The last paragraph in that article:

"During the 12-hour debate, Republican amendments to freeze domestic spending except for defense, prevent tax cuts from expiring and expand oil and gas exploration failed on party-line votes."

Can someone please inform the Republicans that they need to come up with some new ideas? These didn't work so great, last time.

submitter: Phase 1 Complete: Obama's budget to bankrupt the country and enslave our children and grandchildren fix the clusterfark of an economy that Republican economic polices caused passes the first test.

Now with more reality.

Smitty, you do realize that Bush put forward his $3 trillion 10 year budget back in 2007, right? And that was without a stimulus plan, and cuts domestic spending?

And while we're at it, can we look at the $700 billion that he tacked on like wafer thin mint on the pillow, just before he left office?

And while we're at it, can we look at the $4 trillion he added to the national debt under his watch? That's 8 years, not a 10 year budget plan. And the Obama budget that Smitty is pointing fingers to, not all of that is tacked onto the national debt.

Mind you, that was just using Google and mining the first results on recent budgets. There are a LOT more articles out there on it, and I was sort of hoping that Smitty might show up to illuminate to us how the 10 year budget is actually smaller than the sheer weight of debt that the Bush Administration saddled us with--and that doesn't touch what he actually spent while in office.

Please. Let us hear from some of the amazing "fiscal Conservative" lights who supported this rush of spending, and now feel qualified that we've suddenly seen "enough" now that we're soaking in actual crisis created by the laxity of regulation of laws on the books, as well as ignorance got us--on that wonderfully "Conservative" President's watch--because I would love to hear how the 10 year budget is so much different now, as opposed to when we had so much money that we could just give it away and then borrowed like mad and refused to tax as a measure of "sane fiscally Conservative policy"?

Obama's got the right idea in trying to provide basic health coverage to all Americans. Access to preventive care can fix a problem for $1000 instead of waiting until it's a $100,000 problem a year or two down the road in the ER.

However, providing coverage by tossing federal dollars to private insurers seems like a very bad idea that I think will be horribly abused.

I expect that, when it's all said and done, the following will happen:

1)The patients will not receive the quality or scope of coverage from the insurance companies for which our federal tax dollars will have paid.

2)It will come to light that the federal funds had been squandered on executive compensation and on questionable investment vehicles.

3)Everyone in D.C. will act astonished that this happened.

4)A couple of token heads will roll.

Dick Cheney: Reagan proved deficits don't matter.

As illustrated by my previous post, I do feel that the Bush Administration was perhaps the greatest heist in history--and when I hear so called "Conservatives" singing his financial acumen, I wonder how much their cut was...

Yes, we do need fiscally responsible policy. But that means that we actually have to look at what we are investing in as a nation, and look down the road to what is going to get us a better return, as well as what is going to best for the nation.

I hesitate to use the term "Conservative" at this point, because so many idiots have adopted it as a blanket for dumbassery, and wouldn't know real fiscal Conservatism if it bit them in the ass--because, kids, Reagan wasn't terribly Conservative when it came to spending.

Spending money you don't have, when you don't need to, isn't terribly Conservative. It's called reckless. Reagan had a reason at first, but damn hard to justify after the economy began to turn thanks to the investment that the nation made.

Education and Health Care spending....What is this socialist, communist, Kenyan-born, anti-American, communist, black panther trying to do to the greatest country baby Jesus ever put on this 4000 year old earth!

WHaaaaaaa!!!! Blahblahblahbalhablah!!!!! Outrage!

If only the Republicans were back in charge so they could lead us back to fiscal responsibility.

seems some what relivant other than the mc fail part

Does this mean more metal Leia bikinis?

Dear every single politician in the country:

There is no one-size-fits-all answer. Sometimes lower taxes is the right thing to do. Sometimes higher taxes is the right thing to do. Sometimes more spending is right. Sometimes less spending is right.

The current situation calls for lower taxes and increased spending, so people will become more secure in their income and have more money to spend. When the economy recovers fully, that calls for increased taxes and lower spending, to pay off the debt incurred in getting out of the recession. When the debt is reduced to a manageable level, that situation calls for moderate taxation and moderate spending, so that the public interest will be served while not strangling the economy.

sgilman: Dick Cheney: Reagan proved deficits don't matter.

I propose everything in this country named after Ronald Reagan be sold to Iran to pay for our little nation building adventure. I'm sure it's what he'd want.

What does this article have to do with Brock Lesnar?

SchlingFocker: Obama's got the right idea in trying to provide basic health coverage to all Americans. Access to preventive care can fix a problem for $1000 instead of waiting until it's a $100,000 problem a year or two down the road in the ER.

However, providing coverage by tossing federal dollars to private insurers seems like a very bad idea that I think will be horribly abused.

I expect that, when it's all said and done, the following will happen:

1)The patients will not receive the quality or scope of coverage from the insurance companies for which our federal tax dollars will have paid.

2)It will come to light that the federal funds had been squandered on executive compensation and on questionable investment vehicles.

3)Everyone in D.C. will act astonished that this happened.

4)A couple of token heads will roll.


And the solution is so farking simple. Cut out the middlemen: the billing facilities, the encoders, the payment clearinghouses, the red-tapers that decide if you live or die and make it a single payer system.

I have no sympathy for the insurance industry and would love to see it collapse and take Big Pharm with it.

sgilman
Dick Cheney: Reagan proved deficits don't matter.

that's only... somewhat true, I think. A government can carry a huge debt, apparently indefinitely; on the outside, when interest on the debt exceeds the GDP, it's definitely over. So what's the point between "0 debt" and "like 20 times the GDP" when it all goes to shiat?

hubiestubert: As illustrated by my previous post, I do feel that the Bush Administration was perhaps the greatest heist in history--

That. The primary goal of every Republican administration since Reagan has been to loot the treasury for the benefit of a few.

Falcc: I propose everything in this country named after Ronald Reagan be sold to Iran to pay for our little nation building adventure. I'm sure it's what he'd want.

Does not approve.

Since subtard and the article are incapable of providing context: FY 2009 budget was $3.1 trillion.

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: The last paragraph in that article:

"During the 12-hour debate, Republican amendments to freeze domestic spending except for defense, prevent tax cuts from expiring and expand oil and gas exploration failed on party-line votes."

Can someone please inform the Republicans that they need to come up with some new ideas? These didn't work so great, last time.

Oh, but you know this is already being spun as blatant partisanship by the Dems. "Hey, we had ideas, but they were totally rejected".

Seriously, here they had a perfect opportunity here to present anything other than the same old crap and they failed utterly.

It's unbelievable.

Just throwing this out there, since I'm in here early for once - subby's headline is probably using irony to mock people who think like that.

Just trying to prevent the butthurt.

/it won't work
//I'm not even sure I'm right

Wow, bankrupt? From my understanding of economics, a country cannot be bankrupt. A country can however be in debt, and according to my count, we were in debt after Bush was in power.

Also note, that in terms of macroeconomics isn't it more beneficial to spend money on one's nation, than to poor it into another nation, and write it off as a sunk cost? I'd like to hear some people explain to me how spending money on a war, and Iraq was a worthy investment, yet spending money on rebuilding infrastructure, and various other projects within our own nation is foolish.

I'm no economist, but I would assume keeping the money, and spending the money in house, seems a lot more smarter than spending it on missiles and weapons which gets one time usage. Also note, I don't know how Iraqi's would be able to pay us back for all we'll spend rebuilding their country after we (or Bush I should say) destroyed it.

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: The last paragraph in that article:

"During the 12-hour debate, Republican amendments to freeze domestic spending except for defense, prevent tax cuts from expiring and expand oil and gas exploration failed on party-line votes."

Can someone please inform the Republicans that they need to come up with some new ideas? These didn't work so great, last time.

No kidding. It's almost like they've run out of steam and are even beginning to realize that their 19th-century view of society can't possibly adapt to the 21st century. They're not even trying anymore to hide the fact that they pretty much only look out for the rich.

i love how the republicans strategy all along was to bankrupt america just so they could use that as an argument as to why we can't spend any money on health care. i'd love to hear a republican explain to me why he'd rather see trillions of dollars get flushed down the gold plated toilet of republican boondoggles than spend a single cent on health care? it's almost as if they have a vested interest in keeping a system of poverty going that provides them with a cheap labor force and customers for their usurious loan products that promote the cycle of dependence.

KwameKilstrawberry: Cut out the middlemen: the billing facilities, the encoders, the payment clearinghouses, the red-tapers that decide if you live or die and make it a single payer system.

Yup.

Take everyone who they planned on having insured through private insurers and insure them through Medicare. Use the funds they would've dumped into the private insurers and put it into Medicare.

Lower overhead + fewer levels of bureaucracy = taxpayer win

Has anyone noticed that Republicans' favored smear tactic is affixing their own shortcomings and failures to their opponents and then decrying their opponents for it?

I'm probably too late, but before everyone gets all "my party is awesome and your party sucks", I'll include this quote. No matter your political party, you should take heed.

"Nothing could be more ill-judged than the intolerant spirit which has at all times characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution"

-Publuis/Hamilton, Federalist #1

Rob Anybody: Just throwing this out there, since I'm in here early for once - subby's headline is probably using irony to mock people who think like that.

Just trying to prevent the butthurt.

/it won't work
//I'm not even sure I'm right

Entirely possible, but at this point, I am a pissed off Republican, and pissed off at the knuckle dragging idiots who cheered while we ran the party and our principles into the ground--and fiscal restraint and wise economic policy was a casualty of that shift in order to essentially buy votes, without thought of the consequences.

Keep it up the bad work subby.
The GOP caused this, whatever it takes to get us out of it won't change my vote.

/Never gonna vote republican
//Dems are slightly worse.

MadCat221: Has anyone noticed that Republicans' favored smear tactic is affixing their own shortcomings and failures to their opponents and then decrying their opponents for it?

That sounds strangely like my sexual experiences.

/Dems are slightly LESS worse I meant.

SchlingFocker: KwameKilstrawberry: Cut out the middlemen: the billing facilities, the encoders, the payment clearinghouses, the red-tapers that decide if you live or die and make it a single payer system.

Yup.

Take everyone who they planned on having insured through private insurers and insure them through Medicare. Use the funds they would've dumped into the private insurers and put it into Medicare.

Lower overhead + fewer levels of bureaucracy = taxpayer win

At least in England I believe you can opt out of the governments health care. I hope that becomes part of our plan so that when we need the high tech stuff that isn't demmed 'critial' by the bureaucracy we'll still be able to pay for it ourselves when possible.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Falcc: I propose everything in this country named after Ronald Reagan be sold to Iran to pay for our little nation building adventure. I'm sure it's what he'd want.

Does not approve.

Who is that and why is he judging me? Judging me with his eyes.

Burn14Me: seems some what relivant other than the mc fail part

Here is the updated version:

Falcc: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Falcc: I propose everything in this country named after Ronald Reagan be sold to Iran to pay for our little nation building adventure. I'm sure it's what he'd want.

Does not approve.

Who is that and why is he judging me? Judging me with his eyes.

Ronald Reagan's son, Ronald Reagan. Usually called Ron Reagan.

Klingon Penis: Since subtard and the article are incapable of providing context: FY 2009 budget was $3.1 trillion.

Submitted by Bush in early 2008 for the 2009 fiscal year that started Oct 1st 2008. That budget did not include the $700 billion TARP money.

Nice going Bush.

Arnold T Pants: Here is the updated version:

Does that cartoon take into account GWB's off balance sheet expenditures?

I thought not.

If you don't think that is scary you are an idiot.

hubiestubert: Smitty, you do realize that Bush put forward his $3 trillion 10 year budget back in 2007, right? And that was without a stimulus plan, and cuts domestic spending?

And you know the Democratic Congress, which was elected on promises of instituting PAYGO, took that budget, and made it even bigger? And the current budgets Obama is promising is 3.6 trillion? (Strangely enough, Obama also promised PAYGO).

And while we're at it, can we look at the $700 billion that he tacked on like wafer thin mint on the pillow, just before he
left office?

The TARP is loan-like in nature. Meaning much of the money should get paid back. After TARP, Obama has instituted several multi-hundred-billion and trillion dollar plans which are beginning to make TARP look like a drop in the bucket.

And while we're at it, can we look at the $4 trillion he added to the national debt under his watch? That's 8 years, not a 10 year budget plan. And the Obama budget that Smitty is pointing fingers to, not all of that is tacked onto the national debt.

And Obama is promising to double the national debt in 8 years. You don't like a $10 trillion national debt? Try a $20 trillion debt when this is all said and done.

Further, as a measure of debt burden (the only meaningful way to look at debt), most of the Bush presidency was spent going from 60 to 68% debt to GDP (that's no good). Obama's very optimistic 8 year plan pushes that debt to 100% debt to GDP. That's absolutely insane. The CBO is predicting it to get worse than that.

RanDomino: sgilman
Dick Cheney: Reagan proved deficits don't matter.

that's only... somewhat true, I think. A government can carry a huge debt, apparently indefinitely; on the outside, when interest on the debt exceeds the GDP, it's definitely over. So what's the point between "0 debt" and "like 20 times the GDP" when it all goes to shiat?

The genius's on Wall Street have the answer: 35 to 1 (new window)

Worrying about deficits now would be economic suicide; get the country back on a solid footing, then address the deficit.

rnld: Klingon Penis: Since subtard and the article are incapable of providing context: FY 2009 budget was $3.1 trillion.

Submitted by Bush in early 2008 for the 2009 fiscal year that started Oct 1st 2008. That budget did not include the $700 billion TARP money.

Nice going Bush.

And if I'm not mistaken, the costs of the Afghan and Iraq wars were kept completely off the books in a bit of extremely creative accounting, a policy the Obama administration has reversed.

You know... it's so hilarious. Bush passes huge bloated budgets with massive tax cuts and almost no one questions it.

But when Obama does one in a time of crisis that's just a tiny bit more bloated, the entire media and public goes apeshiat.

jake3988: You know... it's so hilarious. Bush passes huge bloated budgets with massive tax cuts and almost no one questions it.

But when Obama does one in a time of crisis that's just a tiny bit more bloated, the entire media and public goes apeshiat.

The timing is fortunate or unfortunate, depending on which side of the aisle you're on.

Anyone taking over the office after Bush was going to have to blow up the budget; it just so happens that there's a Democrat in office now and that fits into the commie/socialist paradigm that Republicans have been pushing since the first Red Scare.

hubiestubert: Rob Anybody: Just throwing this out there, since I'm in here early for once - subby's headline is probably using irony to mock people who think like that.

Just trying to prevent the butthurt.

/it won't work
//I'm not even sure I'm right

Entirely possible, but at this point, I am a pissed off Republican, and pissed off at the knuckle dragging idiots who cheered while we ran the party and our principles into the ground--and fiscal restraint and wise economic policy was a casualty of that shift in order to essentially buy votes, without thought of the consequences.

Ah yes, the "wise economic policy" argument. Do you really think the Democrats claim to stand for "dumbshiat stupid economic policy"? Are you really claiming a simple, common-sense value as your distinguishing principle?

And fiscal restraint? Are you saying fiscal restraint can't be exercised in a progressive government? What are the proper parameters of "fiscal restraint," anyway?

Tell us what you really stand for and stop bullshiating around with these little evasions.

People have amazing short memories about how we got in this mess and no one is coming up with any better ideas. So STFU

Arnold T Pants: If you don't think that is scary you are an idiot.

Wow... Not one firm still in existence would ever hire you to do a LBO. Your math really sucks. You take straight-line calculations and run the gamut with no variables, not even one?

That's honest math, there. Pro Tip: The CBO numbers assume apocalyptic numbers, even if they only vary by a few percentage points.

Keep spewing dire assertions from CBO numbers. It'll make you a laughing stock when reality kicks in.

Frank N Stein: SUP DAWG I HERD U LIKE DEFICITS SO I PUT TRILLIONS IN UR TRILLIONS SO U CAN OWE MONEY WHILE U OWE MONEY!


Oh I get it! Obama is black so you're (or is it 'UR'?) using Gangsta (or is it Ebonics?) to make a funny!

/how utterly charming!

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Falcc: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Falcc: I propose everything in this country named after Ronald Reagan be sold to Iran to pay for our little nation building adventure. I'm sure it's what he'd want.

Does not approve.

Who is that and why is he judging me? Judging me with his eyes.

Ronald Reagan's son, Ronald Reagan. Usually called Ron Reagan.

Sell him to Iran. The plan is solid. The plan is sound.

/what kind of douchebag names his son Ronald Reagan anyway?

NewportBarGuy: Arnold T Pants: If you don't think that is scary you are an idiot.

Wow... Not one firm still in existence would ever hire you to do a LBO. Your math really sucks. You take straight-line calculations and run the gamut with no variables, not even one?

That's honest math, there. Pro Tip: The CBO numbers assume apocalyptic numbers, even if they only vary by a few percentage points.

Keep spewing dire assertions from CBO numbers. It'll make you a laughing stock when reality kicks in.

He's already a HUGE laughingstock.

well. thanks republicans for the national financial crisis. your newly found religion on fiscal conservatism is just so genuine that it's hard to believe you are one vote shy of complete irrelevancy in the entire federal government.