BS: The Republicans (US)

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 04:15 PM

They have blocked passage of a bill which would have done much to save young girls from child marriage throughout the world. Their own members have called them out on such a shameful act: GOP BLOCK CHILD MARRIAGE PREVENTION

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 10 - 11:50 AM

"It was not long ago that Republicans succeeded in holding unemployment benefits hostage to a renewal of the high-end Bush-era income tax cuts and — as a little bonus — won deep estate tax cuts for America's wealthiest heirs. Those cuts will add nearly $140 billion to the deficit in the near term, while doing far less to prod the economy than if the money had been spent more wisely.

That should have been evidence enough that the Republican Party's one real priority is tax cuts — despite all the talk about deficit reduction and economic growth. But here's some more:

On Dec. 22, just before they left town for the holidays, House Republican leaders released new budget rules that they intend to adopt when they assume the majority in January and will set the stage for even more budget-busting tax cuts.

First, some background: Under pay-as-you-go rules adopted by Democratic majorities in the House and Senate in 2007, tax cuts or increases in entitlement spending must be offset by tax increases or entitlement cuts. Entitlements include big health programs like Medicare and Medicaid, for which spending is on autopilot, as well as some other programs for veterans and low-income Americans. (Discretionary spending, which includes defense, is approved separately by Congress annually.)

The new Republican rules will gut pay-as-you-go because they require offsets only for entitlement increases, not for tax cuts. In effect, the new rules will codify the Republican fantasy that tax cuts do not deepen the deficit.

It gets worse. The new rules mandate that entitlement-spending increases be offset by spending cuts only — and actually bar the House from raising taxes to pay for such spending.

Say, for example, that lawmakers want to bolster child credits for families at or near the minimum wage. One way to help pay for the aid would be to close the tax loophole that lets the nation's wealthiest private equity partners pay tax at close to the lowest rate in the code. That long overdue reform would raise an estimated $25 billion over 10 years, but the new rules will forbid being sensible like that.

Even worse, they direct the leader of the House Budget Committee to ignore several costs when computing the budget impact of future actions, as if the costs are the natural course of politics for which no payment is required.

For example, the cost to make the Bush-era tax cuts permanent would be ignored, as would the fiscal effects of repealing the health reform law. At the same time, the new rules bar the renewal of aid for low-income working families — extended temporarily in the recent tax-cut deal — unless it is fully paid for.

House Republicans obviously believe they have a good thing going with voters by sanctifying tax cuts and demonizing spending. That's been their approach for 30 years after all, and it unfailingly rallies their base.
..."

NYT Ed

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Dec 10 - 02:31 PM

Republicans are not our friends, and they are irresponsible fiscally. In other news, water is wet, bears defecate sylvanially, and the pope is Catholic.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 10:28 AM

"You just can't close the door on this crowd. The party that brought us the worst economy since the Great Depression, that led us into Iraq and the worst foreign policy disaster in American history, that would like to take a hammer to Social Security and a chisel to Medicare, is back in control of the House of Representatives with the expressed mission of undermining all things Obama.

Once we had Dick Cheney telling us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and belligerently asserting that deficits don't matter. We had Phil Gramm, Enron's favorite senator and John McCain's economic guru, blithely assuring us in 2008 that we were suffering from a "mental recession."

(Mr. Gramm was some piece of work. A champion of deregulation, he was disdainful of ordinary people. "We're the only nation in the world," he once said, "where all of our poor people are fat.")

Maybe the voters missed the entertainment value of the hard-hearted, compulsively destructive G.O.P. headliners. Maybe they viewed them the way audiences saw the larger-than-life villains in old-time melodramas. It must be something like that because it's awfully hard to miss the actual policies of a gang that almost wrecked the country.

" Full articlehere in the NYT.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 12:51 PM

Well, I find it interesting that given Congress's overall approval ratings that the first order of the Bonehead led House will be to repeal health care reform... Then begin investigation of the Obama administration...

Are these people retarded, 'er what??? Blowing more tax dollars on grandstandin' is going to insure a major Repub defeat in two years...

I mean, ever Helen Keller can see that...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 02:53 PM

Obstreperous, intransigent, contumacious jejeune malefactors every last one of 'em.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 05:36 PM

Blowing more tax dollars on grandstandin' is going to insure a major Repub defeat in two years.

Not a chance. The Boobocracy absolutely LOVES these clowns; just put 'em back in power so they can fu$k the country over--- one more time.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 08:53 PM

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 10:03 AM

Who Killed Line Item Veto Law that almost lead to budget surpluses? Washington Post June 26, 1998

The Supreme Court yesterday struck down the broad new line-item veto authority that Congress had given the president to cancel specific items in spending and tax bills. Democratic Sens. Carl Levin and Robert C. Byrd welcomed the court's decision by displaying their personal copies of the Constitution. Within a couple of hours of the ruling, the law's backers announced they will try again to find a constitutional way to expand the president's powers to cut pork-barrel expenditures.

In a 6 to 3 decision, the court held that the line-item veto law violates a constitutional requirement that legislation be passed by both houses of Congress and presented in its entirety to the president for signature or veto. Passage of the legislation in 1996 and its implementation in 1997 climaxed more than a century of struggle by presidents for this new authority. It was a rare unilateral yielding of power by Congress to the chief executive, prompted by Congress's increasing concern over its own lack of fiscal discipline. President Clinton, who had line-item veto powers as governor of Arkansas, signed the bill with relish and moved quickly, although cautiously, to begin trimming spending bills.

But the judicial branch, looking to constitutional rather than political or fiscal priorities, took a far dimmer view of the power swap. Unlike earlier laws giving the president discretionary spending authority, "this act gives the president the unilateral power to change the text of duly enacted statutes," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. Such line-item vetoes are "the functional equivalent of partial repeals of acts of Congress," he said. But "there is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend or to repeal statutes," he added.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy cut to the political chase. "Failure of political will does not justify unconstitutional remedies," he said in a concurring opinion. The decision comes as a blow both to Clinton, who used the new power 82 times over the past 18 months, and to GOP leaders, who made the line-item veto a marquee item in their 1994 "Contract With America."

"The decision is a defeat for all Americans," Clinton said in a statement issued while traveling in China. "It deprives the president of a valuable tool for eliminating waste in the federal budget and for enlivening the public debate over how to make the best use of public funds." On Capitol Hill, Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), who co-sponsored the law with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), said the decision "means a retreat to the practice of loading up otherwise necessary legislation with pork-barrel spending."

By contrast, the law's foes were ecstatic. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) raised his arm in a salute and exclaimed, "God save this honorable court." Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) said that Congress "tried to bend the Constitution [but] the court said it will not allow this to happen." In his opinion, Stevens said Congress could alter the president's role in determining the final text of a law only by constitutional amendment. But Coats and other line-item veto supporters acknowledged that mustering the two-thirds majority in each house needed to move the constitutional amendment process forward would be difficult.

Instead, Coats and McCain said they will introduce legislation immediately to get around the Supreme Court's objections by breaking each appropriations bill into individual items, passing each one separately and sending them to the president to be signed or vetoed as separate bills. The House balked at such a Senate proposal before settling on the current line-item veto law, gagging at the prospect of passing what could be thousands of separate appropriations bills instead of the 13 that must now be passed every year. Computers have since eased the procedural problems, Coats said, making the "separate enrollment" approach more feasible.

But many lawmakers' love affair with the line-item veto has cooled since Clinton began zeroing out some of their favorite projects and recent government projections of surpluses for the next several years. Many Republicans, who had put off implementing the law for months in hopes it would fall into the hands of a GOP president, are not keen about empowering Clinton or a possible Democratic successor. Moreover, there is little time left in this session for such a controversial issue.

Under the line-item veto law, the president could sign bills and then cancel spending for specific projects, narrowly targeted tax breaks, or new or expanded entitlement programs. Congress could reinstate the spending but would have to muster a two-thirds vote of both houses to override a veto. Congress overrode only one of Clinton's line-item vetoes, involving 38 projects worth $287 million in a military construction bill; the vetoes that stood reversed $869 million in spending and tax breaks.

The challenge to the law came from New York and Idaho. New York City and hospital groups sued to restore tax breaks tied to the Medicaid program. The Snake River Potato Growers objected to Clinton's veto of a provision allowing deferral of capital gains taxes from sale of processing facilities to farmers' cooperatives. A lower court had ruled in the challengers' favor. It was the Supreme Court's second ruling on the line-item veto. Last year the court set aside a suit brought by Byrd and five other lawmakers, saying they lacked legal standing to bring the case because they had not been sufficiently hurt by the law. Yesterday the court said the New York and Idaho groups had met this test.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen G. Breyer dissented, with Scalia and O'Connor saying the Idaho potato growers had not shown they were harmed and hence lacked standing to sue; all three said the line-item veto should have been declared constitutional. "There is not a dime's worth of difference between Congress authorizing the president to cancel a spending item, and Congress's authorizing money to be spent on a particular item at the president's discretion. And the latter has been done since the founding of the nation," said Scalia.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 10:30 AM

??????????????????

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 04:31 PM

"1. When Bush took office in 2001, he was handed a $236 billion budget surplus.
2.When he LEFT office, he handed the Obama admin a $1.3 trillion defecit"

So what is the difference between a budget surplus and a deficit?

Shouldn't you compare deficits to deficits?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 04:35 PM

Shouldn't you compare deficits to deficits?


?????????

OK Bushes Deficit was Negative 236 billion. LOL!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 11 - 07:13 PM

Let me explain it to you, Sawzaw.

If you have $10 in your checking account after you have paid all your monthly bills, you have what is known as a $10 surplus;

If you have $10 in your checking account and you have $3,000 in bills, you have a $2,990 deficit.

$3,000-$10=$2,990

Simple arithmetic.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Jul 11 - 08:18 PM

So you are saying the national deficit went down because Clinton had a surplus? It actually went up nearly $18b

Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings, said on October 28, 1999:

So the table itself, according to the figures issued yesterday, showed the Federal Government ran a surplus. Absolutely false. This reporter ought to do his work. This crowd never has asked for or kept up with or checked the facts. Eric Planin--all he has to do is not spread rumors or get into the political message. Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false.

---

If have $10 left in your checking account at the end of the month but you took another thousand out of your savings account and spend that too, you have a $990 deficit, not a $10 surplus. Simple math.

There may have been $236 b left over after on budget spending the year Bush took office but there was also off budget spending that was taken out of the intra governmental holdings which resulted in a near $18b increase in the national deficit.

If there is a surplus, if the government spends less than it takes in, the deficit goes up not down. Simple math.

Calculating the national debt

The annual change in debt is not equal to the "total deficit" typically reported in the media. Social Security payroll taxes and benefit payments, along with the net balance of the U.S. Postal Service are considered "off-budget" while most other expenditure and receipt categories are considered "on-budget." The total federal deficit is the sum of the on-budget deficit (or surplus) and the off-budget deficit (or surplus). Since FY1960, the federal government has run on-budget deficits except for FY1999 and FY2000, and total federal deficits except in FY1969 and FY1998-FY2001.
In large part because of Social Security surpluses, the total deficit is smaller than the on-budget deficit. The surplus of Social Security payroll taxes over benefit payments is spent by the government for other purposes. However, the government credits the Social Security Trust fund for the surplus amount, adding to the "intragovernmental debt." The total federal debt is divided into "intragovernmental debt" and "debt held by the public." In other words, spending the "off budget" Social Security surplus adds to the total national debt (by increasing the intragovernmental debt) while the surplus reduces the "total" deficit reported in the media.
Certain spending called "supplemental appropriations" is outside the budget process entirely but adds to the national debt. Funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars was accounted for this way prior to the Obama administration. Certain stimulus measures and earmarks are also outside the budget process.
For example, in FY2008 an off-budget surplus of $183 billion reduced the on-budget deficit of $642 billion, resulting in a total federal deficit of $459 billion. Media often reported the latter figure. The national debt increased by $1,017 billion between the end of FY2007 and the end of FY2008. The federal government publishes the total debt owed (public and intra governmental holdings) at the end of each fiscal year and since FY1957, the amount of debt held by the federal government has increased each year.

Simple Math.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 11 - 10:19 PM

Cut-and-paste from the "Common Sense American Conservatism."

Quelle suprise!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jul 11 - 10:50 PM

There are two deficits that folks need to keep in mind... The first is a "cumulative deficit", i.e national debt, that takes into account not only what deficits and administration has inherited but the various interests that will fluctuate... The other is the "annual" deficit which deals with only a yearly snapshot of how an administration has done in a one year period...

The "cumulative deficit", i.e, that the country is now dealing with is mostly George Bush's wars that weren't paid for but borrowed for...

When we look at "annual deficits", the '09 budget was the last Bush proposed as the outgoing president leaves the next with the first year budget... Bush's came in a $1.4T... Obama's first "annual deficit" for 2010 came in at $1.3T... In simple words, that meant that the Obama administration cut the annual budget deficit by $100B with his first budget...

Now back to the cumulative deficit... T notes go up and down depending on how investors feel about the condition of the economy...

The US has long been looked at as this pillar of security and thus people have wanted to invest in *US* because they feel certain that their investments are safe...

Here's the rub if the Republicans push *US* into default... Investors will want more interest because that safety net will become shredded... This will drive up interest rates to consumers... This will also decrease the amount of $$$ that other folks, especially the Chinese, will want to invest in *US*... I other words, it will hurt our economy at a time when we need to keep investors confident in *US*...

Econ 001 (remedial, non credit...)

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 12:05 AM

Shouldn't you compare deficits to deficits?

Assuming all that you have said (cut and pasted?) is true Sazaw, You are still comparing an 18 B budget deficit to a 1.3 trillion short fall. That is not including the trillion dollars in health care liabilities incurred for gulf war injuries and the money lost to the the economy from artificially high oil prices from Cheney's misguided energy policy and from the war.

Not only that but one of Bush's Congress' first actions was to invoke a 300 "tax refund" which immediately turned that surplus or small deficit, whichever it was into a significant deficit.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 08:45 AM

Yeah, the right seems to want to revise history (as well as current events) and pin ***the deficit*** on Obama... Heck, 90% of it was handed over to him by Bush... But, no, that little factoid is not part of their narrative... They actually are using words and phrases that are ***fully intended*** to give Joe Sixpack the impression that Obama has created this situation...

The other half of their BIG LIE is that "We're broke"... Every Repub out there has been tutored to be able to say "We'broke" five times real fast so that any time a microphone is put in front of them they parrot "We're broke"... Facts be damned here, as well... The US is the richest country in the world, by far...

We are ***NOT*** broke!!!

The Dems had better learn that up and start cutting into the Repub mythology purdy soon...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 02:32 PM

Not only is the Bush Administration's deficit that Obama inherited being blamed on Obama, but the WARS that the Bush Administration has stated are also being blamed on Obama.

CAUTION: The following is a remark I heard recently, and it will undoubtedly be construed by some as racist. Perhaps so. But I hear it said by a black man during a discussion of the current situation

"This is not the first time that a black man has had to clean up a mess that a bunch of white men have made."

The Republicans and the "Tea Party" folks seem to have no long-term memory and their short-term memory seems to reach back only as far as the most recent Fox "News" broadcast.

Do we want people who are this ignorant, disingenuous, or out of touch with reality governing the country?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 03:56 PM

Nah, that ain't racists, Don...

I mean, as I read it, I could see that black man in my mind and hear the inflections... This is black humor that most likely would get a good hardy laugh at a country picnic and then, as in anything that is said at a country picnic that gets a good laugh, the guy would repeat it to another chorus of good laughs...

But on another level, it is also a true statement...

Thanks for the quote...

Back to the Tea Party for a minute... Most are completely oblivious to facts... Even after they were told there were no WMDs in Iraq they continued to ***believe*** that there were... Even after being told that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 they continued to ***believe*** that it had... These people are conspiracy theorists who will believe anything that someone they like (or respect) tells them to believe... They are the birthers... The deathers... And now they ***believe*** that the entire national debt is on Obama, that he started Buhsh's wars and that allowing the countries economy to go into default won't hurt our economy???

This is why revolutions are fought... When the greedy and the stupid get control the sane people will eventually have had enough...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 03:56 PM

It speaks to the myth of "working with" the Republicans. I believe that President Obama knows that this is impossible. He is just giving them enough rope to hang each other.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 09:45 PM

"90% of it was handed over to him by Bush" Is revisionist history.

56.6% is the correct figure spread over an 8 year period.

09/30/2000 national deficit $ 5,674,178,209,886.86

09/30/2008 national deficit $10,024,724,896,912.49
up 56.6% or 7.075% avg per year

09/30/2010 national deficit $13,561,623,030,891.79
up 73.9% or 36.8% avg per year or 52 times faster than George.

Democrats have been in control of congress and made up the budgets and spending since 2006.

Congress makes the budgets and the POTUS signs them. Congress can refuse to fund anything they want, wars etc.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 10:04 PM

Yeah, Jack... Obama thought he could change the tone in Washington and he has done just that... The Repubs are now at a deafening SCREAM... They think they can out-shout logic and reason...

BTW, the Repubs don't want to own Bush's '09 budget deficits of $1.4T even though it was Bush's last annual budget 'cause they'd rather lie than tell the truth...

BTW, Jack, Obama cut $100B in deficits with his first budget (2010) but would the Repubs (the new deficit hawks who never even spoke the word "Deficit" while Bush was running 'um up( say, "Hey, good job"???

Hell no they wouldn't... The truth isn't something that Repubs know much about these days...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: pdq
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 11:03 PM

Not only is the Bush Administration's deficit that Obama inherited being blamed on Obama, but the WARS that the Bush Administration has stated are also being blamed on Obama. ~ Propoganda Minister Firth


"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors…" ~ Bill Clinton    {Speech from the Oval Office by President William Clinton, explaining his attack on Iraq} December 16, 1998

      "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." ~ Bill Clinton in 1998

      "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." ~ Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

      "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." ~ Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

      "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." ~ Tom Daschle in 1998

      "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." ~ John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

      "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." ~ Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

      "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." ~ Al Gore, 2002

      "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." ~ Bob Graham, December 2002

      "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." ~ Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

      "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." ~ John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

      "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." ~ Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

      "Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." ~ Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

      "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." ~ Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

      "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." ~ Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

      "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." ~ John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

      "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." ~ John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 11:11 PM

Who ordered up the invasion just 2 weeks after Hanz Bliz told the world that the Iraqis were cooperating fully with the UN Inspection Team???

End of that discussion...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 12:59 AM

Here is the scoop on the list of quotes that Disinformation Dispenser pdq cut-and-pasted above.

While Snopes acknowledges that the people quoted did, indeed, say the things attributed to them, be sure to scroll down below the box that contains the quotes to the paragraph labeled "Origins," and read what follows.

The quotes, which have been cited on a large number of Right Wing web sites, were excerpted from longer quotes and taken out of context, which alters the meaning and intent of what the people cited were ACTUALLY saying.

The Snopes web site shows the entire quote, so you can read for yourself what was really being said.

POOF!!

Nice try, pdq, but sorry, No Sale.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 01:01 AM

"90% of it was handed over to him by Bush" This is from a person that said "you ain't going to hear a bunch of stats out of me cause I don't need um"

Bush ran up the deficit by by $4,350,546,687,025.54 in 8 years. which is 32% of the current deficit not 90%

If Bobert wants to revise history and claim Bush "owned" the '09 deficit then he is saying Clinton "owned" the 2001 deficit and did not hand the mythical surplus to Bush. Bush was handed the deficit that Clinton left which was $5,807,463,412,200.06 9/30/2001, $133,285,202,313.20 higher than it was the year before.

However I do want to compliment Bobert for actually writing some thing out and attempting to engage in a debate without nasty personal attacks atleast in that one post. Thank you for that Bobert.

"the "annual" deficit which deals with only a yearly snapshot of how an administration has done in a one year period..." was $17.9 billion the year of the mythical "surplus". It increased. If there was a surplus it would have shown up as a decrease.

Mr Firth is welcome to cut and paste anything he wants and we can discuss the factuality instead of trying to discredit it based on the source.

That is an Ad hominem circumstantial logical fallacy. It is an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy, an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 01:17 AM

Sawzaw, you're confused. YOU'RE the one who does all the cutting and pasting.

And be careful about attempting to get into an argument about the rules of logic with me. It's one of my areas of expertise. I'll take you on anytime.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 03:30 AM

Sawzaw, before you get so snotty with people, maybe you should at least be sure you have your definitions right. Bobert mentioned the deficit. You are giving figures for the National accumulated debt.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 09:42 AM

Yes, JtS... I have gone to lengths to debunk the usual cut 'n paste Republican spin machine on deficits with reality and really don't need to go thru the entire "Deficits 001" (non credit, remedial) again... It's not worth my time to rewrite it over and over because some folks either don't or won't allow themselves to take in anything that might contradict the propaganda that fills their heads...

I'd suggest to these people to check on a basic economics course at their local community colege and also tell them that they prolly won't get much out of the course if they don't remove the tin foil hats before walking into the classroom...

But here's just a quickie:

"The deficit" as defined by the Repubs = accumulated debt including all the debt that was passed onto any new president by the former one...

"Annual deficit" = Revenues - Expeditures during a fiscal (or calendar) year...

Facts:

George Bush's last annual deficit (2009*) = $1.4T

Obama's first annual budget deficit (2010) = $1.3T

in other words, Obama is the last president to cut an annual budget deficit, something, BTW that hadn't been done since Clinton and Carter before that...

(*2009 budget was in place when Obama was inaugurated in January of '09)

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 11:14 AM

Oh, just a couple other little inconvenient truths for the Repubs...

While George Bush was president the debt ceiling was raised 7 times without fanfare... No one made demands on Bush to do it... It was considered "clerical" and never politicized by anyone... Sure some folks voted aganst doing it (even Obama) for their own reasons but never in a block to try to gain political leverage...

Now here's the part that the Repubs must think the American people aren't aware of... Almost all of this debt was handed off to Obama... Yup, well over 90% of this debt belongs to his predecessors... Much of it George Bush's debt for wars that he choose not to pay for but put on Master Card of China...

So for Republicans to balk at paying for their own wars makes them hypocrites and deadbeats...

That's the real story here that Tea Party Nation is more than likely clueless about and given their propensity to believe conspiracy theories over facts wouldn't believe if they were made aware of the facts...

Normal... Lots of them still believe that Iraq was involved in 9/11???

Go figure???

It's no wonder that there are jobs pout there for which there are not enough educated people to fill... Educated people are moving toward the endangered species list... lol...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 11:37 AM

"I'll take you on anytime" I just did.

And I never accused you of any cutting and pasting. I said you are welcome to cut and paste anything you want.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 11:59 AM

Huffpo rhetoric Not fact: "the debt ceiling was raised 7 times without fanfare... No one made demands on Bush to do it... It was considered "clerical" and never politicized by anyone"

Obama Fact: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills," Obama said. The Senate narrowly approved raising the limit along partisan lines, 52-48, with all Democrats opposed.

Typically, the party that controls the White House has had to take the difficult vote to raise the limit, while the other party was free to criticize. An analysis of the past 10 years of votes on the debt limit from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center shows the vote usually splits along partisan lines, with the president's party voting in support.

Now we have at least one of Bobert's secret sources for his famous "Bobert facts"

Lsssee, Dems had a majority in congress for 2007 and 2008 so they could vote down raising the limit or spending for those Bush wars so why didn't they? And why do they blame their actions on Republicans just like they did slavery?

Yup, they could have voted against the Jim Crow laws, anti lynching laws etc. along with the Republicans but?? I guess It was considered "clerical" and never politicized by anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 01:02 PM

"America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

-- Sen. Barack Obama, March 16, 2006

Without fanfare

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 01:23 PM

"There is just no wiggle room. The Republicans did it."

http://zfacts.com/p/1170.html

Don't hesitate to follow links to the real data.

Please check the calculations yourself using the spreadsheet.

Yes, it was Reagan and Bush 1.

Forget about Bush 2 and Obama.

If not for Reagan-Bush tax cuts and spending increases, we would not be where we are today.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 02:14 PM

The fallacy of argumentum ad hominem can be phrased this way:   "What you say is wrong because you are a nincompoop," or variations thereof, such as "You are wrong because you have no education in that area."

The fallacy that Sawzaw is most frequently guilty of is the "argument from authority." "What I say is right because some 'expert' says so." Well, the "expert" himself can be wrong, even if he is an expert.

And maybe it's just me, but I generally don't regard Right-Wing blogs and web-sites (from which Sawzaw seems to have derived his education, and from which he chronically cuts and pastes) as "experts" on much of anything that relates to the REAL world.

You want to talk "logic" and "fallacies," Sawzaw? Bring it on!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 05:55 PM

Exactly, Don... But here is the kicker... Lots of these right winged bloggers are on payrolls... This is their job... They aren't here for any other reason but to spread Boss Hog's propaganda... They are hired to lie, twist, manipulate and generally spread mythology...

Corporate America sees an opportunity to take the country back to the 1890s in terms of them having their boot heel on the working man's neck and working them until they drop on the widget assembly lines... Corporate America doesn't think workers are like, ahhhh, real people... They are chattel... Like slaves... This is the grand vision of all the Boss Hogs...

What they don't get, perhaps because they have been to busy rigging the deck and stealing people lives and their labor, is history... This current crop of greedy people think that they are better than the ones that came before them... This has never worked... Never... At some point the people say "Fuck you" and go kill off enough of the kids who don't play well with other so that balance is restored...

The rich have had a 50 year run and they are at the end of the line... There really isn't anything more they can squeeze out of the American worker... The American workers wages have been stagnant for 30 years while prices and regressive taxes have gone up...

But to the righties??? They think they can pull off the trifecta and return *US* to the 1890s...

Ain't going to happen...

Like I have said... We are in a pre-revoltion period right now... The organizing of the Tea Party was a desperate attempt to hold off the inevitable and it will in the short term... In the long term it was a bad idea because the Tea Party people will come to realize what we on the left already know and that is that it ain't us on the left that are their problems, it's their masters, the Koch brothers and the Dick Armey's who want to pollute their air, poison their water, raise prices on everything, keep wages stagnant and make their health care unaffordable...

That is the real deal...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 12:17 AM

"expert" himself can be wrong, even if he is an expert.

Oh yes but you use logic to decide. Because there is the possibility does not rule out them being right or wrong.

Your logical fallacy was that something was untrue because of the source.

Now again you are asserting that things can be proven untrue because of the source. Another logical Fallacy.

To arrive at the truth you have to argues the facts, not the source or the person.

Yet I constantly hear right wing blog or left wing blog as a reason that something is not true.

Bobert is so arrogant and in love with himself that he will not divulge the source of his "facts". He just dreams them up like his "fact" that the West Bank is the most densely populated place on earth. Or that in Haiti 1% has all the wealth.

Is Bobert right or wrong? If he has no source then he must be claiming to be the authority and I would still like to know how he determined these facts. Having never been to Haiti or the West bank he must have some access to some sort of information or he could never determine these "facts".

I go to the US treasury website and dig up historic numbers about the US deficit and I am told they came from a right wing blog where the bloggers are paid. Nobody looks, Nobody checks. Nobody cares if their information is correct or not. They are not concerned about being correct and truthful because they have an agenda. They just continue their belligerent attacks on logic in order to support their "facts" because they cannot support them otherwise.

Again, I have brought it on.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 Jul 11 - 09:04 AM

Let's see if Ron can dispute these facts by simply finding the site they came from and discrediting the site rather than disproving the actual facts:

Democrats throw up a smoke screen to hide their responsibility for the deficit. They have been in control of spending since 2006 and have wholeheatedly voted for every spending bill when they could have voted them down. Now they are too untrustworthy to admit it.

Feb. 13, 2008 The first stimulus bill, H.R. 5140, became law, putting checks in the mail.         
215 House Democrats (93%) voted to add $124.4 billion to the deficit (CBO).
Senator Obama did not show up to vote.

July 30, 2008 H.R. 3221 became law, allowing the government to insure $300 billion in mortgage loans.         
227 House Democrats (96%) voted to add $24.9 billion to the deficit (CBO).
Senator Obama expressed support but did not show up to vote.

Oct. 3, 2008 H.R. 1424 became law, authorizing $700 billion for TARP.
172 House Democrats (73%) voted to bailout Wall Street with $700 billion (CBO).
Senator Obama voted for aTarp saying "It was the right thing to do."

Dec. 10, 2008 The House passed H.R. 7321 to bail out automakers. When it did not pass the Senate, the Treasury provided a bailout with very similar terms.
205 House Democrats (87%) voted to spend $16.168 billion (CBO)
With President-elect Obama's support.

Feb. 17, 2009 The stimulus bill, H.R. 1, became law, spending $787 billion on long-time Democrat priorities and pseudo tax relief for non-taxpayers.
246 House Democrats (96%) voted to add $787 billion to the deficit (CBO)
With President Obama's support.

Feb. 25, 2009 H.R. 1105 passed the House of Representatives, spending $410 billion on a pork-laden omnibus bill that gave big increases to existing government programs.
229 House Democrats (91%) voted to spend $410 billion
With President Obama's support.

Right there is over 2 trillion of the deficit, supported by the Democrats.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Jul 11 - 12:13 PM

Let's see if Ron can dispute these facts...

Ron who?

Democrats ... their responsibility for the deficit...

What facts? This is demonstrable bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Jul 11 - 04:57 PM

tHE rEPUBLICAN BIBLE

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jul 11 - 08:45 PM

"Your logical fallacy was that something was untrue because of the source."

Even a strongly biased source may be right. One checks the facts themselves. But when the cut-and-paste comes from a known biased source, that's a tip-off to be extra cautious.

No, Sawzaw. I do not simply dismiss material because it comes from a Right-Wing blog. I'm a better logician than that!

You can't slither out that easily.

Read up a bit on logic before you try to instruct me about logic, and don't further embarrass yourself.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Jul 11 - 08:48 PM

But, Don, embarrassing one's self is what Sawz is all about... You take that from him and what's left???

B:~)

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jul 11 - 09:22 PM

True. Sad, but true.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 04:07 AM

"There is just no wiggle room. The Republicans did it."

http://zfacts.com/p/1170.html

Don't hesitate to follow links to the real data.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 08:53 AM

Yeah, George Bush ran up a $3T bill on ***our*** Bank of China Mastercard to pay for not one but two unnecessary wars of choice and now the folks who cheered the loudest and longest for "Shock 'n Awe" are saying "Not our problem"???

If this was Newark, New Jersey and someone had told my Cousin Buddy that they had changed their mind about paying for the money he had lent them then Cousin Buddy's son, P.J., would be knocking on that person's door in a matter on minutes...

The Chinese need to send a few suma wrestlers around to knock on a few doors... Like Eric Cantor's just for starters... And Michelle Bachmann next... Johnny Bonehead, Mitchie Mac and the rest of the Repubs who don't want to pay ***their*** bills...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jul 11 - 08:54 AM

Opps... Sorry... The above post is mine but the "membership" clickie is shut down...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 03:47 PM

Sorry Don, I accidentally referred to you as Ron.

Now, how are you disputing the facts that Democrats overwhelmingly voted for spending that increased the deficit?

If it is demonstrable bullshit (a rhetorical device), please demonstrate.

You say "Even a strongly biased source may be right." but then you use another ad hominem attacks like "slithering out"

You claim "I do not simply dismiss material because it comes from a Right-Wing blog." But then you dismiss the material.

You have presented nothing but logical fallacys while claiming being an expert. A logician. A logician is a person, such as a philosopher or mathematician, whose topic of scholarly study is logic. Are you a philosopher, a mathematician or both? Or maybe you are like Bobert who claims: First of all, I am very rarely wrong!!! No brag, just pure fact!!!

Please present some logic instead of personal attacks.

I say that because Democrats voted for the spending that raised the deficit since the 2006 election when they gained a majority, 233 seats vs 202, and could have voted against it, it is not logical to blame it on Republicans.

Democrats also could have prevented raising the debt limit. Why didn't they?


WAPO: Senate Passes Iraq War Funding Bill
March 29, 2007; 2:06 PM

The Senate today defied a White House veto threat and narrowly approved a $122 billion war spending bill that calls for combat troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq this summer.

The 51-47 vote fell mostly along party lines, with two Republicans -- Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Gordon Smith (Ore.) -- joining Democrats in support of the package, which would fund U.S. military activity in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he was prepared to blame Bush if a veto fight slows down funding from reaching the military, including billions for veterans health care and other benefits.

"If the president vetoes this bill, it is an asterisk in history," said Harry Reid after the vote today. "He sets the record of undermining the troops more than any president we've ever had."

Sens. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) were absent from today's vote, while independent Sen. Joseph L. Lieberman (Conn.) joined Republicans in opposing the bill.

From the above it would seem that most Republicans were against the bill while all Democrats were for the bill.

Tell me what part of the deficit since 1/1/2007 did the Democrats oppose?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 04:52 PM

Go follow my link above, and go on from their to see the actual data.
The Republicans did it. "No wiggle room."

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 09:17 PM

You know TIA it is funny but I see nothing on that site about the deficit run up by Carter and Clinton.

How come?

You can check the facts here where they are not "interpreted" for you.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Warning: This is only for people that can analyze facts and draw their own conclusions.

Zfacts: "The National Debt. They started building the trap [that little bit of rhetoric should be a clue] in 1982. That's when the debt started going up (national debt graph) [which actually shows "Debt Compared to National Income" instead of national debt] after 35 years of going down from it's 120% peak in 1947."

Hmmmm according to the historical data at the US Treasury the deficit was 1,142,034,000,000.00 in 1982, up from the $771,544,000,000.00 that Carter began with, and $258,286,383,108.67 in 1947

So simple math tells me that the national deficit increased by $258.3 billion from 1947 to 1962 while the website says it decreased.

The zfacts site keeps mentioning budgets but what matters is the total money that the government spends each year which has since 1947 , with the exception of 1952, always been in excess of the budget and in excess of money taken in by the government due to off budget spending.

The extra is borrowed from the Social security trust fund and other intragovernmental holdings. In addition, money is borrowed from the public and foreign investore in the form of Tbills etc. and spent also.

This did not begin in 1982.