• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Fiscally Responsible Republicans is what we need

A

Anonymous

Guest
Under Bush this is what we got in way of National debt growth:

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


Date Dollar Amount
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

WE really need to get these guys back in office to fix things huh?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I guess we'll just let you continue to believe that Bush was responsible for all those budgets, so you can make a fool of yourself more places than just here.

You're such a Constitutionalist. :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
I guess we'll just let you continue to believe that Bush was responsible for all those budgets, so you can make a fool of yourself more places than just here.

You're such a Constitutionalist. :lol: :lol: :lol:


well you think Obama is the reason everything is wrong now because your brainwashers tell you to believe that right?

these numbers are from the govt you love so much...that would never hurt americans on purpose...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
shaumei said:
hypocritexposer said:
I guess we'll just let you continue to believe that Bush was responsible for all those budgets, so you can make a fool of yourself more places than just here.

You're such a Constitutionalist. :lol: :lol: :lol:


well you think Obama is the reason everything is wrong now because your brainwashers tell you to believe that right?

these numbers are from the govt you love so much...that would never hurt americans on purpose...

Like I said, I'll just continue to let you look like a fool.

One that can't read or comprehend by the looks of it either.

I've said many times that the Republicans that have moved left over the years spent too liberally. And that they need to get back to their Conservative roots.

Have you been able to define "neocon" yet? Will voting "progressive" move you left or right on the political spectrum from "neocons"
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
shaumei said:
hypocritexposer said:
I guess we'll just let you continue to believe that Bush was responsible for all those budgets, so you can make a fool of yourself more places than just here.

You're such a Constitutionalist. :lol: :lol: :lol:


well you think Obama is the reason everything is wrong now because your brainwashers tell you to believe that right?

these numbers are from the govt you love so much...that would never hurt americans on purpose...

Like I said, I'll just continue to let you look like a fool.

One that can't read or comprehend by the looks of it either.

I've said many times that the Republicans that have moved left over the years spent too liberally. And that they need to get back to their Conservative roots.

Have you been able to define "neocon" yet? Will voting "progressive" move you left or right on the political spectrum from "neocons"

i am enjoying exposing you as a hypocrite. you cannot ask the dems to do something your rep did not do... on the other hand, i am on neither of those teams....i am for our country....that is my team.
 

jingo2

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
I guess we'll just let you continue to believe that Bush was responsible for all those budgets, so you can make a fool of yourself more places than just here.

You're such a Constitutionalist. :lol: :lol: :lol:


Ok...if don't Bush was resp. for any of the debt listed......

then how is Obama resp. for the debt since then?
 

Tam

Well-known member
jingo2 said:
hypocritexposer said:
I guess we'll just let you continue to believe that Bush was responsible for all those budgets, so you can make a fool of yourself more places than just here.

You're such a Constitutionalist. :lol: :lol: :lol:


Ok...if don't Bush was resp. for any of the debt listed......

then how is Obama resp. for the debt since then?

When he is the leader of the party that controls BOTH the Senate and the House with super majorities YES he is responsible for what is happening. :roll:
 

jingo2

Well-known member
Tam said:
jingo2 said:
hypocritexposer said:
I guess we'll just let you continue to believe that Bush was responsible for all those budgets, so you can make a fool of yourself more places than just here.

You're such a Constitutionalist. :lol: :lol: :lol:


Ok...if don't Bush was resp. for any of the debt listed......

then how is Obama resp. for the debt since then?

When he is the leader of the party that controls BOTH the Senate and the House with super majorities YES he is responsible for what is happening. :roll:


So then you agree that Bush WAS resp for his debt....

Whew it seemed llike for a minute there you were usin 2 diff yard sticks to measure by....
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
jingo2 said:
hypocritexposer said:
I guess we'll just let you continue to believe that Bush was responsible for all those budgets, so you can make a fool of yourself more places than just here.

You're such a Constitutionalist. :lol: :lol: :lol:


Ok...if don't Bush was resp. for any of the debt listed......

then how is Obama resp. for the debt since then?

Congress holds the purse strings-
the president submitts a budget, congress ammends to suit themselves and votes, the president can only sign or veto what congress passes. If it is passed by a veto proof majority then the President is not responsible.
If the president signs without a veto-proof majority then he is in acceptance, and therefore an assesory and equally responsible.
obama and the democrats are responsible for the last 2 years worth of spending. Bush and the democrats are responsible for the 2 years preceding. Whoever controlls congress is responsible for spending.

So if Bush didn't veto any spending bills that didn't have a vetoproof majority he is equally responsible as the party in charge! (which was republican except the last two years)
This is the reason Republicans need to elect Conservatives to office to replace the statists. The liberal RHINO's has had a devisating effect to the GOP which was evident in the last election- now the liberal Democrats will suffer a similiar fate this election cycle.
People want change, both parties right now are too close together in the political spectrum.
Constitutional Conservative- now that's Change you can believe in!
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Lonecowboy said:
jingo2 said:
hypocritexposer said:
I guess we'll just let you continue to believe that Bush was responsible for all those budgets, so you can make a fool of yourself more places than just here.

You're such a Constitutionalist. :lol: :lol: :lol:


Ok...if don't Bush was resp. for any of the debt listed......

then how is Obama resp. for the debt since then?

Congress holds the purse strings-
the president submitts a budget, congress ammends to suit themselves and votes, the president can only sign or veto what congress passes. If it is passed by a veto proof majority then the President is not responsible.
If the president signs without a veto-proof majority then he is in acceptance, and therefore an assesory and equally responsible.
obama and the democrats are responsible for the last 2 years worth of spending. Bush and the democrats are responsible for the 2 years preceding. Whoever controlls congress is responsible for spending.

So if Bush didn't veto any spending bills that didn't have a vetoproof majority he is equally responsible as the party in charge! (which was republican except the last two years)
This is the reason Republicans need to elect Conservatives to office to replace the statists. The liberal RHINO's has had a devisating effect to the GOP which was evident in the last election- now the liberal Democrats will suffer a similiar fate this election cycle.
People want change, both parties right now are too close together in the political spectrum.
Constitutional Conservative- now that's Change you can believe in!

You need to put that in much simplier terms so kojingo can understand it :wink:
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
hopalong said:
Lonecowboy said:
jingo2 said:
Ok...if don't Bush was resp. for any of the debt listed......

then how is Obama resp. for the debt since then?

Congress holds the purse strings-
the president submitts a budget, congress ammends to suit themselves and votes, the president can only sign or veto what congress passes. If it is passed by a veto proof majority then the President is not responsible.
If the president signs without a veto-proof majority then he is in acceptance, and therefore an assesory and equally responsible.
obama and the democrats are responsible for the last 2 years worth of spending. Bush and the democrats are responsible for the 2 years preceding. Whoever controlls congress is responsible for spending.

So if Bush didn't veto any spending bills that didn't have a vetoproof majority he is equally responsible as the party in charge! (which was republican except the last two years)
This is the reason Republicans need to elect Conservatives to office to replace the statists. The liberal RHINO's has had a devisating effect to the GOP which was evident in the last election- now the liberal Democrats will suffer a similiar fate this election cycle.
People want change, both parties right now are too close together in the political spectrum.
Constitutional Conservative- now that's Change you can believe in!

You need to put that in much simplier terms so kojingo can understand it :wink:

Bush and his Congress way way way overspent! :(
obama and his congress have spent 4 times as much! :???:

There how's that? :D
 

Bullhauler

Well-known member
hopalong said:
Lonecowboy said:
jingo2 said:
Ok...if don't Bush was resp. for any of the debt listed......

then how is Obama resp. for the debt since then?

Congress holds the purse strings-
the president submitts a budget, congress ammends to suit themselves and votes, the president can only sign or veto what congress passes. If it is passed by a veto proof majority then the President is not responsible.
If the president signs without a veto-proof majority then he is in acceptance, and therefore an assesory and equally responsible.
obama and the democrats are responsible for the last 2 years worth of spending. Bush and the democrats are responsible for the 2 years preceding. Whoever controlls congress is responsible for spending.

So if Bush didn't veto any spending bills that didn't have a vetoproof majority he is equally responsible as the party in charge! (which was republican except the last two years)
This is the reason Republicans need to elect Conservatives to office to replace the statists. The liberal RHINO's has had a devisating effect to the GOP which was evident in the last election- now the liberal Democrats will suffer a similiar fate this election cycle.
People want change, both parties right now are too close together in the political spectrum.
Constitutional Conservative- now that's Change you can believe in!

You need to put that in much simplier terms so kojingo can understand it :wink:


It seems to me it is Tam that has the understanding /comprehension problem on this thread.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Bullhauler said:
hopalong said:
Lonecowboy said:
Congress holds the purse strings-
the president submitts a budget, congress ammends to suit themselves and votes, the president can only sign or veto what congress passes. If it is passed by a veto proof majority then the President is not responsible.
If the president signs without a veto-proof majority then he is in acceptance, and therefore an assesory and equally responsible.
obama and the democrats are responsible for the last 2 years worth of spending. Bush and the democrats are responsible for the 2 years preceding. Whoever controlls congress is responsible for spending.

So if Bush didn't veto any spending bills that didn't have a vetoproof majority he is equally responsible as the party in charge! (which was republican except the last two years)
This is the reason Republicans need to elect Conservatives to office to replace the statists. The liberal RHINO's has had a devisating effect to the GOP which was evident in the last election- now the liberal Democrats will suffer a similiar fate this election cycle.
People want change, both parties right now are too close together in the political spectrum.
Constitutional Conservative- now that's Change you can believe in!

You need to put that in much simplier terms so kojingo can understand it :wink:


It seems to me it is Tam that has the understanding /comprehension problem on this thread.

Ok that must be true because you said it! :wink: :wink:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Lonecowboy said:
jingo2 said:
hypocritexposer said:
I guess we'll just let you continue to believe that Bush was responsible for all those budgets, so you can make a fool of yourself more places than just here.

You're such a Constitutionalist. :lol: :lol: :lol:


Ok...if don't Bush was resp. for any of the debt listed......

then how is Obama resp. for the debt since then?

Congress holds the purse strings-
the president submitts a budget, congress ammends to suit themselves and votes, the president can only sign or veto what congress passes. If it is passed by a veto proof majority then the President is not responsible.
If the president signs without a veto-proof majority then he is in acceptance, and therefore an assesory and equally responsible.
obama and the democrats are responsible for the last 2 years worth of spending. Bush and the democrats are responsible for the 2 years preceding. Whoever controlls congress is responsible for spending.

So if Bush didn't veto any spending bills that didn't have a vetoproof majority he is equally responsible as the party in charge! (which was republican except the last two years)
This is the reason Republicans need to elect Conservatives to office to replace the statists. The liberal RHINO's has had a devisating effect to the GOP which was evident in the last election- now the liberal Democrats will suffer a similiar fate this election cycle.
People want change, both parties right now are too close together in the political spectrum.
Constitutional Conservative- now that's Change you can believe in!


don't forget the overlap of budgets. Bush did not sign his first one until later 2003, if I'm not mistaken. there were only 4 years within the eight that there was a Republican Pres. congress and Senate. That was the first time in 52 years or something like that.\


As you can see by the charts below:

Democratic Congresses 23
Republican Congresses 10




And obama, with helpe from a Dem. Congress has doubled the debt incurred by all other Presidents combined.


ScreenHunter_01Sep231739.gif


ScreenHunter_02Sep231739.gif





and it has been said many times on here, by Republicans/Conservatives, that Bush spent too much. but obama has spent twice as much, and the budgets for the next 8-10 years will be affected.

"Baseline spending"

How many times have we heard Dems. on Ranchers say obama is spending too much? So which party is responsible for more of the accumululated debt?


If you are interested in voting for increased spending and debt, vote Dem.

the last 2 years should have proved that to you.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
jingo2 said:
hypocritexposer said:
I guess we'll just let you continue to believe that Bush was responsible for all those budgets, so you can make a fool of yourself more places than just here.

You're such a Constitutionalist. :lol: :lol: :lol:


Ok...if don't Bush was resp. for any of the debt listed......

then how is Obama resp. for the debt since then?

I have said many times that the Republican party has moved too far left on the political spectrum and that Bush's spending was too liberal. Can you define "Neocon"? maybe I should have highlighted "all."

when was the last time you accused obama of being a liberal spender. You do realize that he has doubled the debt of all other Presidents, combined.

If Bush's spending was irresponsible, why isn't obama's? Why wasn't the spending of a Democratic congress the last 2 years of Bush's Presidency irresponsible? Let me guess you voted against Bush, because a Dem. Congress presented him with a "huge" budget deficit 2 years in a row, that he did not veto? What would you have said if he had vetoed them? And would they haave passed without his signature or not?

Did you think a Dem. congress was just going to change their ways with a Dem. President in power, or take the opportunity to up the "anti" (BASELINE)?

"Oh, but the TARP bill that was signed by a Dem congress/Senate was Bush's fault too."

Great, so does he get credit for it coming in at an estimated $89 billion, instead of the estimated $356 billion? What portion does obama get credit for, after the banks pay it all back? How will this amount compare to the obama stimulus plan, that was a complete failure and was filled with paybacks and "pork"

Can you think of any solution to the problem that you voted against in 2008? Let me give you a hint:

Vote out liberals and progressives, whether they are members of the Democrats or the Republicans. Put an "X" beside the name of a true Conservative. Whether she dabbled in witchcraft as a teenager, or chooses not to masturbate. Her personal life 20 years ago isn't going to affect you in the least. And nor should it, it's her body and soul, let a her choose.

Looks like Jingo2 took over from where shamoo left off.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Bullhauler said:
hopalong said:
Lonecowboy said:
Congress holds the purse strings-
the president submitts a budget, congress ammends to suit themselves and votes, the president can only sign or veto what congress passes. If it is passed by a veto proof majority then the President is not responsible.
If the president signs without a veto-proof majority then he is in acceptance, and therefore an assesory and equally responsible.
obama and the democrats are responsible for the last 2 years worth of spending. Bush and the democrats are responsible for the 2 years preceding. Whoever controlls congress is responsible for spending.

So if Bush didn't veto any spending bills that didn't have a vetoproof majority he is equally responsible as the party in charge! (which was republican except the last two years)
This is the reason Republicans need to elect Conservatives to office to replace the statists. The liberal RHINO's has had a devisating effect to the GOP which was evident in the last election- now the liberal Democrats will suffer a similiar fate this election cycle.
People want change, both parties right now are too close together in the political spectrum.
Constitutional Conservative- now that's Change you can believe in!

You need to put that in much simplier terms so kojingo can understand it :wink:


It seems to me it is Tam that has the understanding /comprehension problem on this thread.

looks like it was explained to both you and kojingo in words you can undertstand :wink: :wink:
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Great info Hypo- Thanks for sharing

You have several very informative posts on here tonight.

you are right- I didn't take into account overlaps in budget!

I was oversimplifying and even then was the accused of not making it simple enough.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
we have spent over $1 trillion on the iraq and afghanistan wars so far. this was done so the elite ruling class could make money..period..they have done this on our backs.
 
Top