Budget talks: This is getting nasty

Yeah, that's the other thing.

Republicans love talking about "shared sacrifice".

Where was the "shared sacrifice" when we started these wars?

The GOP was so intent on re-creating World War II because they thought we'd go in, kick Iraq's ass, celebrate Mission Accomplished, and they'd be able to control the government for the next 20 years.

They forgot, or ignored, that the homefront sacrificed during World War II as well. 92 percent tax rate. Rationing for gas and food. Scrap metal drives. War bonds.

Nope. Just keep putting the costs on the bill. Oh wait, let's just keep it secret in the name of "national defense of freedom" or some crap catchphrase like that.

 

I'm sorry, but this is just plain dumb. Does anyone remember back to 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003?

The internet bubble had burst and the economy was already slowing.

The event that put us on the path to war in Afghanistan and Iraq was a terrorist attack that was devastating to our economy.

Business travel came to a near standstill after 9/11. trade shows, conferences, and meetings of all kinds were canceled after 9/11.

My company at the time -- Continental Airlines -- laid of people soon after 9/11, and as a direct result of it. Many airlines declared bankruptcy. Some went out of business.

And, amidst all of this, you really think raising taxes would have been the right move? Really?

It would have killed the economy. Killed it.

Bush gets mocked for his "go shopping" advice, but encouraging economic activity was critical. People hoarding cash and moving it to the sidelines would have only led to more problems. It's a big part of the current problem.

 

Business is told to "go shopping" for new opportunities and worthwhile employees, and most do little other than sit in their throne in their money bins and look for the cheapest-borderline employees, overseas.

It's every man and woman for himself, kiddies. Loyalty's a joke. Many of the biggest multinationals
are busy turning their backs on the US. Best of luck.

 

No, I didn't say raise taxes. Bush should have kept taxes at the same rate. And not started a war that has cost us trillions of dollars.

Instead, he started a war. He wayyyy underestimated the cost, both for our soldiers, and financially. He thought it would be just another "Splendid Little War", and guess what? He was .... wrong!

If you don't want everyone to sacrifice in a war, then don't start one.

 

Fredo noted how POTUSes engaged in wars usually get re-elected.

He needed every angle he could muster in '04 -- even against the stiff the Dems threw up -- after his first four-year "performance".

Heaven help us.

 

"I'm a war president."

 

Then why aren't we doing anything in Syria? They are slaughtering protestors. And Iran, during the proprotests when it was the time to topple the administration there...we sat back and did nothing while the government slaughtered protestors. Seems like Obama picks and chooses where he wants to stand up for American values.

 

Let the good times roll.

 

In light of the current debate, this is a particularly absurd and short-sighted post. You should win a prize or something.

We're talking about having a government that's responsible for the budget here, remember? Don't spend what you don't have. Part of that is when you have an added cost that the country is going to want to take on, you have to be up front about it.

You run up debt by trying to have your cake and eating it too. This is a perfect example. I don't care what your motivation, you can't go take over two countries without addressing expenses. The American public is mature enough to understand that.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-adviser-blames-tea-party-downgrade-155220470.html

On the other hand, no one ever thought Obama decided to force this to discredit the Tea Party, which dared to challenge his spend-spend-spend policies? And yet, could a hidden motivation of the Tea Party been to keep Obama from spending on his agenda? There's clearly more to this than meets the eye, but damn if the Obama administration is going to take any blame. It's ALL, ON BOTH SIDES, ABOUT GETTING RE-ELECTED RATHER THAN PRINCIPLE. My biggest problem is that the left in here doesn't allow the left any blame nor responsibility in this.

 

Which is it, are you criticizing the POTUS for spending money there or are you criticizing him for not spending enough? Can't have it both ways.

Personally, I think he's playing the cards right here. Foster the uprising. Help it succeed. Don't get too involved and have to get caught up in nation-building. The Arab Spring, or whatever you want to call it, will eventually win the day.

 

That's a "hidden motivation?" I thought this debate had moved well past that. This is certainly about Obama and what he represents to the tea party (debate exactly what that is all you want. I'd say it's a combination of just about everything some might bring up.).

When I bring up how a former president didn't even try to justify spending for two wars, a poster who has been cheerleading the Tea Party the entire thread quickly came to the defense of the deficit spending in that case. So you're right, it's clearly about the singer, not the song. It's also very hollow to say "oh yeah, we were against that too." Oh you were? Wow, I never would have known.

Thanks for making that point.