Daylight63
Verified User
Wrong. But kudos on having an adult teach you the word "specious". It's nice when people with limited mental capacity can expand their vocabulary.
eliminate the debt limit?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Wrong. But kudos on having an adult teach you the word "specious". It's nice when people with limited mental capacity can expand their vocabulary.
Diogenes
1 account to rule them all
Would you drink a from a glass of water with a turd floating at the top?
You poisoned your own well.
Be better, if you can.
Diogenes
1 account to rule them all
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
I support Trump's call to remove illegal aliens........I also agree with Trump's call to let debt increases to be clearly placed in the lap of the demmycunts who caused them.......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
sad how quickly the demmycunts resort to lies.......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
pennies on the dollar compared to demmycunts...like yiouself......just look at your chart trying to blame Reagan for JimmyJimmy.......Because REPUBLICANS NEVER RUN UP THE DEBT, eh?
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Wrong. The waste is only a matter of degree, both parties do it. It's just as you move Left politically, the urge to control and spend using the authoritarian power of government grows exponentially. Sure, the Republicans, particularly the entrenched old-time ones who have been in office for decades do it too but not on the scale of the Left.
The Left and Democrats have been responsible for virtually every major social-welfare spending program in US history. FDR's New Deal, LBJ's Great Society, to name but two. Just like California, Illinois, and New York have spent themselves into financial ruin, the federal government is being driven into the same ditch Europe is already in with the same sort of social-welfare spending.
Both parties pile on the rules and regulations without a care as to how much it costs individuals, businesses, whomever, to struggle to pay for and meet them.
So, don't give me that shit I only attack one party, I go after both. It's just the Democrats are the worst of the worst, rather than just the worst.
Wrong. Saddam Hussein and Iraq was the single country that was the leading exporter of terrorists and terrorism worldwide. There's good evidence he was in part financing the 9/11 terrorist cells out of the Iraqi embassy in Hamburg Germany.
Bush won those wars, but in a very real sense lost the peace that followed. The debt from those wars was a drop in the bucket compared to social-welfare and nonsense spending like the Inflation Reduction Act.
Human and Budgetary Costs to Date of the U.S. War in Afghanistan, 2001-2022 | Figures | Costs of War
The Costs of War Project is a team of 35 scholars, legal experts, human rights practitioners, and physicians, which began its work in 2011. We use research and a public website to facilitate debate about the costs of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
watson.brown.edu
Depending on who you ask, the cost was somewhere between $1.5 and $8 trillion dollars total, with the high-end figures coming out of sources that pretty much lean hard Left in academia. That is, those are grossly inflated to make things look worse than they are. I can buy the $2 trillion figure.
Of course, these days, you have Biden pouring tens of billions every few months into the lost cause that's Ukraine, so there's hardly anything to choose between the parties other than who they're financing in what war.
Right back at ya!
Daylight63
Verified User
Except in the graphic I showed you, EVERY GOP PRESIDENT ran up the debt HIGHER than the nearest DEM pres. They ALWAYS do.
So you are just IGNORING the data?
Yeah? So? Why does that bother you? Given that you ENJOY all the benefits the Left has gifted this nation from improved health and safety of workers, 5 day work week, vacations, medicare, social security. ALL OF IT.
So why are you pissed that welfare programs for poor people come out of the same paycheck you GLADLY give up for our massive bloated military? (EVEN THE MILITARY is socialist! TriCare is socialism 101! No matter how good I was at my job, I don't get any bennies from an employer when I LEAVE THE JOB. Socialism. Getting stuff from OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.)
You talk such a big game but it is clear you really don't have to function as an adult in the real world. You seem to have no real sense of what you are bitching about. Given how much you will DEPEND on it at some point in your life.
Correction: CONSUMERS DEMAND rules and regulations to ensure products are SAFE and that they can raise their kids in an environment that won't end up with the kids dying of some horrific cancer due to industrial pollution.
YOU DEMAND THOSE REGULATIONS. YOU. We all do.
So stop with this stupid "Government puts too many regulations in!"
You seem to know SO LITTLE about how corporations function. Are you like 12 or something?
IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.
You are a certified moron.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
One graph doesn't explain anything. I explained why Reagan's debt increase was so big. He won the Cold War. In the long run, that was cheaper than our endless production of arms to match the Soviet Union in an endless arms race. With Bush II it was 9/11. What would you have had him do after that terrorist attack, nothing? Complain?
Socialism for the most part doesn't work. Neither the New Deal nor the Great Society achieved their intended purpose. In fact, in many ways it made many people worse off.
The 5 day, 40 hour work week became a reality because Henry Ford gave that to his employees. It forced other large corporations at the time to follow suit. Government and activist attempts at it up to that point were failures, while unions did little or nothing to push it.
Medicare / aid raised the cost of medical care, not lowered it. Social Security is simply a crutch for people too stupid to save for their own retirement. For those that think ahead, it's not a necessity. I stick my SS checks in a savings account and then occasionally use the funds for something frivolous or to invest.
The military is a necessity for a nation and by its nature is an authoritarian dictatorship of sorts. Tricare, and other retirement benefits from the military, or civil service, are the same as with those from any private corporation or employer. They are things received in exchange for years of service and they are not "socialism." If you get nothing from your employer when you leave or retire, that's between you and them. Many corporations have 401K plans, and other employee benefits beyond just pay.
For example, McDonald's employs a lot of young people. They offer a scholarship program to help their young employees pay for college.
Scholarships for College Students | McDonald’s
McDonald’s wants to see students succeed! Learn about the scholarships McDonald’s offers including financial details, merits required and more by applying today.
They also offer a 401K plan
I guess you just work for a shitty company when even Micky D's offers employee benefits.
I don't "depend" on any of that. Social Security is nothing but gravy. Medicare is the same way. I could make the copays and such and I have to pay a monthly premium, but I can afford that for health insurance coverage.
Only to the extent that they feel those regulations make sense. The CPSC is hell bent on policies of ZERO TOLERANCE. That is, the government bureaucrats making the rules are pushing out insane regulations that cost millions, even billions, for next to no return on that in terms of safety.
The question is How safe is safe enough? For example, the EPA during the Clinton administration lowered the allowable arsenic in drinking water from 50 ppb to 10 ppb. At 50 ppb there was no discernable health issues in the US as that level is about 1000 times lower than the level where arsenic becomes a serious health issue.
As for why they lowered it, the ONLY reason was there was now test equipment that could reliably measure 10 ppb arsenic in a water sample. That's it. The result of this was that for more than half the nation who get their drinking water primarily from wells and ground water their water company had to buy the expensive test equipment and then if they were over the new, lower, limit expensive filtration equipment to meet the new standard. For much of the Western US, water bills doubled, tripled, or went even higher as water companies struggled to pay for all that new equipment. That for NO DISCERNABLE increase in water safety.
Consumers don't demand such retarded shit from the government. Regulations are not automatically a good thing. You are complete fool if you think otherwise.
No, I don't demand them. In fact, I would like to see as much as 50 to 75% of them tossed out in whole or part and many others rolled back to reasonable levels of standards.
ADP Payroll Services for Businesses of all Sizes
Let ADP handle your company's payroll processing.
www.adp.com
The Cost of Regulation and Intervention - Competitive Enterprise Institute
Download Chapter 3 as a PDF Regulation and spending are related; both are implements by which governments act or compel individuals. Therefore, policy makers should disclose regulatory costs the same way they disclose spending, to give voters the opportunity to give full consideration as to what...
cei.org
Regulations cost money and time to follow. They raise the cost of everything and often produce nothing useful in return.
Iraq and 9/11 connection
Bush administration “seized opportunity” after attacks to push global agenda, former ambassador tells Al Jazeera.
So, you are either deluded, ignorant, or full of shit.
And, you finish with an insult, how typical for a Leftist.
BartenderElite
Verified User
One graph doesn't explain anything. I explained why Reagan's debt increase was so big. He won the Cold War. In the long run, that was cheaper than our endless production of arms to match the Soviet Union in an endless arms race. With Bush II it was 9/11. What would you have had him do after that terrorist attack, nothing? Complain?
Socialism for the most part doesn't work. Neither the New Deal nor the Great Society achieved their intended purpose. In fact, in many ways it made many people worse off.
The 5 day, 40 hour work week became a reality because Henry Ford gave that to his employees. It forced other large corporations at the time to follow suit. Government and activist attempts at it up to that point were failures, while unions did little or nothing to push it.
Medicare / aid raised the cost of medical care, not lowered it. Social Security is simply a crutch for people too stupid to save for their own retirement. For those that think ahead, it's not a necessity. I stick my SS checks in a savings account and then occasionally use the funds for something frivolous or to invest.
The military is a necessity for a nation and by its nature is an authoritarian dictatorship of sorts. Tricare, and other retirement benefits from the military, or civil service, are the same as with those from any private corporation or employer. They are things received in exchange for years of service and they are not "socialism." If you get nothing from your employer when you leave or retire, that's between you and them. Many corporations have 401K plans, and other employee benefits beyond just pay.
For example, McDonald's employs a lot of young people. They offer a scholarship program to help their young employees pay for college.
Scholarships for College Students | McDonald’s
McDonald’s wants to see students succeed! Learn about the scholarships McDonald’s offers including financial details, merits required and more by applying today.www.mcdonalds.com
They also offer a 401K plan
I guess you just work for a shitty company when even Micky D's offers employee benefits.
I don't "depend" on any of that. Social Security is nothing but gravy. Medicare is the same way. I could make the copays and such and I have to pay a monthly premium, but I can afford that for health insurance coverage.
Only to the extent that they feel those regulations make sense. The CPSC is hell bent on policies of ZERO TOLERANCE. That is, the government bureaucrats making the rules are pushing out insane regulations that cost millions, even billions, for next to no return on that in terms of safety.
The question is How safe is safe enough? For example, the EPA during the Clinton administration lowered the allowable arsenic in drinking water from 50 ppb to 10 ppb. At 50 ppb there was no discernable health issues in the US as that level is about 1000 times lower than the level where arsenic becomes a serious health issue.
As for why they lowered it, the ONLY reason was there was now test equipment that could reliably measure 10 ppb arsenic in a water sample. That's it. The result of this was that for more than half the nation who get their drinking water primarily from wells and ground water their water company had to buy the expensive test equipment and then if they were over the new, lower, limit expensive filtration equipment to meet the new standard. For much of the Western US, water bills doubled, tripled, or went even higher as water companies struggled to pay for all that new equipment. That for NO DISCERNABLE increase in water safety.
Consumers don't demand such retarded shit from the government. Regulations are not automatically a good thing. You are complete fool if you think otherwise.
No, I don't demand them. In fact, I would like to see as much as 50 to 75% of them tossed out in whole or part and many others rolled back to reasonable levels of standards.
ADP Payroll Services for Businesses of all Sizes
Let ADP handle your company's payroll processing.
The Cost of Regulation and Intervention - Competitive Enterprise Institute
Download Chapter 3 as a PDF Regulation and spending are related; both are implements by which governments act or compel individuals. Therefore, policy makers should disclose regulatory costs the same way they disclose spending, to give voters the opportunity to give full consideration as to what...
Regulations cost money and time to follow. They raise the cost of everything and often produce nothing useful in return.
Iraq and 9/11 connection
Bush administration “seized opportunity” after attacks to push global agenda, former ambassador tells Al Jazeera.www.aljazeera.com
So, you are either deluded, ignorant, or full of shit.
And, you finish with an insult, how typical for a Leftist.
Did you read the article you posted about Iraq?
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Which one? I posted 3. I can post more as well. Saddam was up to his eyeballs supporting various terrorist groups around the world. I remember reading an article at the time in the Gulf News Daily (the paper in Bahrain) about two Iraqi diplomats being expelled from the Philippines just weeks before the Iraq invasion for handing piles of cash over to Islamic terrorists in that country. That's one example.
German Terror Cell's Link to 9/11 Detailed
Inquiry: Three hijackers and four suspected Al Qaeda recruits in the Hamburg group plotted attacks for at least two years, prosecutor says.
www.latimes.com
The Iraq/al-Qaida connection hasn't gone away.
This month, I went to Prague to meet with Czech officials who had directly handled the pre-9/11 expulsion of a senior Iraqi diplomat, a case that...
BartenderElite
Verified User
Which one? I posted 3. I can post more as well. Saddam was up to his eyeballs supporting various terrorist groups around the world. I remember reading an article at the time in the Gulf News Daily (the paper in Bahrain) about two Iraqi diplomats being expelled from the Philippines just weeks before the Iraq invasion for handing piles of cash over to Islamic terrorists in that country. That's one example.
German Terror Cell's Link to 9/11 Detailed
Inquiry: Three hijackers and four suspected Al Qaeda recruits in the Hamburg group plotted attacks for at least two years, prosecutor says.
The Iraq/al-Qaida connection hasn't gone away.
This month, I went to Prague to meet with Czech officials who had directly handled the pre-9/11 expulsion of a senior Iraqi diplomat, a case that...slate.com
Did you read any of the articles?
Do you think they present evidence?
BartenderElite
Verified User
Which one? I posted 3. I can post more as well. Saddam was up to his eyeballs supporting various terrorist groups around the world. I remember reading an article at the time in the Gulf News Daily (the paper in Bahrain) about two Iraqi diplomats being expelled from the Philippines just weeks before the Iraq invasion for handing piles of cash over to Islamic terrorists in that country. That's one example.
German Terror Cell's Link to 9/11 Detailed
Inquiry: Three hijackers and four suspected Al Qaeda recruits in the Hamburg group plotted attacks for at least two years, prosecutor says.
The Iraq/al-Qaida connection hasn't gone away.
This month, I went to Prague to meet with Czech officials who had directly handled the pre-9/11 expulsion of a senior Iraqi diplomat, a case that...
Did you read the 1st article? Does it even mention Iraq?
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
It discusses the link between the US 9/11 terrorists and a cell in Hamburg and their movements including numerous visits to the Iraqi embassy there. As Saddam is well known for financing terrorist operations at the time, and these terrorists had very limited, visible, means of funding themselves, it is clear they were in part being financed by the Iraqi government just as other groups in various countries were at the time.
What you want to do is find any excuse, any crack or omission, to naysay about this because you have a pre-determined outcome of wanting Bush II to look bad.
I see it differently. Bush acted on available information at the time. His mistake was making the invasion about WMD's rather than ending Saddam as a supporter of terrorism. That was clearly a bad call on Bush's part, but ending Saddam was not a mistake in and of itself.
Diogenes
1 account to rule them all
It's (D)ifferent when they do it.
President Obama and members of the Democrat Party proposed raising the debt ceiling
en.wikipedia.org
President Obama and members of the Democrat Party proposed raising the debt ceiling
2013 United States debt-ceiling crisis - Wikipedia
BartenderElite
Verified User
What you presented could best be described as "flimsy." Mostly opinion & speculative. Certainly weak.
War is a last resort - or should be. Iraq was as unnecessary a war as we've ever fought - which not only cost in terms of treasure, but cost a ton of lives, and created literally millions of refugees and hardship. Even many who supported that war now try to run from that position. It was a terrible, terrible decision.
Into the Night
Verified User
There is no such thing as a 'debt ceiling'. BTW, the current $36.25 trillion debt is already starting the crash of the dollar.
Diogenes
1 account to rule them all
Democrats made claims of WMDs in Iraq
Democrats, Not Just Bush, Made Claims of WMDs in Iraq
We speak with Sam Husseini of the Institute for Public Accuracy, which has released a list showing that five of the Democratic presidential contenders at one point publicly said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. [includes transcript]
www.democracynow.org