HEARTLESS wrote: Iraq is probably close to 90% complete. Afghanistan is closer to 60% but imagine fighting in the biggest Alaskan mountain ranges with an enemy that has caves, tunnels and years of guerrilla warfare experience. I'm sure the military is sorry for not meeting our instant gratification timeline.
Who is blaming the military? you? certainly not me.......they have done the best they could while being put into a situation that basically sucks. Both wars were hastily planned and poorly executed.....from the top, not on the ground. I blame the previous administration....yes Bush and his desire to make a name for himself as the great war president......little did he know that his lies would be revealed, his planning would be inadequate, and the war would drag on long after his presidency. He sent our troops into war without a plan to win the war or an exit strategy.
The same old excuses, what has the Commander and Chief so many of you helped put in office done? Was it his immediate unquestioning aid of our troops (NOT), his brilliant war strategy (NOT), what has he done?
HEARTLESS wrote: The same old excuses, what has the Commander and Chief so many of you helped put in office done? Was it his immediate unquestioning aid of our troops (NOT), his brilliant war strategy (NOT), what has he done?
LadyJazzer wrote: Nope... Not happy about it at all... It's too bad that after being handed a surplus, Bush and his cronies left us with that $10.6 TRILLION debt the day Obama took office...
Seems to me I remember that Bush inherited a little over $6 Trillion of that debt from his predecessors and in his first 6 years, when Republicans controlled the appropriations, it rose to around $8.5 and in the final two years, when Democrats controlled appropriations, it jumped the final $2 Trillion. Of course, with Democrats in control of everything it has jumped an additional $3 Trillion in just the last 20 months, with still more being added every time they vote on something in Congress and budget projections adding yet another $1 Trillion plus annually for the next decade, though for some strange reason they can't get around to actually passing a budget for the fiscal year that started almost 3 months ago.
The reality of the situation is that we would have to cancel every other function of government to pay for the entitlement welfare programs that constitute the "mandatory" budget items with our current federal tax revenues which are within historical parameters as a percentage of the GDP of the nation. The problem with the federal budget is not the cost of the functions of government that Congress was actually empowered to oversee, it is the cost of the creations of the federal government in areas that they had to usurp power and twist new meanings from the Constitution in order to invent of of thin air.
The manner in which we must conduct ourselves to return our budget to balance is quite clear. We must eliminate from that budget the individual social welfare spending that the Congress was never empowered to create in the first place. It is the source of the deficit spending and in order to cure the disease one must remove the source of the sickness, not simply treat the symptoms that the disease creates.
PrintSmith wrote: We must eliminate from that budget the individual social welfare spending that the Congress was never empowered to create in the first place. It is the source of the deficit spending and in order to cure the disease one must remove the source of the sickness, not simply treat the symptoms that the disease creates.
Why, yes... You are surely right... It was all the Democrats fault that Bush lied us into two unnecessary wars that were unpaid for, and another $700Billion for an unpaid for Medicare Drug program...And surely, even with the Democrats in charge of the appropriations for ONLY the final two years of the Bush Administration, he was unable to use his veto-pen to stop it. And surely, the only way to "save" us all is to eliminate Social Security and Medicare...
(...and don't call me 'Shirley'...)
rofllol rofllol
Let me know how that works out for ya...
As I've said before, repeatedly, I'm SO glad I live under the Constitution that we HAVE and not the one you and your Federalist sympathizers envision.
archer wrote: What makes us the laughing stock is our inability to provide healthcare to all our citizens, being involved in two unwinable wars, and paying out the big bucks to our millionaires. Those are hardly liberal ideas. Oh...add not putting emphasis on education.
What is really sad is that you view this as a function of a government that was instituted to provide the maximum amount of individual liberty and freedom possible for its citizens. The federal government wasn't created to look out after your individual health archer, it was created to protect the union of the states. It was never a function of the general government to provide healthcare for the citizens. It was never intended for the general government to provide you food, clothing, shelter or subsistence of any kind. As even FDR acknowledged prior to his election to the presidency, the social welfare of the citizens was not within the purview of the federal government according to the Constitution. That was, and still should be, a function of the state government alone.
The federal government isn't there to make sure that the people living in Kentucky have enough to eat or that they can see a doctor when they are ill, that was never intended to be a function of the federal government. Not according to any of the arguments presented during the drafting of the Constitution, not according to any of the amendments attached to it since that time, not according to any of the arguments publicly presented that argued for the adoption of the Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, and not according to even the most progressive of the progressives when he was the governor of a state. Addressing the individual welfare of the person by the federal government is a wholly modern invention garnered from twisting an entirely new meaning from the phrasing of the Constitution. Show me one instance, just one, where anyone arguing for the adoption of the Constitution said that it gave Congress an unlimited power to legislate under the taxing authority being proposed. Just one instance archer. Given the depth and breadth of the writings that argued exactly the opposite of that idea, there must be at least one instance where it was supported if indeed that was what it was intended to do.
PS...may I assume you disagree with making amendments to the constitution? Do you want us to go back to the original document and repeal all amendments?
The Supreme Court decides what is constitutional and what is not......not you.
PrintSmith wrote: We must eliminate from that budget the individual social welfare spending that the Congress was never empowered to create in the first place. It is the source of the deficit spending and in order to cure the disease one must remove the source of the sickness, not simply treat the symptoms that the disease creates.
Why, yes... You are surely right... It was all the Democrats fault that Bush lied us into two unnecessary wars that were unpaid for, and another $700Billion for an unpaid for Medicare Drug program...And surely, even with the Democrats in charge of the appropriations for ONLY the final two years of the Bush Administration, he was unable to use his veto-pen to stop it. And surely, the only way to "save" us all is to eliminate Social Security and Medicare...
(...and don't call me 'Shirley'...)
rofllol rofllol
Let me know how that works out for ya...
As I've said before, repeatedly, I'm SO glad I live under the Constitution that we HAVE and not the one you and your Federalist sympathizers envision.
I dunno Shirley, seems like your pointing out that $700 Billion was added to the deficit for an unpaid for Medicare Drug program confirms, rather than refutes, my premise that the reason we are $14 Trillion dollars in the hole is because of social welfare spending. I appreciate the help, but I thought you were trying to say that the deficit came from other places and not from the invented individual welfare that is nowhere to be found as a power of Congress in the Constitution.
I'm really not interested in your Constitution Party
, LawAndLiberty
, ReasonOfFreedom
, PoliticsOfLiberty
, TeaPartyPatriot
excursions into what you THINK the Constitution says, or should have said. The Supreme Court interprets, and has done so for a little over 230 years. Their interpretations of what it means are what is important, and not the libertarian nonsense of the radical right. The "general welfare" clause was not "invented", but obviously it has been interpreted to mean something you don't agree with.
Oh well....
I said EXACTLY what I intended to say...which was that George W. Bush took us from a surplus to a $10.6-TRILLION deficit the day Obama took office, and did it with TWO unpaid-for wars, 10 years worth of unpaid for tax-cuts, and a $700-BILLION unpaid for prescription drug benefit.
rofllol 
