Amazing how facts get ignored. We were well on the way to solving our debts when those Republicans took power. They ran up debts. Even invented a war that cost us $trillions. We are still discovering and paying for the last $1trillion created by Mission Accomplished.

What did Republicans want to do? Reduce spending by $1trillion over ten years. They forget that they joyfully massacred 5000 American servicemen in a war that had no purpose. And that costs somewhere between $2 and $3 trillion. Cut $1trillion in ten years because they spent two or three trillion in Mission Accomplished?

What happened to the government surplus? It was spent on tax cuts and welfare to the rich. And other programs that eventually created a massive 2007 recession. But somehow all that get forgotten to blame Obama.

The war with Afghanistan was required by the oath of office of the President. Bush had no choice there.

The war with Iraq was another matter, of course. There, I believe Saddam had just made himself into a huge PITA, after invading Kuwait AND Saudi Arabia, making a 10 year war with Iran, and gassing the Kurdish towns (3 of them iirc).

Saddam's secret service had also tried to assassinate Bush Jr's dad, when he went to receive an award in Kuwait or Qatar (it failed, but hardly endeared Saddam to the Bush family).

We knew that the economy in Iraq was shot to hell. Their oil production had been falling for years, with many plants barely working at all. Plus, Saddam had rebuilt his Army to a HUGE level, calling on national fervor ad's to get recruits (it worked).

There was no doubt in anyone's mind that Saddam was going to attack a nearby country. You don't keep an Army that large, hanging around, just training do you?

No. You use it. Saddam also had a large fleet of mobile missile launchers, and a fair amount of Scuds to use, as well. They became a BIG problem for us, to find and destroy, during the war.

I believe Bush was just convinced by Cheney and Rumsfeld and the CIA, that taking out Saddam now, would be a good idea. Much better than waiting for him to attack another country in the Middle East.

People like to smear Cheney, he is not afraid to be a hawk on matters, but the truth is, Cheney is one very smart dude, and he cuts right to the chase. I don't know what all our options were at that time, but Cheney did, of course. As did Bush and Rumsfeld, and the CIA.

The fight to remove Saddam didn't go well, because Al-Qaeda and the Bath party, used it to raise a huge groundswell of support for joining them, and fighting us in guerrilla fashion. No one could have predicted how successful they would be at it. (OK, one prof. from Columbia U did predict it, and did advise the Pres about it, but nobody believed him, so :( !)

Our big spending problem was exacerbated by the wars - no doubt. But there are much bigger issues: Top two are Social Security, (which is slowly going broke), and Medicare (which Bush Jr. substantially increased the coverage and cost of).

The longer we wait to fix them, the worse the fixing will have to be. We know that. Everybody knows that. But we can't get enough conservatives in Washington, to get the fixing done! The Democrats won't touch it, and the RHINO's won't either, but it needs to be FIXED!

*RHINO: Republican In Name Only.

You've accidentally identified America's biggest problem.


Why do you continue to send Tea-Baggers to Washington when its conservatives you need? What we really need are fiscal realists who know the price of instability and will work across the aisle with other serious people. The more baggers you send to Washington the more comfortable the left gets sending their nutters.

It's just RINO, there is no H.

Yeah, I know. I just like the H for the mental image it brings up. Also, it's how it's pronounced, with a long 'i', instead of a short one.

@Griff:

The nutters were there first - by far. Republicans and conservatives work and take care of their families and don't really have time to go nutters about issues in Washington.

Until they feel threatened. Then you get the Tea Party, Sons of Liberty, etc.

Frankly, I don't believe there's a ghost of a chance of working with the likes of Nancy "food stamps are a great stimulus to the economy" Pelosi, and Harry "sonOfABitch" Reid.

Like now, the President and Reid call for negotiations - but the pre-condition is they have to have EVERYTHING they want, before the negotiations can begin.

Can you fuckin' imagine that?

Not just everything they want for Obamacare - NO. They want the debt ceiling lifted enough for the next half a year or so, as well. (not sure of the time, but it's a long time).

I realize Pelosi drives some people nuts... maybe that's just her job
... or maybe she's the scorpion ... it's her nature, and she just cain't hep it. :rolleyes:

In any case, Adak, you've used the epithet several times now,
so I assume you believe Pelosi's remark is not true.
But before getting too gleeful in your assumptions, there is this:

Wikipedia:

Hoist on their own petard
 

Let me answer this.

I believe it is because the Republican party deciders decided that they'd be better off in the long run if they could have more people in Congress. In an effort to make that possible, they used their energies to redraw Congressional districts to make as sure as possible by gerrymandering the ever-loving-f*ck out of as many districts as they could control. To be fair, this is something to be desired by weak thinkers, or thinkers of weak ideas in both parties. But the Republicans have torn that shit UP!

Because ... as a result of... it's difficult to discern cause and effect here... regardless, now we have the case that many districts are NOT COMPETITIVE. If there's no competition for the election, there's no meaningful exchange of ideas. That "compromise" that Adak pines for so loudly is irrelevant, and therefore not present.

For people with closed minds, made up minds, weak minds, this is very comfortable. And those comfortable voters are like great big steamy piles of poo for the ... they're not poo. But they're intellectually dead, because they're not taking in new ideas. And they're attractive to the carrion feeders politicians who'll eat any free lunch. Campaign money (PAC, SuperPAC, corporate) also factors heavily in this equation.

Competitive districts favor more moderate candidates, ones who are more likely to listen to the ideas of the loyal opposition, indeed, ones who are more likely to have reasonable ideas to be heard by their equally moderate opponents. Think about all the talk you've heard about the fear of being "primaried" from those in Congress. They aren't fearful of losing a fight to an opponent of the other party (unless the "other party" is the Tea Party), they're worried that they're not "conservative" enough. I use "conservative" in "quotes" because these labels are becoming less useful.

These districts are RIDICULOUS.

I think that's the funniest thing I've read all week.

Good grief.

Check this one out.

Fortunately, you know the Keynesian model of economics, has been roundly put into the trash bin, as bunk.

Wealth comes from adding something to our economy, that we didn't have before. Maybe a company builds a better surgical robot, maybe it's a more desirable "smart" phone. Maybe it's a better elevator.

The goal should be that people should find their way in our economy, so they don't need to rely on welfare. The gov't can assist in that endeavor! Relying on welfare is just riding on the backs of those who have been working.

Your numbers make it sound like we're getting some real benefit, but consider that for every dollar the private sector is taxed for welfare, only 60 cents or so, actually goes back out to welfare. The system is a bureaucracy, not a volunteer charity. All those social welfare workers, the people who make the stamps/cards, etc., all have to be paid.

Gerrymandering is a very old tradition in America. Each party does it. In CA, the Democrats are the big gerrymanders, virtually ensuring a victory in every state election, goes to the Democratic candidate.

Gerrymandering was used long before there even was a Republican party.

Adak, once again you have diverted off to talking about "wealth", "goal", "taxes" etc.
That's either a debating tactic, denial, habit, O/C, or whatever ?

We started with Pelosi's comment about food stamps being a stimulus to the economy.

It's very simple...
When $ is spent on food in a local food store, it is income to the store.
When the store has income, it spends $ on employees, supplies, advertising, maintenance, and profit to the owners.
When people don't have $ to spend in the local food store, the store goes out of business.
That is the local economy.

When the government gives low income people $ 1.00, they spend it in the food store,
and it's employees and suppliers and advertising firms and contractors
and investors, each in turn spends portions of that $1 generating the $ 1.84 in the other expenditures.
That is the stimulus to both the (local and national)economy.

So, Pelosi was right... Right ?

By the particular school of economic thought which stood and stands in opposition to it and which created the phantom economics of the global crash.

There are many economists who still consider Keynesian economics to have value.

For those who may be wondering about the question:
Why not give individuals the same delay as businesses in signing up for Obamacare ?

Washington Post
Stephen Stromberg
10/7/13

Here is a very readable 1-page article that includes a link to that interview,
and explains differences between businesses and individuals under the ACA...

THAT is true!! :thumb:

I'm in shock. :p: