Argument with an idiot repub...

[Justyce]

Anyone feel like writing a smartass answer for me? My brain is tired from work, but I don't want to let this fool get the last word, so if anyone is feeling feisty, I'd appreciate it... :)



"First...There was NO Clinton surplus. That is a myth. Research it. What it ACTUALLY was was that there would be a budget surplus if everything remained exactly as it was when he left office and Congress did not spend ANY money for about 10 years. THAT is NOT a surplus.

Second....if it is ANYONE's unjust war, it is CONGRESS' unjust war. Bush could not start nor send troops to war WITHOUT the approval of Congress, and several Democrats voted for it too. So if you are going to condemn, condemn ALL the guilty.

It was the Democrat majority who raided social security funds (and they had to make a law to allow themselves to do that, since it was against the law to do it, very creative those Democrats)...it was two Democrats, Chris Dodd and Barney Franks who started the economic downfall that required the bailouts...so Bush is not at fault either...and yes, Bush did the first bailout, did that mean Obama had to follow suit with trillions more ALREADY, because as you point out, he has only been in office a few months. And already his deficit is higher than Bush's was in 8 years INCLUDING his bailout.

Bush gave tax cuts across the board, not just to corporations. I got mine. I hope to heck the Democrats don't take it away from me. And I am NOT a corporation.

This massive debt we are in now lays right at the feet of two Democrats...Dodd and Franks. FACT. Can be proven, if you are really interested in the truth and not democratic talking points.

With all due respect."

[AllentownJake]

1. I talked to a Toomey Supporter the other day

and they denied Bush had anything to do with the housing crisis.

I had them google, Bush and ownership society.

I won.

[Justyce]

2. They're in such deep denial, it hardly seems worth the

time to argue with them, but this particular one is really pissing me off...

[orleans]

3. "dear 'friend' -- fuck off"

there. done. hope that was helpful.

[icnorth]

4. Grab your ears tightly

with both hands and pull your head out of your ass.

[JackintheGreen]

5. According to the 17 August 1787 Madison debates

the framers left "to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks." see
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_817.asp

Bush clearly framed the attack on Iraq as necessary to repel the clear and present danger of future attacks by terrorists. As such, he required no authorization from Congress to send troops to Iraq. That Congress acquiesced says nothing but that they hoped to be re-elected in the next election cycle and knew that Repubs would use any concerted effort to resist the war as leverage to get the GOP opponent into office.

[jgraz]

6. I take it "kiss my ass you inbred hillbilly" won't cut it?

"First...There was NO Clinton surplus. That is a myth. Research it. What it ACTUALLY was was that there would be a budget surplus if everything remained exactly as it was when he left office and Congress did not spend ANY money for about 10 years. THAT is NOT a surplus.

You'll never convince this ignoramous otherwise. So just ask him who added more to the debt, Bush or Clinton?


Second....if it is ANYONE's unjust war, it is CONGRESS' unjust war. Bush could not start nor send troops to war WITHOUT the approval of Congress, and several Democrats voted for it too. So if you are going to condemn, condemn ALL the guilty.

So, fine. Condemn the Democrats for either believing Bush's lies or using them for cover. Right after you send that lying POS W. to the gallows for treason.


It was the Democrat majority...

It's "Democratic". I really wish these foreigners would learn proper English.


...who raided social security funds (and they had to make a law to allow themselves to do that, since it was against the law to do it, very creative those Democrats)

Both parties have raided the Soc Sec Trust Fund, mostly for wars. Johnson did it for Vietnam, Bush did it for Afghanistan. Of course, who was it who wanted to move the entire trust fund into the stock market? I wonder how that would have worked out...


...it was two Democrats, Chris Dodd and Barney Franks who started the economic downfall that required the bailouts...so Bush is not at fault either...

Yeah, that's crap. http://rawstory.com/2009/10/study-bush-blocked-efforts/

and yes, Bush did the first bailout, did that mean Obama had to follow suit with trillions more ALREADY, because as you point out, he has only been in office a few months. And already his deficit is higher than Bush's was in 8 years INCLUDING his bailout.

Of course, the debt is a direct result of Bush's craptacular presidency, especially because Obama insisted on fighting Bush's wars on the budget. Or does your Repuke friend think we should immediately pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan? That would certainly cut down on the deficit.


Bush gave tax cuts across the board, not just to corporations. I got mine. I hope to heck the Democrats don't take it away from me. And I am NOT a corporation.

So make up your mind. Do you want tax cuts or a lower deficit? Cuz you can't have both. Here, let him argue with a Nobel prize winner: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/bush-tax-cut-mythology


This massive debt we are in now lays right at the feet of two Democrats...Dodd and Franks. FACT. Can be proven, if you are really interested in the truth and not democratic talking points.

This idiot should brush up on the meaning of the word FACT. It does not mean "the last thing that Glenn Beck pulled out of his ass."


With all due respect.

I have zero respect for the willfully stupid. Fuck this asswipe.

[MrModerate]

7. Partial answer:

1) Yes, it was a projected surplus based on the premise of rational government following the Clinton presidency (and no, it didn't require Congress to spend nothing for 10 years). Unfortunately, we didn't get rational government -- we got Bush, who oversaw the greatest transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich in the history of the world.

2) The IWR gave the president the authorization to go to war if certain criteria of threat from Iraq were met, and also required a sincere and effective peace effort. Neither happened. The threat was totally bogus, manufactured by the Bush White House, and the peace effort a sham. That having been said, Congress erred in giving Bush even that much leeway, since millions of Americans already recognized his bloodthirsty mendacity and cried out for Congress to rein him in. They should have listened to the voices of the people in the street. And we haven't even begun to pay down the trillion-dollars-plus squandered in the totally unecessary and wicked Iraq war.

3) The "raid" on Social Security funds has been going on since the creation of the program; was inherent in the way the program was set up and has been administered for nearly 70 years; and was agreed by Republican and Democratic Congresses alike.

4) Hundreds of legislators -- including Dodd and Frank -- contributed to the regulatory climate that allowed the ponzi-like investment schemes that have nearly brought on a second Great Depression. But let's not forget that relaxed regulation is a rightwing mantra, so let's shift the center of the blame where it lies.

5) Bush's tax cuts gave next to nothing to low wage earners, pennies to the middle class, and trillions to the truly wealthy and fictional persons (corporations). That's how "sharing the wealth" upward works. Unfortunately, there was a huge vacuum when revenue shortfalls are calculated. And that's the Bush legacy deficit.

[Gold Metal Flake]

14. Speaking of the IWR...

Notice that Bushco is in violation of Sec. 3, (b), (1). Also note that in the Whereas section it refers to those countries that were involved in 9/11. This represents another way that Bushco is in violation of the section referenced above. There are other violations of the Whereas clauses. Basically, Bushco was to exhaust all other remedies before using war powers. Bushco did not ever try to do so. It was a bait & switch.

Resolution text: http://www.hnn.us/articles/printfriendly/1282.html

ETA: Naturally, Democrats would consider the ability to make war one of the important and vital powers that a president should have. Naturally, Democrats would expect a president to use that power wisely. Bushco did not.

[Winterblues]

8. Well the very first one is completely wrong

The US General Budget was indeed in Surplus for the last two years Clinton was in Office. It is true we remained in Debt, so a real Surplus did not happen but the National Debt Clock was shut off for the first time since Reagan and the Debt was actually being paid down. Democrats did indeed raid the Social Security Fund but they tried hard to end the practice and Al Gore got ridiculed mightily for his "lock box" which was for the social Security fund. Bush* kept saying it was the people's money and it should be returned. Bush* did indeed give tax cuts across the board but they were most heavily weighted toward the very wealthy. And yes Congress did indeed give Bush* authority to invade Iraq with the Iraqi War Resolution and many Democrats did vote for that including Hillary and Reid and many many others. It probably is the single most damning issue that sunk Hillary's campaign. DFemocrats are certainly not without blame in America's problems but compared to how Republicans Rule, they don't hold a candle. Republicans Rule while Democrats Govern.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

9. Ask him how old he thinks the world is.

If the answer does not contain the word billions, your time would be better spent talking to rocks.

[jljamison]

10. On the deficit

One other point to make - Bush's budgets and his annual "Deficits" were always fiction, because he accounted for all of the war spending through emergency appropriation bills, rather than putting the war spending in the budget.

That is something that Obama did when he put together his first budget. So right away hundreds of billions of dollars were "added to the deficit" without actually spending one single additional dollar.

Lastly, the exploding budget deficit is not just based on additional top line spending but a drop in tax revenues as a result of slowed growth. There is no hiding Bush's responsibility here - the so called stimulative effect of his tax cuts was short lived and did not set the stage for prolonged growth, his appointment of nincompoop regulators was significantly responsible for the lack of oversight and proactive action to avoid the catastrophe that ensued, and fully 1 third of the budget deficits are due to the Bush tax cuts. So there ya go...

[zbdent]

11. on the first one ... have him provide ONE republicant who signed onto Clinton's budget

(in 1993/1994) that they, at the time, said would cause the U.S. to go into great debt ... (they've claimed that the current financial crisis came because of a bill Clinton signed, set in place by CONSERVATIVE Phil Gramm, in 1999 ...)

[Justyce]

12. Thank you all for the great replies.

I'm still awaiting his response :)

[TxRider]

13. Ok, facts

"First...There was NO Clinton surplus. That is a myth. Research it. What it ACTUALLY was was that there would be a budget surplus if everything remained exactly as it was when he left office and Congress did not spend ANY money for about 10 years. THAT is NOT a surplus."

Clinton did have surpluses for two years, but it is also true the last budget passed under Clinton had no surplus.

"Second....if it is ANYONE's unjust war, it is CONGRESS' unjust war. Bush could not start nor send troops to war WITHOUT the approval of Congress, and several Democrats voted for it too. So if you are going to condemn, condemn ALL the guilty."

Congress did approve the wars. Can't get around that one.

"It was the Democrat majority who raided social security funds (and they had to make a law to allow themselves to do that, since it was against the law to do it, very creative those Democrats)"

I'm not so up on those days, it was long ago. But I doubt a single party was responsible.

"it was two Democrats, Chris Dodd and Barney Franks who started the economic downfall that required the bailouts...so Bush is not at fault either..."

Franks and Dodd share a little blame with the rest of congress, and with Bush as he was in charge of executing the laws and regulations that were violated. So both parties, Clinton, and Bush were all to blame to some degree for the financial crisis. Clinton, Bush, and both dem and repub congress for the last 15 years could have prevented this, they didn't.

"and yes, Bush did the first bailout, did that mean Obama had to follow suit with trillions more ALREADY, because as you point out, he has only been in office a few months. And already his deficit is higher than Bush's was in 8 years INCLUDING his bailout."

Obama didn't follow with trillions, but yes the deficit is larger than Bush's and Obama could hardly have avoided that no matter what he did. The stimulus was not well thought out, it should have been better targeted and spent faster, but as the the spending ramps up next year we will see how well it works.

"Bush gave tax cuts across the board, not just to corporations. I got mine. I hope to heck the Democrats don't take it away from me. And I am NOT a corporation.

This massive debt we are in now lays right at the feet of two Democrats...Dodd and Franks. FACT. Can be proven, if you are really interested in the truth and not democratic talking points."

No, it cannot be proven. Franks and Dodd did not cause it, nor could they singly have stopped it. This is just flat out untrue by any standard.

Much cause does lie with Fannie and Freddie, hardly avoidable with the sheer percentage of U.S. mortgages they bought handed out to anyone with pulse, but just as much lies with financial institutions and lack of enforcing regulations.