a "**" if you like - I hate both of them with a passion.

TEABAGGER!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Again, how did the tea baggers miss 20 years of GOP fiscal irresponsibility?

We didn't have 20 years of GOP. As you pointed out, Clinton undid some of Reagan's bad policies

and we had peace, prosperity and a balanced budget for a while.

When Obama promised "change", the last thing people expected him to do was to double down

on Bush's most reckless and short-sighted policies.

Math first:

Gipper: 8, H.W.: 4, W: 8

8 + 4 + 8 = 20 years of fiscally irresponsible GOP administrations

No, people do not want Obama to double down on Bush's failed presidency. And I don't think he will. But you gotta give the man an opportunity rather than start beating down on him the day he wins the election. Hell, the folks that hang out at the tea bagging parties have criticized Obama before he even took office. Let's at least be honest here.

- Claiming x president "doubled the debt" is not an accurate representation.

I have doubled my debt many fold over the years yet my "debt to income ratio" has not.

When the economy expands such as it has done Under Reagan and others, the amount can increase to match it with little ill effect.

Thats why the using the debt 2 GDP is a much more true picture.

-The first TEA PARTY I recall of any size was on april 15 (tax day).

Obama was in office and implemented a number of controversial things by then.

So I think you are wrong when you claim -we were tea-bagging Obama before he was even in office.

Actually, they are right.

The GOP Presidents were saddled with Democratic Congresses, So they cut taxes on one hand, but increased spending on the other hand, mostly defense spending, from Reagan on. Ford and Nixon actually limitted defense spending, winding down the Vietnam War, as did Bush senior, despite fighting Desert Storm.

The Democratic Presidents, with one exception, also had Democratic Congresses, but all Democratic Presidents from Johnson on either limitted or outright cut defense spending, and increased taxes, as well as increased spending.

Defense Spending

1969 438.1

1970 406.3

1971 370.6

1972 343.8

1973 313.3

1974 299.7

1975 293.3

1976 283.8

1977 286.2

1978 286.5

1979 $295.6

1980 303.4

1981 317.4

1982 339.4

1983 366.7

1984 381.7

1985 405.4

1986 426.6

1987 427.9

1988 426.4

1989 427.7

1990 $409.7

1991 358.1

1992 379.5

1993 358.6

1994 338.6

1995 321.6

1996 307.4

1997 305.3

1998 296.7

1999 298.4

2000 311.7

2001 $307.8

2002 328.7

2003 404.9 1

2004 455.9 1

2005 495.3 1,2

2006 535.9 1,2

2007 527.4 1,2

2008 494.4 1,2

2009 494.3 1,2

(1 Does not include Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, 2 Requested budget or projections, not actual spending)

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Again, how did the tea baggers miss 20 years of GOP fiscal irresponsibility?

We didn't have 20 years of GOP. As you pointed out, Clinton undid some of Reagan's bad policies

and we had peace, prosperity and a balanced budget for a while.

When Obama promised "change", the last thing people expected him to do was to double down

on Bush's most reckless and short-sighted policies.

Math first:

Gipper: 8, H.W.: 4, W: 8

8 + 4 + 8 = 20 years of fiscally irresponsible GOP administrations

No, people do not want Obama to double down on Bush's failed presidency. And I don't think he will. But you gotta give the man an opportunity rather than start beating down on him the day he wins the election. Hell, the folks that hang out at the tea bagging parties have criticized Obama before he even took office. Let's at least be honest here.

- Claiming x president "doubled the debt" is not an accurate representation.

I have doubled my debt many fold over the years yet my "debt to income ratio" has not.

When the economy expands such as it has done Under Reagan and others, the amount can increase to match it with little ill effect.

Okay, so we need to consider debt to GDP? Fine. Even on that measure, the GOP has done extremely badly. The Gipper came in when the debt to GDP ratio was 32%, when W left, it was 85% excluding Obama's stimulus package. Again, that's the debt measured on the GDP. The only years within that 28 year time frame where the debt to GDP ratio declined were the latter 6 years of the Clinton administration. Clinton took over when the debt to GDP ratio was 66% and left when he had it down to 57%. That's the only decline that took place over this time span and there wasn't a GOP President in the White House when it happened. Next.

[Heracles 417]

2009 $494.3

huh?

Total Military Expenditure for 2009: $925 billion - $1.114 Trillion

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budg...e_United_States

International Military expenditure compared:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...ry_expenditures

Edited October 22, 2009 by Booyah!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

2009 $494.3

huh?

Total Spending for 2009: $925 billion - $1.114 Trillion

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budg...e_United_States

International Military expenditure compared:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...ry_expenditures

This doesn't count the off-budget spending which the Bush administration preferred to be able to claim that there is less of a deficit than there actually was. I pointed this out earlier that you don't go from a debt of 9 trillion to over 10 trillion by running a 500 billion deficit. This little gimmick does seem to have worked for the tea bagging crowd, though. You know, advanced math - the plus and minus on large numbers - is not their area of expertise.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog

[Heracles 417]

2009 $494.3

huh?

Total Military Expenditure for 2009: $925 billion - $1.114 Trillion

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budg...e_United_States

International Military expenditure compared:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...ry_expenditures

This doesn't count the off-budget spending which the Bush administration preferred to be able to claim that there is less of a deficit than there actually was. I pointed this out earlier that you don't go from a debt of 9 trillion to over 10 trillion by running a 500 billion deficit...

That also does not even count the two wars. Just the interest on the money borrowed to pay for them.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Booyah!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

2009 $494.3

huh?

Total Military Expenditure for 2009: $925 billion - $1.114 Trillion

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budg...e_United_States

International Military expenditure compared:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...ry_expenditures

You gotta read the footnotes. And stop relying on Wikipedia for hard numbers.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Lone Ranger

[Heracles 417]

This little gimmick does seem to have worked for the tea bagging crowd, though. You know, advanced math - the plus and minus on large numbers - is not their area of expertise.

The article I posted from one of the architects of Reaganomics said it well. It simply does not work in 2009 or in this crisis. Reaganomics worked for the 70's stagflation but fails in the current crisis. Investing in the country is exactly what it needs to get the ball going again. Not to mention bring so many areas up to 21st century standards. After all, the massive spending prior to and during WWII is what got the US moving again. This guy actually admits Keynesian economics is the way to go to remedy this crisis. Hence, he has been kicked out by the repubs and on the libertarians most wanted list.

Here is the article.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3417566

Edited October 22, 2009 by Booyah!

[mawilson 2,133]

Okay, so we need to consider debt to GDP? Fine. Even on that measure, the GOP has done extremely badly. The Gipper came in when the debt to GDP ratio was 32%, when W left, it was 85% excluding Obama's stimulus package. Again, that's the debt measured on the GDP. The only years within that 28 year time frame where the debt to GDP ratio declined were the latter 6 years of the Clinton administration. Clinton took over when the debt to GDP ratio was 66% and left when he had it down to 57%. That's the only decline that took place over this time span and there wasn't a GOP President in the White House when it happened. Next.

Yes, the GOP fukced it up. Shouldn't Obama try to fix it then instead of doubling down?

During his campaign, he promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.

I'm sorry, but that's just not good enough. One half of the current deficit is still close

to a trillion dollars!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Okay, so we need to consider debt to GDP? Fine. Even on that measure, the GOP has done extremely badly. The Gipper came in when the debt to GDP ratio was 32%, when W left, it was 85% excluding Obama's stimulus package. Again, that's the debt measured on the GDP. The only years within that 28 year time frame where the debt to GDP ratio declined were the latter 6 years of the Clinton administration. Clinton took over when the debt to GDP ratio was 66% and left when he had it down to 57%. That's the only decline that took place over this time span and there wasn't a GOP President in the White House when it happened. Next.

Yes, the GOP fukced it up. Shouldn't Obama try to fix it then instead of doubling down?

Absolutely. As the economy picks back up I would expect the President to put a lot of focus on bringing the budget back to where it needs to be and where it is sustainable. Yes, even explore opportunities to raise revenues - at least temporarily - to pay down some of the debt incurred fighting two wars and the debt incurred during this recession. Addressing this out-of-control health care system of ours is one rather important step towards fiscal sanity in the long term. Everyone knows, though not everyone wants to admit it, that leaving the health care system as it is will bankrupt this country in the not too far future.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Okay, so we need to consider debt to GDP? Fine. Even on that measure, the GOP has done extremely badly. The Gipper came in when the debt to GDP ratio was 32%, when W left, it was 85% excluding Obama's stimulus package. Again, that's the debt measured on the GDP. The only years within that 28 year time frame where the debt to GDP ratio declined were the latter 6 years of the Clinton administration. Clinton took over when the debt to GDP ratio was 66% and left when he had it down to 57%. That's the only decline that took place over this time span and there wasn't a GOP President in the White House when it happened. Next.

Yes, the GOP fukced it up. Shouldn't Obama try to fix it then instead of doubling down?

Absolutely. As the economy picks back up I would expect the President to put a lot of focus on bringing the budget back to where it needs to be and where it is sustainable. Yes, even explore opportunities to raise revenues - at least temporarily - to pay down some of the debt incurred fighting two wars and the debt incurred during this recession. Addressing this out-of-control health care system of ours is one rather important step towards fiscal sanity in the long term. Everyone knows, though not everyone wants to admit it, that leaving the health care system as it is will bankrupt this country in the not too far future.

Yep. It's the elephant in the closet.

[Danno 1,228]

Again, how did the tea baggers miss 20 years of GOP fiscal irresponsibility?

We didn't have 20 years of GOP. As you pointed out, Clinton undid some of Reagan's bad policies

and we had peace, prosperity and a balanced budget for a while.

When Obama promised "change", the last thing people expected him to do was to double down

on Bush's most reckless and short-sighted policies.

Math first:

Gipper: 8, H.W.: 4, W: 8

8 + 4 + 8 = 20 years of fiscally irresponsible GOP administrations

No, people do not want Obama to double down on Bush's failed presidency. And I don't think he will. But you gotta give the man an opportunity rather than start beating down on him the day he wins the election. Hell, the folks that hang out at the tea bagging parties have criticized Obama before he even took office. Let's at least be honest here.

- Claiming x president "doubled the debt" is not an accurate representation.

I have doubled my debt many fold over the years yet my "debt to income ratio" has not.

When the economy expands such as it has done Under Reagan and others, the amount can increase to match it with little ill effect.

Thats why the using the debt 2 GDP is a much more true picture.

-The first TEA PARTY I recall of any size was on april 15 (tax day).

Obama was in office and implemented a number of controversial things by then.

So I think you are wrong when you claim -we were tea-bagging Obama before he was even in office.

Care to delineate what those controversial policies were? I suspect you can't. Danno, you don't like the president for whatever reason, but it certainly isn't his policies. I'm not claiming your racist here, but you were one of the ones condemning america to a fate worse than death right after the election. You've never given the president a chance, and I suspect you never will.

Actually you are wrong again on a number of points.

1. People were mostly pissed about Bailing out wall street and the banks, both of which Obamer supported and as it happened so quickly.. Bush escaped the blame due him.

2. I absolutely dislike the President BECAUSE of his policies, on a personal level I have always found him a likable guy, certainly more respectable than Clinton ever was.

3. I never "condemned America to a fate worse than death" due to Obamer being elected.

I have said I believe we are experiencing the "Decline and fall"

of this once great country.... but it started long before Obama was on the scene... and both parties have contributed to it.... with Libs like Obama doing most of the leg-work.

4. You were right about one thing, -I never did give the President a chance. I took him at his word... the promises he made on the Campaign trail. However, He has actually done one or two things I have praised him for since in office, one was the missile shield withdraw from Poland.