He's conservative like a hot dog has cute eyes fluffy fur.

and fluffy fur. Darn it.

oh he's conservative all right.

just the wrong kind.

If the fiscal conservatives of the republican party hadn't spent so much time whoring themselves to the religious right for votes, then maybe the republican party wouldn't have elected such a religious douchebag^* as president.


*this is not a knock on religious people, this is just calling Bush a religious douchebag.

I'm not a Republican or a COnservative by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it's pretty sad how the GOP has been hijacked by morons like this. Eisenhower, Goldwater, et al. are turning over in their graves.

If the USA had REAL liberals and REAL conservatives, who were able to actually understand and follow the positions they claim to ascribe to instead of pay lip service to gain points in the polls, there'd be some honest-to-god debates and the country might actually get a little better.

SilentStrider: If the fiscal conservatives of the republican party hadn't spent so much time whoring themselves to the religious right for votes, then maybe the republican party wouldn't have elected such a religious douchebag* as president.

You're also forgetting the "patriots" who understand things in terms of how many brown people we can bomb this week.

Farking ridiculous.

A $3 trillion budget? While we're in massive debt? Give me a break. We need surpluses, not deficits. Congress should tell Bush to fark off.

I'm the Persident, and I'm getting a kick out of these replies

Nucular

but but but but but it matters what you SAY, not what you DO!


//Mitt Romney = Bush Jr. Jr.
///We don't need another plastic Corporate mouthpiece

TheCid: We need surpluses, not deficits.

If I were president during a budget surplus, the rebate checks would be in the mail within 30 days. A vote for NeauxFear is a vote for bacon.

NeauxFear: TheCid: We need surpluses, not deficits.

If I were president during a budget surplus, the rebate checks would be in the mail within 30 days. A vote for NeauxFear is a vote for bacon.

You'd send it back to the people when the country is several trillion dollars in debt?

I keep writing my Congressmen, requesting that they declare war on the U.S. and order the prez to nuke Washington D.C. But they never take my advise.

ScubaDude1960: I keep writing my Congressmen, requesting that they declare war on the U.S. and order the prez to nuke Washington D.C. But they never take my advise.

That would totally make an awesome satire column. "There is a country that harbors religious extremists who are out to destroy our way of life. I demand immediate censure and swift action, up to and possibly including nuclear attack, against their country." Go on for a few paragraphs, then end with "I demand an immediate attack upon the United States of America."

Gortex: I'm not a Republican or a COnservative by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it's pretty sad how the GOP has been hijacked by morons like this. Eisenhower, Goldwater, et al. are turning over in their graves.

If the USA had REAL liberals and REAL conservatives, who were able to actually understand and follow the positions they claim to ascribe to instead of pay lip service to gain points in the polls, there'd be some honest-to-god debates and the country might actually get a little better.

There's no incentive for a "conservative" politician to actually be a conservative. Just call yourself a conservative and you will get the conservative vote. The same principle applies to "liberal" politicians.

What's another couple of zero's?

/... nuthin

Gortex: If the USA had REAL liberals and REAL conservatives, who were able to actually understand and follow the positions they claim to ascribe to instead of pay lip service to gain points in the polls, there'd be some honest-to-god debates and the country might actually get a little better.

And if Scotland had REAL, True Scotsmen, they'd be an independent country.

OlafTheBent: What's another couple of zero's?

One apostrophe too many?

/Sorry, Bob the Angry Flower compels me

TheCid: You'd send it back to the people when the country is several trillion dollars in debt?

It's not like the federal government owes billions upon billions to Northrop-Grumman and Halliburton. It's that we've been selling bonds as fast as we can print them. Beyond set maturation dates, there's not a whole not the federal government does to buy back bonds, but we can cut back on selling for a bit. The problem with that approach, though, is that it can send a message of economic slowdown to the markets. Much like cutting interest rates to encourage investment in slow markets.

"Told you so" just never get old.

...but at least he's not a tax n spend liberal.

A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged and wastes the national treasury trying to prove he's not a wimp.

Time to balance the budget.

Vote Democrat!

Yeah, but at least Saddam isn't in power anymore.

bulldg4life: Yeah, but at least Saddam isn't in power anymore.

I was just thinking about how much of a sacrifice those 4,000 dead and 20,000 wounded made to make sure that bad man didn't lead that country anymore. Thanks guys!

And McCain wants 100 more years of this?
And there are otherwise-sane people voting for this nutcase?

Good luck, America. You're gonna need it.

If the country needs money, wouldn't it be more fiscally responsible to raise taxes than to get into debt?

Just sayin'.

So lemmie get this straight. In Neocon land giving money to "defense" contractors by taking it away from sick poor/old people is a good thing?

That sounds pretty compassionate.

Hey conservatives: Look at Ronald Reagan. He wasn't exactly spendthrift either.

Whether you want to believe it or not, your side spends just as much as the liberal side when it's in power. George Bush is, in fact, conservative. He's exactly what you get when you put conservatives into power.

But at least liberals realize that you have to PAY for the stuff you buy, and they typically prefer spending money on domestic issues, not blowing up sand half a world away.

/The national debt only goes down under DEMOCRATS
//You conservatives aren't fiscally responsible. You're like a hooker who just stole her customer's credit card.
///slashies

But even those estimates could prove too low given the rapidly weakening economy and the total costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which Bush does not include in his request for the budget year beginning Oct. 1.

Goddamn, growing up in the US is going to be like living in indentured servitude.

The $3 trillion Bush's proposes spending in 2009 would be the first time that milestone has been reached. Bush also presided over the first budget to hit $2 trillion, in 2002. It took the government nearly 200 years to reach the first $1 trillion budget, which occurred in 1987 during the Reagan administration

Wow, Bush is more like Reagan than Reagan.

Okay, here's the deal... Republicans are not allowed to use the 'fiscal' and 'responsibility' together in a sentence for another 20 years as punihment for this man's profligate ways.

The New Republican Party: Socially divisive AND economically retarded. Yum.

Can someone explain to me why if this man has basically sent this country into a recession believes that doing more of the same will get us out of one? Is he living in our reality? How much longer can the United States stay a country before foreign nations own more of the US than it does itself?

Bush is a conservative like Kennedy was a liberal.

quatchi [TotalFark] 2008-02-03 09:16:15 PM


The New Republican Party: Socially divisive AND economically retarded. Yum.


Two great flavours together at last

PlasticMoby: So lemmie get this straight. In Neocon land giving money to "defense" contractors by taking it away from sick poor/old people is a good thing?

Yeah, sort of the opposite of Robin Hood.
Who was a fag.

To be fair, that's only like $100M Canadian, right?

Bush never met a defecit he didn't like.

When we are owned by China, you can rest assure that America won't have gay marriage or abortions.
We are so screwed if McCain wins.

HowlingFrog: Yeah, sort of the opposite of Robin Hood.
Who was a fag commie that uses terrorist tactics.


FTFY

At least half of the people in this thread at one time believed this smarmy, smug, failure of a douchebag.

Good job, nitwits.

PlasticMoby: So lemmie get this straight. In Neocon land giving money to "defense" contractors by taking it away from sick poor/old people is a good thing?

That sounds pretty compassionate.

Yeah. And now it's Hillary's turn in 08. Fair is Fair.

Oh, and that budget probably doesn't include most of the Iraq war funding under the current "emergency appropriation" funding approach.

That's because "fiscal responsibility", for Republicans, has been code for regressive taxation and increased funding for all government projects except social programs since the goddamned 70's.

They fooled the rubes into thinking they were going to get rid of taxation and government, while they've been doing exactly what they set out to do from the beginning: spend more on programs that make them and their buddies rich, and shift the cost (tax burden) for that off of the upper classes and onto the middle class.

And good numbers of voters still eat it up every single election cycle as if the past twenty years never even happened. It's farking pathetic; like watching a dog who's been kicked by his master too many times to count slinking back to his heel just to cower next to him.

TheCid: You'd send it back to the people when the country is several trillion dollars in debt?

What's your definition of 'several'? 60 trillion in obligations doesn't mean 'several' to me. Nor does 9 trillion of actual debt.

mikepoint3: Yeah. And now it's Hillary's turn in 08. Fair is Fair.

:( Does it really have to be her turn? AFAIK she's done little to help her "home state" of NY...

MrEricSir: If the country needs money, wouldn't it be more fiscally responsible to raise taxes than to get into debt?

Only if raising taxes raises revenue.

That said, if you've already maximized the revenue curve, and yet still need more money (even due to some manner of unanticipated ongoing "emergency")...

Can someone please just make a .gif of all those charts showing republican fiscal incompetence throughout the years? A new rule of the internet will be that this gif will be posted at the top of every political thread dealing with fiscal policy, and every single asshat who tries to accuse liberals of poor economic planning or overspending will be roundly ostracized by those of us with at least a single farking lick of sense.

The Republican party has failed. Its social policies are out of touch with America and are being pushed by hypocrites who A. try to frighten the masses into voting for their side or B. partake in the exact same sins they seek to discriminate against. It has done nothing but expand government, reduce liberty, and weaken our currency, in effect conserving nothing. It hasn't secured our borders, won a single war it has started, and has presided over the most useless loss of American lives in recent history.

It's sickening, and anyone who still associates themselves with that batch of sycophantic weasels is worthy of nothing but scorn and derision.

HowlingFrog: And McCain wants 100 more years of this?
And there are otherwise-sane people voting for this nutcase?

Good luck, America. You're gonna need it.


McCain wants to stay in Iraq as long as it takes to stabilize it. the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2008 are projected to cost roughly $200 billion. That's on top of about $500 bil. for the DoD as a whole.

That's a sizeable amount of money, but not actually very big when compared to the entire budget and the fact that we are projected to spend 1.7 TRILLION on entitlements.

So yeah, uh, roughly $150 Billion dollars (high-end estimate, since I don't have the numbers infront of me and I know Iraq is costing more than Afghanistan) on Iraq is not what is breaking us. Find some other way to dramatize your conservative-hate.

Every time I watch Future weapons on the Discovery Channel, I say to myself "Well there went 1+ billion of the tax payers money to create that weapon"

It's asinine

RagingHamster: But even those estimates could prove too low given the rapidly weakening economy and the total costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which Bush does not include in his request for the budget year beginning Oct. 1.

Goddamn, growing up in the US is going to be like living in indentured servitude.

No, we just have a lot of whiners that like to use inflated versions of the truth to bolster their arguments.

The $3 trillion Bush's proposes spending in 2009 would be the first time that milestone has been reached. Bush also presided over the first budget to hit $2 trillion, in 2002.

Close to 50% growth in 7 years... that's obscene, and the saddest part is the fools responsible haven't learned a thing. Hey Weaver95, warn us again why we shouldn't vote for a Democrat?

abb3w: That said, if you've already maximized the revenue curve, and yet still need more money (even due to some manner of unanticipated ongoing "emergency")...

Oh, a laffer curve adherent.

To make this short: we're nowhere NEAR the point where raising taxes would lower revenue. Even the studies conducted by Bush's hand-picked supply-side guys in the Budget Office have admitted this after they finally got to model the predicted effects of various tax plans using their preferred methodology, which is abnormally "friendly" to these supply-side, trickle-down theories.

What they found out is that even if we take the rosiest economic scenario imaginable over the next decade, Bush's tax cuts will still only pay for less than 10% of themselves in the manner you suggest. One of them even admitted outright in testimony in the aftermath of their exhaustive study that "tax cuts won't pay for themselves".

This is all publicly available, if you don't believe me.