Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Tuesday, July 07, 2009

The U.S. should consider drafting a second stimulus package focusing on infrastructure projects because the $787 billion approved in February was "a bit too small," said Laura Tyson, an adviser to President Barack Obama.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

JOE

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Their excuse for the first stimulus was that it would be used for infrastructure projects, then they blew it. Now they promise this one will be "focused on infrastructure projects." Are we to believe that? And if true, is there money for this?

The only cure for the failures of socialism is more socialism.

Considering they've released 10B of the first stimulus, what in the fucking world is this guy thinking? This administration is beyond a joke.

Their website claims $56.3B has been released. It's still only 7% of the total amount approved by the bill. What happened to using this for "shovel ready" projects?

www.recovery.gov

What happened to using this for "shovel ready" projects?

Posted by JOE

Most of it went to pay off his political supporters. The ditch diggers must be Republicans.

More cowbell!

Obama Adviser: First Stimulus "A Bit Too Small"

OMG, LMAO. Just a "bit" too small? Here comes yet another $2 trillion dollars they are pulling out from thin air. Apparently the pay off for getting Obama elected wasn't quite large enough.

Bend over America, and grab your ankles. Your jail house daddy is coming back for more.

Bend over America, and grab your ankles. Your jail house daddy is coming back for more.

#8 | Posted by JeffnDenmark at 2009-07-07 11:32 AM

....says the pussy who fled to douchemark.

Almost $800 billion was not enough???

You've got to be kidding me?

This doesn't even factor in TARP or the auto bailout monies.

So, we are at over $1.5 trillion AND counting?

Obama doesn't have a clue and apparently, neither do his advisors.

Obama Adviser: First Stimulus "A Bit Too Small"

July 7 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. should consider drafting a second stimulus package focusing on infrastructure projects because the $787 billion approved in February was "a bit too small," said Laura Tyson, an adviser to President Barack Obama.

Posted by JOE

FF

how come rcade won't let us FF the article?

More cowbell!
#6 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Damn you!

I almost lost my lunch on that one.

Paul Krugman thinks that without another stimulus we're looking at a deflationary spiral like the one Japan was stuck in for a decade.

They want a second round after Biden admitted that they didn't have a clue about the economy. Makes sense to me.

Obama doesn't have a clue and apparently, neither do his advisors.

#10 | Posted by JeffJ

THAT is newsworthy.

AND no one is talking about THAT....

I like how San yesterday was posting links that Obama wasn't considering a second stimulus.

Guess the advisors didn't get the memo...

About Japan--

Between 1992 and 1999, Japan passed eight stimulus packages, totaling roughly $840 billion in today's dollars. During that time, the debt-to-Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ratio skyrocketed, the country was rocked by massive corruption scandals, and the economy never recovered. All Japan had to show for it was a mountain of debt and some public works projects that look suspiciously like bridges to nowhere.

www.reason.com

I'm withholding my should be obvious commentary since the link links to Bloomberg's 'Terms Of Service'. Some kinda lawyerly trick Joe?

The economy has a fever and the only precription is more stimulus.

July 7 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. should consider drafting a second stimulus package focusing on infrastructure projects because the $787 billion approved in February was "a bit too small," said Laura Tyson, an outside adviser to President Barack Obama.

The current plan "will have a positive effect, but the real economy is a sicker patient," Tyson said in a speech in Singapore today. The package will have a more pronounced impact in the third and fourth quarters, she added, stressing that she was speaking for herself and not the administration.

Tyson's comments contrast with remarks made two days ago by Vice President Joe Biden and fellow Obama adviser Austan Goolsbee, who said it was premature to discuss crafting another stimulus because the current measures have yet to fully take effect. The government is facing criticism that the first package was rolled out too slowly and failed to stop unemployment from soaring to the highest in almost 26 years.

Obama said last month that a second package isn't needed yet, though he expects the jobless rate will exceed 10 percent this year. When Obama signed the first stimulus bill in February, his chief economic advisers forecast it would help hold the rate below 8 percent.

Unemployment increased to 9.5 percent in June, the highest since August 1983. The world's largest economy has lost about 6.5 million jobs since December 2007.

Worse Than Forecast

"The economy is worse than we forecast on which the stimulus program was based," Tyson, who is a member of Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory board, told the Nomura Equity Forum. "We probably have already 2.5 million more job losses than anticipated."

Republicans, including House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, seized on the latest labor numbers to attack the Obama administration's handling of the economy.

Even Democrats have bemoaned the pace of the package's implementation. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, said on "Fox News Sunday" June 5 that congressional Democrats are "disappointed" stimulus funds weren't distributed faster.

"The money is just really starting to come out in more significant amounts now," Tyson said. "The stimulus is performing close to expectations but not in timing."

Package Affordable

Tyson, 62, later told reporters that the U.S. can afford to pay for a second package, even as the fiscal deficit soars. She said the budget shortfall is "likely to be worse" than the equivalent of 12 percent of gross domestic product that the administration forecast for 2009 and the 8 percent to 9 percent it projected for next year.

The professor at the University of California's Walter A. Haas School of Business downplayed worries from China and other countries with dollar reserves that the U.S. will let inflation soar as the deficit expands.

"The concern is that the U.S. will have to inflate away its debt. I do not think that is a valid concern," she said. "The Federal Reserve is not going to let the U.S. government inflate away its debt."

The U.S. needs to communicate its determination to reduce the annual shortfall once the economy recovers, she said.

While unemployment is worsening, other data have shown the economy is improving. U.S. manufacturing shrank last month at the slowest rate since August, according to the Institute for Supply Management's factory index, and a measure of pending home sales advanced in May for a fourth month.

Tyson said the U.S. should shift away from its dependence on consumption to grow, and promote expansion through investment and exports. The dollar will need to weaken in the longer term to promote export-led growth, she said.

LOL... this administration is a joke. anyone who didn't see this coming needs to take the blinds off.

There are only two possibilties:

1. They are too stupid to see that they are destroying our economy.

2. They are intentionally trying to destroy our economy.

Either way we are screwed, everyone is on their own. Stock food, ammo, fuel, water, seeds.

I truly don't get it. Liberals up in arms over BUSh spending like a drunken sailor with his Republican Congress.

Obama comes in spends and proposes more spending in the FIRST MOTHER FUCKING HALF of the FIRST YEAR than Bush did in all 8 years and Liberals love this mother fucker.

This guy Obama is a real Mother Fucker. Literally, because every Mother's child is going to bear the brunt of this Marxist fucking prick.

BTW, I was banned for 2 weeks, probably because I called to many people Mother Fuckers. But hey, they are and time will prove I am right. Bush was a Mother fucker, and Obama is 2x worse.

Kuma

Kuma find way back from dark place.

a little early to be drinking, don't you think SAR?

wait! i got it. that's a Tonto impression?

wait! i got it. that's a Tonto impression?

#25 | Posted by edb

No, its an unfrozen caveman lawyer impression. You've obviously not been paying attention to responses to Kuma from both sides of the aisle here.

"Stock food, ammo, fuel, water, seeds."
#21 | Posted by fwthom at 2009-07-07 03:05 PM | Reply

In this economy? Who has the money to do that right now?

I've come to realize that those on the left that cried out against the spending of the WBush days were really just on the Michael Moore bandwagon protesting the war. The economy really made a turn AFTER Dems took control of both houses. The blood is on their hands.

In walks tall, dark, and handsome. After almost 7 months: barely a peep about his spending. So, Green and Social projects justify this spending? What about the next round of stimulus?

This is absolutely ridiculous and an all out shame and sham. I was against the first stimulus, I was against Bush's spending he did at the end, and now this!?! How is it that a regular guy like me is able to foresee that the first stimulus would do nothing yet these A-holes in Washington say otherwise and I'm proven right? This is a disaster and they need to just leave it the hell alone. Quit spending trillions of dollars we don't have. Trillions! Unbelievable.

There is no way you Obama supporters can defend this. But I'm sure Danni will be along shortly to tell us all how spending this kind of money is the only way out of the recession. Bullshit.

"The economy really made a turn AFTER Dems took control of both houses. The blood is on their hands."

You have no idea how economies work, do you?

What do you believe is at the root of the meltdown, and who wrote and enacted the laws that lead to that fiasco?

Obama comes in spends and proposes more spending in the FIRST MOTHER FUCKING HALF of the FIRST YEAR than Bush did in all 8 years and Liberals love this mother fucker.

Obama, like Bush in the last four months of his term, is trying to avoid another Great Depression. The normal rules do not apply.

The part that really pisses me off is that they said most of this money was supposed to go to infrastructure and I haven't heard of one project that is in the works. Spending money on our infrastructure needs to be done but I don't see it happening. I realize not all the money has been spent but we should expect to hear some type of progress report with this type of spending. I guess we just got it when Biden said they don't know what they're doing.

"The normal rules do not apply."

What if the "normal rules" say that what we are doing will make things worse?

First time I have read KUMA.

He makes more sense than the rest of you mother fuckers...

Its not the size of the bailout, its who got the money that is the problem. Manipulative, lying motherfuckers that run Goldman-Sachs and their partners in legalized organized crime.

Obama, like Bush in the last four months of his term, is trying to avoid another Great Depression. The normal rules do not apply.

#31 | Posted by rcade

Well, it's obvious that you bought into the fear mongering. We are no where near another Great Depression and we wouldn't have been without the stimulus either. For you to say something like that shows that there are people that the scare tactic worked on.

The normal rules do not apply.
ROFL! You can say that again!

Instead of the Japanese inflation, you are looking at Weimar Republic hyper inflation, thanks to communist Obamanomics 101.
You'll be pushing you dollars in a wheelbarrow to Wallmart to buy Chinese crap with toxic chemicals in it.

Obama will say & do anything to make himself look stronger. So don't be surprised when he says, "What we need is more spending."

The part that really pisses me off is that they said most of this money was supposed to go to infrastructure and I haven't heard of one project that is in the works. Spending money on our infrastructure needs to be done but I don't see it happening. I realize not all the money has been spent but we should expect to hear some type of progress report with this type of spending. I guess we just got it when Biden said they don't know what they're doing.

...and very little of this money will be used for infrastructure projects either. Just another money grab, like "TARP" was. Then in another year and a half when we are no closer to out of this recession, we'll be talking about the new plan organized by the infrastructure czar to jumpstart new projects across the country.

Deep down all you guys knew that it would take another round of stimulus to stop the plummet of the economy.

Look at the way Bush spent money in the last months of his term.

Do you think John McCain and Sarah Palin would have done anything differently? Do you think that they would have went off W's course of attempting to stimulate the economy and using government money to bail shit out?

HYPOCRITES.

Both sides were gonna need to borrow a shit load of money, what is in question is how REPUBLICANS would have UTILIZED THE BORROWED MONEY if THEY were in power.

I am also interested in what all of you guys would do, since you surely know more about economics than Nobel Laurets(sp) and Economics Masters from Harvard and other schools that you and I did not go to/would not have made it in.

The only cure for the failures of socialism is more socialism.

well it sure ain't western capitalism! seems to me socialism is being called upon to bail out capitalism's greed and corruption yet again.

have-measures avail us nothing.

You're 'have' an idiot, do you know that?

"well it sure ain't western capitalism! seems to me socialism is being called upon to bail out capitalism's greed and corruption yet again. "

Yep. Socialism always has to save capitalism from its own excesses.

I am also interested in what all of you guys would do, since you surely know more about economics than Nobel Laurets(sp) and Economics Masters from Harvard and other schools that you and I did not go to/would not have made it in.

#40 | Posted by Kreator

It's pretty obvious that this administration has no idea what's going on when they come out and say that they "misread" the economy. Are we actually supposed to trust that they know what they're doing? Saying that they misread the economy is just like saying we had no idea what to expect but our advisers told us we needed to spend to get out of the recession. Other experts said to leave it alone and it would fix itself and I agree. But, you keep on believing that they really know what they're doing.

who here didn't think it was going to get worse, far worse? i sure did even long before the election.
but go ahead, blame Obama first, then reach out into air and grab socialism to blame next. wow, that's, like, really intelligent. a great plan. I 'm surprise we haven't been "invested" in a plan and an attitude just like that... oh, since about Reagan?

I know what you mean nulli. I have to call the roto rooter guy occasionally to remedy my "excess"

But when he's done I simply pay him and he leaves. He doesn't move in

Kuma find way back from dark place.

ya, the question is why?

You're damn right people are blaming Obama, Ichiro, and they are correct in doing so. Just because Bush did what he did does not mean that a true conservative would have done the same thing. If a true conservative were in the White House we would not be spending money we didn't have. Certainly not in these amounts.

Yep. Socialism always has to save capitalism from its own excesses.

Nothing like a few trillion dollars to cure excess.

One thing for sure is that I would _not_ want 95% of the people on this thread in charge of the economy at this junction. The commonality here is that they not only don't understand the situation or the stakes, but they don't even understand what the various "experts" are saying. Hell, I'd take Sarah Palin first.

The most important thing in any crisis is to understand the crisis and react to that understanding. Sitting on a political/economic/social belief and demanding that reality adhere to it is loco.

"I am deeply concerned. Deeply."

--Barry

"If a true conservative were in the White House we would not be spending money we didn't have. Certainly not in these amounts."

And just when did we have a "true conservative" in the White House???

Reagan...3 trillion debt
Bush 1...2 Trillion debt
Bush 2....5 Trillion debt

So, I guess the only "true conservative" was good old Bill Clinton who actually had us on the road to a balanced budget and a surplus. Of course, he had to do the responsible thing and raise taxes a bit and we will have to soon again.
Face it losers, you can track most of our economic problems to several things

1. Free Trade
2. Two Wars
3. Tax cut for the rich

We won't fix the economy until all three are dealt with. The stimulus, etc. is just an attempt to keep us from falling off a cliff.

We won't fix the economy until all three are dealt with. The stimulus, etc. is just an attempt to keep us from falling off a cliff.

Posted by danni a

ff

I say we impeach the bastards for being stupid.

"Nothing like a few trillion dollars to cure excess."

Capitalism produces a whole lot of excess. Ever hear of the stock market bubble, housing bubble, etc?

Capitalism produces a whole lot of excess. Ever hear of the stock market bubble, housing bubble, etc?

It appears you are confusing the Federal Reserve with Capitalism.

In this economy? Who has the money to do that right now?

Good luck finding ammo. 7.62 x 39 was out of stock for a long time when I was buying it. Decided to let someone else worry about it and sold off the rifle and ammo I had to stock up on 12ga steel, lead and 00 buck with a thousand rounds of 9mm for good measure.

Seeds are easy. Buy what you eat and grow it. Allow some to bolt and go to seed. Save the seed.

We won't fix the economy until all three are dealt with. The stimulus, etc. is just an attempt to keep us from falling off a cliff.

When someone attached to the administration says differently, will you flip flop your position again, Danni?

You're about as credible as Karl Rove.

Probably the first step would be to stop paying interest to the Federal Reserve and to start printing our own money. Expect an assasination if Obama has the guts to propose such a radical idea.

Posted by danni at 2009-03-18 10:59 PM


All aboard! The Socialist Train is coming through.

Offering Kool-Aid and Pall Malls free of charge.

toot toot

The Obama Administration is made of incompetent fools led by the Jackass In Chief Barack Obama.

Obama is spending this country into historic debt. How do these douchebags know we need another stimilus? They have only spent 5% of the current stimulus bill spending? At least spend the other 95% before making the judgment on getting another. Obama truly does hate America! He wants this to be 3rd world nation ruined for generations to come. He refused to wear the American flag pin during his election. He insults England and Israel, our closest allies, but kisses ass to Venezuela, Cuba, Iran and Russia who all hate America. Obama is a piece of sh#t!

#2 will go to help states balance their budgets and fund social programs.jobs created =0

"...Israel, our closest allies..."

especially when they need a check:>)

"It appears you are confusing the Federal Reserve with Capitalism."

Not at all. All capitalist societies have central banks. The Fed is just a right-libertarian bogeyman. It's operated by capitalists in the interests of capitalists. It probably should be nationalized and the Fed board fired, and replaced with individuals that reflect all sectors of society, not just bankers.

I would hope that a wise Latina Federal Reserve Board member with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life. Only wise Latina women speaking the language of known conflict have now become the entire housing military.

This "Presidential" team is all about confusion and then they strike with a "what looks good idea" with all the chaos going on... If the sheep don't wake up, it is going to get very ugly. I would like to hear of where he is benefitting "hard working" americans who busted their butts??? I think its time to tell the slackers it is a time of reckoning and that they have to do something to get something... Maybe a second job? An eductaion that pays off? Something other than a feeloader governement position with overpaid perks that hey manipulate? Correct union abuse... How about going back and retroactively asking for some pensions that were rediculous to be refigured? The politicians that vote for these giveaway programs need to be identified and then crucified at the polls....

#63 | Posted by JOE at 2009-07-07 05:42 PM

*Yawn*

Not at all. All capitalist societies have central banks. The Fed is just a right-libertarian bogeyman. It's operated by capitalists in the interests of capitalists. It probably should be nationalized and the Fed board fired, and replaced with individuals that reflect all sectors of society, not just bankers.

The Federal Reserve is as capitalist as OPEC. If the free market were setting interest rates instead of a banking cabal, there would have been no bubbles.

you can track most of our economic problems to several things

1. Free Trade
2. Two Wars
3. Tax cut for the rich

We won't fix the economy until all three are dealt with. The stimulus, etc. is just an attempt to keep us from falling off a cliff.

#52 | Posted by danni at 2009-07-07 05:04 PM

Free trade - Yea thats what really hurt us. We would be better off if we impose huge tariffs and required people to buy american made goods only.

Two Wars - Wars are what get people out of a depression or ression. It causes massive government spending and will stimulate the economy

Tax cuts - also stimulate the economy as proven by both Reagan and Clinton and agreed on by most economists

What brought the economy down is the specualtion and outright fraud in the housing / Banking markets. How we should deal with that is the debate that determines if you are a liberal or conservative. Liberals want to bail everyone out and reward failure. Conservatives want to see the banks, loan brokers, and the guy who bought too much house on specualtion and lack of income swollow that debt and chock and die. Failure is not rewarded but instead the market fairly punishes. Which are you Danni? In favor of bailing out failure or letting the market punish them for their bad decisions and greed?

Conservatives want to see the banks, loan brokers, and the guy who bought too much house on specualtion and lack of income swollow that debt and chock and die.

Some conservatives...don't forget where TARP came from.

Which are you Danni? In favor of bailing out failure or letting the market punish them for their bad decisions and greed?

Bail baby bail...Danni loves bankers.

"Conservatives want to see the banks, loan brokers, and the guy who bought too much house on specualtion and lack of income swollow that debt and chock and die"

liberaltarian?

perhaps some of you need to run a google search for "stimulous package pork". you'll find bits like:
"We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons...

and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately." -- online.wsj.com

yup, very stimulating.

"stimulus" before the spelling Nazis kick in my front door.

....says the pussy who fled to douchemark.

#9 | Posted by jerrytarkanian

But he is right.

"The Federal Reserve is as capitalist as OPEC. If the free market were setting interest rates instead of a banking cabal, there would have been no bubbles."

Sure. Get rid of the Fed and watch the centuries-old boom-bust cycles of capitalism disappear.

And what do you have against OPEC? They are just trying to maximize profits, like every good capitalist.

What do you believe is at the root of the meltdown, and who wrote and enacted the laws that lead to that fiasco?

#30 | Posted by Danforth

My guess it was the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act and it's revisions in later years.

What's your guess?

The economy really made a turn AFTER Dems took control of both houses. The blood is on their hands.

#28 | Posted by phys_ill

How many months or years did we hear a great recession was comming? You say something enough and it happens.

Well, it's obvious that you bought into the fear mongering. We are no where near another Great Depression

According to what criteria? Job numbers are atrocious. The people who do have jobs are getting less hours. I'm tired of all the spending too, but the argument for government stimulus is much stronger than the argument to sit back and wait.

"My guess it was the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act and it's revisions in later years. What's your guess?"

My guess is you're an idiot.

or the Dems blocking oversight of FNMA and FHLMC in 2003 and again in 2006. Guess who helped kill the bill in 2006. hint: he was a junior senator.

12 cents on each dollar Rcade... maybe they should have spent 88 cents of each dollar on stimulus instead of pork.

#52 | Posted by danni
Danni what color is the sky in your world?

"or the Dems blocking oversight of FNMA and FHLMC in 2003"

Republicans had majorities everywhere in 2003, and controlled every committee and every agenda.

You're merely admitting the Republicans can't govern, even when they control all three branches of government.

You need to go away again you little troll.

"the argument for government stimulus is much stronger than the argument to sit back and wait."

LOL. Is this based on the enormously positive effects of the first stimulus?

What an 'unexpected' surprise NOT!

As Joe meathead Biden, the 'chosen' to run the stimulus plan said

"The truth is, there was a misreading of just how bad an economy we inherited," Vice President Joe Biden told ABC News. Really?

What about the "worst economy since the Great Depression"?

"Yet, says Biden: "The truth of the matter was, no one anticipated, no one expected that the recovery package would in fact be in a position at this point of having to distribute the bulk of the money."

"But that's not the "truth of the matter" at all. Many economists and conservative politicians warned explicitly about this very problem. So did IBD. And so did numerous other media outlets. The notion that no one brought it up is simply false."

ibdeditorials.com

So much for the stimulus promised to be "temporary, targeted and timely"

$400 million for global-warming research

#70 | Posted by edb

WTF? There sould be no reason for Cap n' Trade, there's money allocated already in the "stimulust for power" bill.

Check out the EPA-sponsored partnership program laid out in the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 -- Google: WaterSense

"Is this based on the enormously positive effects of the first stimulus?"

Now, now...don't go all John Boehner on us:

crooksandliars.com

What if the "normal rules" say that what we are doing will make things worse?

Have not seen anything thing but rhetoric implying that it won't work.

Even more idiocy listening to the rhetoric because its party political grandstanding, and has nothing to do with actually evaluating the economic condition.

The dems get in the way of something and danforth steps in for them and makes it the republicans fault.

Obvious attempts to shill for dems equals a real conservative?

Don't think so.

How troubled he must be to live in such denial

One of the many definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Hummm.....

"The dems get in the way of something and danforth steps in for them and makes it the republicans fault. "

The Dems are idiots, but that doesn't mean the stimulus should be judged at this point. How is that the Republicans' fault?

"Obvious attempts to shill for dems equals a real conservative?"

I posted both traditionally conservative and traditionally liberal positions. I never claimed I was a real conservative. Or a real liberal. I'm a lifelong independent, and to date, have voted for more Rs than Ds, though the last few elections have narrowed the lead considerably. Regarding "shilling", I'm coming at this as an economist. With only 10% of the stimulus monies spent, it's foolish to judge the whole thing. And that would be true regardless the letter after the name. The fact it was a Republican who was jumping the gun on judgement was, of course, merely a coincidence. (BTW, I also think talking about a second stimulus before the first has run its course it foolish as well.)

You never answered my question on the Biden thread about how the concept of paying one's bills is "liberal".

Have not seen anything thing but rhetoric implying that it won't work.

Even more idiocy listening to the rhetoric because its party political grandstanding, and has nothing to do with actually evaluating the economic condition.

#88 | Posted by roman at 2009-07-07 07:14 PM

how is this for rhetoric?

DOW: 8,163.60 -161.27 -1.94% 07/07
S&P 500 INDEX 881.03 -17.69 -1.97% 07/07
unemployment > 9.5%

July 2008: DOW: 11,231.96 at close.
Unemployment: 5.5%

And the economy was collapsing! we were approaching the next Great Depression!

And we were never supposed to break 8% unemployment Biden tells the truth this past weekend. they don't know what the fuck they are doing.

that's
DOW: 8,163.60 -161.27 -1.94% 07/07/09
S&P 500 INDEX 881.03 -17.69 -1.97% 07/07/09
unemployment > 9.5% 6/2009

Another stimulus sounds good to me.

"And we were never supposed to break 8% unemployment"

Who said that? The left certainly didn't think that the Bush recession wouldn't exceed 8%. In fact, the Bush recession might hit 11 or 12% before starting to decline.

or is "we had incomplete information" Obama right?

the same bastard that blasted PGWB for an intelligence failure regarding WMDs in Iraq. the same bastard blasting rendition, yet keeping it in place. the same bastard that blasted Bush over Guantanamo, yet deciding some terrorists are too dangerous to release, so must be held WITHOUT TRIAL FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES. yea, moral high ground my ass. that fucker is so low, such a liar, he only sees the bottom of my shoe and his teleprompter.

Biden said it this weekend Null.

"Biden said it this weekend Null."

He didn't say squat in support of your nonsense. And Biden wasn't in charge when the economy had a trainwreck. An rtard was.

Years from now when we can somehow find another RWR we will look back on this STIMULUS as the one thing that has kept The USA from pulling itself out of its recession. It is the working men and women of the USA that will pull this thing out of the recession that we are in. Say what you want but the current President is almost single-handedly put us in the greatest recession that we have ever seen. We have seen the largest transfer of wealth from the earners to the moochers that we have ever seen. I just hope and pray that I can hang on long enough to see someone get into the White House that wants to get their hands off of my country and out of me and my families pockets, and leave my freedom alone. LET ME LIVE MY LIFE, ENJOY MY LIBERTY, AND PERSUE MY HAPPINESS.

Paul Krugman thinks that without another stimulus we're looking at a deflationary spiral like the one Japan was stuck in for a decade.

#13 | Posted by rcade at 2009-07-07 02:50 PM

Are you talking about the one that the Japanese said if they had a chance to do over they wouldn't have done it? That one?

Some like to ignore all the facts. I would like to have done without the first one.

"how is this for rhetoric?"

It's more like cherry-picking. Dow 11,000 in Jul '08?!? Why not the Dow 8,000 when Bush walked out of the Oval Office? Oh, that's right...because the DJIA is about the same as when Obama took office, something Bush certainly couldn't say after inheriting a Dow at 10,500.

How much should the first stimulus package have cost then?

Paul Krugman thinks that without another stimulus we're looking at a deflationary spiral like the one Japan was stuck in for a decade.

#13 | Posted by rcade at 2009-07-07 02:50 PM |

Paul Krugman is an idiot. The Japanese spent less than that in all the wrong places just like this stimulus package and their economy was stuck in the muck for a decade.

Another stimulus like the last one will doom us for 20-30 years.

I'm coming at this as an economist. With only 10% of the stimulus monies spent, it's foolish to judge the whole thing.

I disagree.

One of the biggest criticisms of the so-called stimulus bill was that monies that could actually be regarded as 'stimulus' (sic) were WAY too slow in terms of entering the market. That doesn't even take into account all of the money funneled toward non-stimulus Dem pet-projects.

It is anything but foolish to judge the whole thing.

It was a shitty bill and remains a shitty bill.

It hasn't accomplished what it was purported to do, yet the taxpayers are on the hook for an additional $800 billion in debt.

Jeff-
Thank Bush

Jeff-
Thank Bush

Is that what we can expect out of you Obamabots over the next 3 years...Bush deflections?

Bush had nothing to do with the crafting of this horrendous bill.

In fact, the GOP almost universally opposed the bill.

Your beloved DNC created this monstrosity - now they, and you, get to own it.

KUNA is now one of my DR favorites!

He's got you Obamnoids pegged to a tee.

Kuma like Denmark.

Kuma

Who said that? The left certainly didn't think that the Bush recession wouldn't exceed 8%. In fact, the Bush recession might hit 11 or 12% before starting to decline.

#95 | Posted by nullifidian

money.cnn.com

Joe Biden, Austan Goolsbee, Cristine Rhomer and the WH said that repeatedly.

Clear proof the dr left has their heads so far up obama's ass they can't hear what is said...AND as usual suffer from selective reading/memory/thinking

How long are we going to have to listen to "we inherited this mess" before everyone on the left decides it's time to stop using that line? You can only use that excuse for so long before the sheep stop believing it.

Pres. Bush is certainly partially culpable for the mess we're in. That's a given. A true conservative will certainly agree with this statement. But what he did is dwarfed by what's going on today.

How long did we hear about how Bush pushed the deficit to $500 Bil. give or take? What's $500 Bil. Compared to at LEAST 4 times that amount?

Either the current Admin and congress are completely incompetent or completely corrupt. There's no other explanation as to what's going on.

So which is it, Libs?

If Obama fails, the country succeeds. I hope Obama Fails.

How long are we going to have to listen to "we inherited this mess" before everyone on the left decides it's time to stop using that line? You can only use that excuse for so long before the sheep stop believing it.

We have people here who seriously blame Reagan for our problems today.

Some sheep will believe anything.

"And we were never supposed to break 8% unemployment"

Who said that? The left certainly didn't think that the Bush recession wouldn't exceed 8%. In fact, the Bush recession might hit 11 or 12% before starting to decline.

#95 | Posted by nullifidian

Obama said that unless we pass the stimulus unemployment would reach 9%. It surpassed that number last week.

Danni, there is no way in hell that Reagan would have supported a stimulus of this size, especially 2 or 3 of them. He believed strongly in the free market and he would have left it alone to correct itself, with maybe a little help along the way.

He may have had a large debt but he still believed in a smaller government and he outspent the Russians in the military and we were second to none then. He also cut taxes. These are the things that define a true conservative. Don't get the word conservative mixed up with someone who saves money. If it needs to be spent it will be spent and it needed to be spent.

Obama said that unless we pass the stimulus unemployment would reach 9%. It surpassed that number last week.

BUT, if they hadn't... it would have been worse!

(Yep, the excuse still works)

Watch this next stimulus be "absolutely critical" to pass as fast as possible, under the premise of saving jobs, which nobody will read and then Obama will go on vacation.

Neverlong,

Raygun would have done exactly what his handlers told him to do. The poor senile old fart was in early Alzheimers when he took office and was barely able to say his lines throughout his term in office.

But since you losers love him so much, why don't we revert to the tax rates at the end of his term?

Danni, there is no way in hell that Reagan would have supported a stimulus of this size, especially 2 or 3 of them. He believed strongly in the free market and he would have left it alone to correct itself, with maybe a little help along the way.

He may have had a large debt but he still believed in a smaller government and he outspent the Russians in the military and we were second to none then. He also cut taxes. These are the things that define a true conservative. Don't get the word conservative mixed up with someone who saves money. If it needs to be spent it will be spent and it needed to be spent.

Playing the part of Danni today: Iraqibukkake!

Everlong, where were you when Bush was running his wars and running up deficit spending? It wasn't an issue when he was in office, but now that a democrat is in there, it's a big problem, hmmmm???

"Some sheep will believe anything."

Including if you drive the ship of state off the cliff, you're only responsible until you pass off the steering wheel.

Well, Danni/Iraqibukkake, spending money on a war is very different than printing trillions of dollars for government programs when it is not even known if it will be the solution to the recession. There are plenty of experts who believe that our economy would have fixed itself with little or no intervention. Obama is spending money, four times as much as Bush did during his entire term, on a wish and a prayer. Bush's spending on the war had a very good reason behind it. We were attacked and we took the fight to the enemy.

"We were attacked and we took the fight to the enemy."

At long last, do you actually believe that tripe?

The poor senile old fart was in early Alzheimers when he took office and was barely able to say his lines throughout his term in office.

But since you losers love him so much, why don't we revert to the tax rates at the end of his term?

#116 | Posted by axe

Axe, the beginning of his Alzheimers came near the end of his second term. If it would have started at the beginning of his first term he would have been in bad shape by the end of his second. And if Reagan's advisers told him to spend a trillion dollars on the hopes of fixing the economy I doubt he would have listened to them. He hated spending money on government programs and projects and that would have been a huge amount for them.

"Joe Biden, Austan Goolsbee, Cristine Rhomer and the WH said that repeatedly.

Clear proof the dr left has their heads so far up obama's ass they can't hear what is said.."

I said "the left". As opposed to corporate centrists like the names you mentioned.

I damn sure do believe it, Danforth. Were we not attacked? Would we have gone into Iraq had we not been attacked? Those on the left will say yes simply because they believe that Bush wanted to attack everyone. How many times did we hear that he would attack Iran before leaving office? There were many factors for going to war with Iraq and taking the fight to the enemy was one of them.

"I damn sure do believe it, Danforth. Were we not attacked? Would we have gone into Iraq had we not been attacked? "

Um...we weren't attacked by Iraq, so I guess the answer is "yes".

Um...we weren't attacked by Iraq, so I guess the answer is "yes".

No doubt Congress was with Bush as well right? Afterall, they voted to use force and continued to fund the war.

"No doubt Congress was with Bush as well right?"

Every politician after 9/11 was afraid of their own shadow. What does that have to do with Everlong's cockamamie concept that we invaded Iraq to take it to the attackers?

Really? We weren't attacked by Iraq? Like I said, we went into Iraq for many different reasons. We were attacked and the fight in Afghanistan was not going to go very far in making a dent in the problem. We were looking for anywhere to take the fight to the Islamofacists and Iraq made the most sense. It had all the right reasons, and we could do it legally based on the cease fire agreement made after the Gulf War. Thousands of terrorists and Al Qaeda have been drawn to Iraq to be killed and we got rid of a tyrant and have set up a decent form of government right in the middle of the ME.

What does that have to do with Everlong's cockamamie concept that we invaded Iraq to take it to the attackers?

"I damn sure do believe it, Danforth. Were we not attacked? Would we have gone into Iraq had we not been attacked? "

Um...we weren't attacked by Iraq, so I guess the answer is "yes".

#124 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-07-08 10:52 AM

About as much as your theory Bush would have attacked a ME country regardless of 9-11. Not surprised you echo Seymour Hersh though.

What, Danforth, are you one of the people who say the only reason we went to Iraq was for the oil? Talk about shallow.

Oh, I just reread one of your responses and it's clear now that you believe we would have attacked Iraq had nothing of happened. There is no talking to people like you. You have zero evidence that this is the case and your argument that we would is just ludicrous.

You have zero evidence that this is the case and your argument that we would is just ludicrous.

Come on now. He has The Huffington Post, The NY Times, The LA Times, Newsweek, National Enquire, The Globe, The Star... How much more evidence do you need?

People like Danforth just irk me to no end. There was nothing to signify or even hint that we were planning to go into Iraq. If we hadn't been attacked we would have just kept on moving along with absolutely no reasons to attack another country. These crackpots believe that Bush was out for blood for the attempt on his father so they take that and run with the conspiracy theory. Absolutely unfounded and ridiculous.

"How much more evidence do you need?"

Maybe Bush deciding we were going into Iraq before 9/11, as admitted by one of Bush's top advisors:

www.cnn.com

You idiots are really proud of your heads in the sand, aren't you?

"People like Danforth just irk me to no end."

I'm sure everyone who points out how stupid you are makes you feel exactly the same way.

"There was nothing to signify or even hint that we were planning to go into Iraq."

Ostrich.

"Absolutely unfounded"

Absolutely idiotic.

www.commondreams.org

You call that reliable? A guy who was fired by the administration? Danforth, we have war plans for many countries. Very detailed plans of carrying it out and the aftermath. It doesn't mean that we have plans to attack them. Do you think that we have a plan for Syria? Yes we do. We have plans for every country that is hostile towards the US. And you call this proof?

And the name calling and insults begin. Well, we know that that means someone knows that they're losing the argument. Danforth, you go ahead and believe your flimsy evidence. Your hatred for Bush will not allow you to believe anything else. Trying to make sense to someone like you is a losing cause.

"You call that reliable? A guy who was fired by the administration?"

The guy was hired by the administration. And he resigned.

"And you call this proof?"

Yes, dipshit. The insider didn't claim it was a war plan. It was a plan plan. Regardless, don't come on here and claim it's "absolutely unfounded" when you're so obviously full of shit.

How much more evidence do you need?"

Maybe Bush deciding we were going into Iraq before 9/11, as admitted by one of Bush's top advisors:

www.cnn.com

You idiots are really proud of your heads in the sand, aren't you?

#133 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-07-08 11:15 AM

senior administration official, who asked not to be named, expressed bewilderment at O'Neill's comments on the alleged war plans.

"The treasury secretary is not in the position to have access to that kind of information, where he can make observations of that nature," the official said. "This is a head-scratcher."

Maybe danforth should have pulled out the previous administrations plans for the removal of Saddam Hussein. I guess Clinton and Bush were in cahoots?

"The U.S. should consider drafting a second stimulus package focusing on infrastructure projects because the $787 billion approved in February was "a bit too small"

Translation: The first stimulus should have been spent on infastructure rather than nonsense.

"Danforth, you go ahead and believe your flimsy evidence."

Dumbass, keep your head in the sand. I'll believe the numerous reports all pointing to what you're afraid to admit.

"senior administration official, who asked not to be named,"

Gee, one guy who won't go on the record who claims it's untrue (Cheney?), and another guy who was there, goes on record, and is backed up by others who heard the same thing.

Guess which one Crispee believes?

What happened to using this for "shovel ready" projects?

Posted by JOE

Most of it went to pay off his political supporters. The ditch diggers must be Republicans.

#5 | Posted by wisgod at 2009-07-07

Im just glad that obama isnt a republican because if he was and doing this...our leftists bros here would actually be upset about all this..

ah but not to worry...a little political payback

its the american way...RIGHT????

OC makes a very good point. Clinton had the same plans as did Bush. Danforth, a plan does not a war make. You say I'm in denial and I say that you are stating as fact something that can never be proven. I'll say it again. We have war plans for many countries. It does not mean that we will carry them out. But, because you hate Bush so much you just can't believe anything other than he was dead set on attacking Iraq no matter what. You are trying to argue something that can not be proven and is pure speculation.

Dumbass, keep your head in the sand. I'll believe the numerous reports all pointing to what you're afraid to admit.

#140 | Posted by Danforth

Idiot. See I can name call too. Of course there are reports. There were plans so there must be reports about them. I want to hear you admit that we have war plans for many different countries.

Gee, one guy who won't go on the record who claims it's untrue (Cheney?), and another guy who was there, goes on record, and is backed up by others who heard the same thing.

Guess which one Crispee believes?

I believe a Treasury Secretary was in high level military meetings with the purpose of attacking Iraq? This same guy who cried like a little girl because Bush gave him the nickname "Big O"?

BTW... This is from the article you pasted. More of your evidence?

Herskowitz's revelations are not the sole indicator of Bush's pre-election thinking on Iraq. In December 1999, some six months after his talks with Herskowitz, Bush surprised veteran political chroniclers, including the Boston Globe 's David Nyhan, with his blunt pronouncements about Saddam at a six-way New Hampshire primary event that got little notice: "It was a gaffe-free evening for the rookie front-runner, till he was asked about Saddam's weapons stash," wrote Nyhan. 'I'd take 'em out,' [Bush] grinned cavalierly, 'take out the weapons of mass destructionI'm surprised he's still there," said Bush of the despot who remains in power after losing the Gulf War to Bush Jr.'s fatherIt remains to be seen if that offhand declaration of war was just Texas talk, a sort of locker room braggadocio, or whether it was Bush's first big clinker. "

"I want to hear you admit that we have war plans for many different countries."

We have war plans for many different countries.

Now, I want you to admit: Iraq didn't attack us, and our invasion of Iraq was in no way taking it to the attackers.

"More of your evidence?"

Dude...the guy invaded; why pretend that wasn't his intention? And Iraq didn't attack us, so Everlong's statement we were taking the fight to the attackers is foolish.

I already said Iraq didn't attack us, but one of the reasons for attacking them was to go after the likes of those who did attack us. How do you explain Al Qaeda in Iraq? They came to fight us so Bush was right that taking the fight elsewhere would attract those that we wanted to kill. How you can think otherwise I have no idea.

How do you explain Al Qaeda in Iraq?

The only traces of AQ found in Iraq were in the Kurd areas, areas controlled by the US and our "no-fly zones."

"How do you explain Al Qaeda in Iraq?"

How do you explain Spartacus' piper Cub?

And Iraq didn't attack us, so Everlong's statement we were taking the fight to the attackers is foolish.

#147 | Posted by Danforth

How in the world is that foolish. Have not thousands of Al Qaeda members shown up in Iraq? Do you think that the Bush administration thought that they wouldn't show up? Now that is foolish.

Don't let danforth see this. He may melt from the heat of ignorance.

President Clinton's 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which gave the U.S. government the green light to whack Saddam for the slightest annoyance, whether fabricated or not. In fact, it was the former Iraq dictator's alleged weapons of mass destruction that were part of the Act's foundation.

As the Act provided:

"Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs."

President Clinton was attempting to justify an attack on Iraq on the grounds that Saddam had a lethal arsenal of WMD. I am not sure how that is all that different from Bush's rhetoric. But logic is meaningless when party loyalty is involved. Just ask Josh Marshall, who continues:

"But even arguing on this ground understates the full measure of administration mendacity in the lead up to the war since it ignores half the story. WMD was only half the administration equation for war. The other half was a Iraq's alleged tie to Islamist terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and including a-Qaeda. On top of that, of course, was the big enchilada, the Cheney favorite, those frequent and intentionally ambiguous suggestions that Saddam Hussein played a role in the 9/11 attacks."

Oh my, what a stretch. I'd put WMD at about 75 percent of Bush's justification for invading. And remind me again how the Democrats opposed Cheney's favorite Iraq lie? Oh yeah, they didn't. That aside, Marshall doesn't acknowledge the bigger picture, as I describe in Left Out!;

www.antiwar.com

The only traces of AQ found in Iraq were in the Kurd areas, areas controlled by the US and our "no-fly zones."

#149 | Posted by kanrei

You missed the point but that will happen when you jump in the middle of a discussion. Al Qaeda flocked to Iraq once we attacked and this was part of the plan to fight them. Do you think that everyone thought AQ would just stay home?

"one of the reasons for attacking them was to go after the likes of those who did attack us. How do you explain Al Qaeda in Iraq?"

Huh? AQI didn't exist before the invasion. How do you explain that?

"Don't let danforth see this. He may melt from the heat of ignorance."

And don't tell Crispee there's a difference between rhetoric and invasion. He may actually have to admit that one President talked, while the other started a war of choice.

I did not miss any point. Basically, you are saying we purposely put Iraqis lives in danger to lure AQ into Iraq to keep them from coming here. That defines evil.

"Al Qaeda flocked to Iraq once we attacked and this was part of the plan to fight them."

And the hits just keep on coming!

"Al Qaeda flocked to Iraq once we attacked and this was part of the plan to fight them."

And Iraqi's are grateful to us for it.

Call it whatever you want to, Kanrei. The fact remains that one of the many reasons we went into Iraq was to draw the fight there. You call it evil but it really is just war.

And, Danforth, it's obvious that you aren't a very logical person or you would see that, clearly, one of the reasons for our invasion was to draw AQ in and fight them on foreign soil. Hey, you don't like it that's fine, but I'm glad that we had a president who had the balls to seriously go after and kill as many of that group as possible. You may not like how it was done but it needed to be done. One thing is certain, Clinton wouldn't have done it and I'm so glad he was gone before 9/11.

Now, I want you to admit: Iraq didn't attack us, and our invasion of Iraq was in no way taking it to the attackers.

#146 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-07-08 11:49

results though are undenialble as they exist now anyway..

a fledgling democracy in the middle of a raging anti democracy inferno

and I dont for one moment doubt that the people in the streets in iran are not looking at iraq and saying

hey if they can..why cant we?

AND....there is one less monster in the world to beat and gas and kill his own people while his sons rape and kill and arrest and behead people in between....

"results though are undenialble as they exist now anyway.."

Tribalism has increased, neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed, and women's rights have taken several steps backward.

Yup. Undeniable.

AND WE SIMPLY CANNOT FORGET

regardless of opinion of whether to fight or not

FACT...simple FACT so all of you can get it

IF bush had listened to obama and dems...iraq would still be in that FAMOUS CIVIL WAR that we heard about so much

hey what happened with that CIVIL WAR ANYWAY??>?>

and "this war is lost"....ah yes...inspiring words from the dem leader in the senate....and so SUPPPORTIVE OF THE TROOPS too wasnt it....

"And, Danforth, it's obvious that you aren't a very logical person or you would see that, clearly, one of the reasons for our invasion was to draw AQ in and fight them on foreign soil. "

You're so full of shit it's funny.

Tell another joke.

Don't let danforth see this. He may melt from the heat of ignorance."

And don't tell Crispee there's a difference between rhetoric and invasion. He may actually have to admit that one President talked, while the other started a war of choice.

Laughable! You claimed Bush was going to attack Iraq no matter what.Period. Pasting articles pointing towards this before he was even President. Yet when faced with the same RHETORIC back in late 90's by Clinton and most all leading politicians, it doesn't apply? I think it belittles your foolish assumptions.

"one of the reasons for our invasion was to draw AQ in and fight them on foreign soil."

Debatable. But assuming it is true...

Do you think that's a morally correct decision to make? And if Iraqis were to come to understand that we invaded their country with the intention of turning it into a battleground, how do you think that affects their attitude towards the US? Who does that help more in the long run, us or our enemies?

And how come you are cool with our leaders not giving us their real reasons for invading Iraq? You think it is OK for a president to mislead us into a war?

IF bush had listened to obama and dems...iraq would still be in that FAMOUS CIVIL WAR that we heard about so much

hey what happened with that CIVIL WAR ANYWAY??>?>

I believe the Chair of Foreign Relations and one of his members also wanted to split the Country into three sections. Is it any wonder these same two are proving their worth today?

Is it my imagination or is Crispy starting to post an awful lot like Rusty Ballsack?

" Yet when faced with the same RHETORIC back in late 90's by Clinton and most all leading politicians, it doesn't apply?"

No, it doesn't, when one was in power for 8 years and never invaded, and the other invaded and occupied.

"You claimed Bush was going to attack Iraq no matter what.Period."

No, I claimed there were first-hand witnesses who stated Bush had made his mind up about going into Iraq before 9/11. Why are you back to your troll tricks of putting bullshit into other people's mouths?

Would we have gone into Iraq had we not been attacked? "

Um...we weren't attacked by Iraq, so I guess the answer is "yes".

#124 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-07-08 10:52 AM

("You claimed Bush was going to attack Iraq no matter what.Period.")

No, I claimed there were first-hand witnesses who stated Bush had made his mind up about going into Iraq before 9/11. Why are you back to your troll tricks of putting bullshit into other people's mouths?

Where did I put words in your mouth little man? What part of my claim is wrong or inaccurate? What am I to make of post # 124?

"Where did I put words in your mouth"

I was talking about Bush going into Iraq after 9/11 in my response. That's not a claim "Bush was going to attack Iraq no matter what", no matter how much you want to pretend it is.

Is it my imagination or is Crispy starting to post an awful lot like Rusty Ballsack?

Get off the gay porn axe. You are mistakenly posting what you are doing while on Drudge. Close one of the links so you don't make that mistake again.

"Where did I put words in your mouth"

I was talking about Bush going into Iraq after 9/11 in my response. That's not a claim "Bush was going to attack Iraq no matter what", no matter how much you want to pretend it is.

Point that out in post #124. You know where it says yes regardless if we are attacked. Seems like you can only troll on one poster at a time. Keep digging though. I enjoy seeing the hole get larger.

dont blame axe..its all he knows....

and notice how quiet it gets most of the time when you bring up these statements from these people who CLAIM to support the troops..
wonder when TURBIN durbin will come out with his WORsE THAN the gulag comments about afghanistan..

OOPS>>nevermind..bho is pres...that changes everything...

and anyone heard from KERRY LATELY....
another one who IF we had listened to ..iraq would STILL be in real trouble,.,...

and anyone heard from KERRY LATELY....
another one who IF we had listened to ..iraq would STILL be in real trouble,.,...

Don't forget Gore. (Oh yeah we listen to his experience in Global Warming instead) How about Reid and Reed? That's O for 4.

by the way..polls are showing that the following may AT LEAST not be rubber stamped this time arent they

pelosi
reid
dodd

and several governors

suppose that pelosi and reid and dodd all lost..
can you imagine the LIBERAL SPINNING here that would go on..
it would make us all dizzy

Our Founders wrote our Federal Constitution to absolutely forbid and foreclose all authorization for an American paper currency. Any questions why?

I see danforth got smart and quit digging. Too bad. I was looking forward to him eating more of his own words.

Ya know what, Crispee, you were right. I DID say Bush was going to go in, regardless. Turns out I was right.

However, you're still an idiot for believing some guy (Cheney?) who refuses to go on the record, versus several guys who went on the record with first-hand statements. And Everlong's theories about Iraq are still ridiculous. And you still confuse rhetoric with invasion.

Those aside, I apologize for #167.

Ya know what, Crispee, you were right. I DID say Bush was going to go in, regardless. Turns out I was right.

However, you're still an idiot for believing some guy (Cheney?)

Still digging danforth. Just a different shovel? Not surprised you can even fuck up an apology. Where did I agree or believe anything with Cheney? While you are at it... Show us the link proving it is Cheney as the unamed source.

" Where did I agree or believe anything with Cheney?"

You bought the story of the 'high-ranking administration official' who wouldn't go on record versus a first-hand account of a man who went on record.

One high-ranking official who has a history of self-serving crap like that is Cheney. Since it was a guess, I always added the question mark.

And how come you are cool with our leaders not giving us their real reasons for invading Iraq? You think it is OK for a president to mislead us into a war?

#164 | Posted by Sully

What do you mean didn't give us the real reasons. All everyone ever remembers or mentions is WMD, but people forget that Bush gave several reasons for going to war. One of which was fighting them on foreign soil as opposed to here. As he was making the case for war he gave many different reasons as to why we should do it and Iraq, with the WMD, past behavior, and then current behavior, it became the perfect place to extend the war against Islamofacists.

You're so full of shit it's funny.

Tell another joke.

#162 | Posted by Danforth

A horrible attempt at deflection. Hey, you're the one who claims that fighting AQ on foreign soil was not a given reason to go to war. That either belies a lack of logic or ignorance. Take your pic.

You bought the story of the 'high-ranking administration official' who wouldn't go on record versus a first-hand account of a man who went on record.

I agreed it is suspicious the Treasury Secretary being at a high level military meeting where they were making war plans. For that you call me an idiot? Classic.

Obama proves that blacks have big d!cks because he is using his large member to analy rape Lady Liberty on a daily basis. The bastard!

LOL another Obama dick joker. LOL this is becoming a common trend. These liberals are so invested in OBAMA that they are metaphorically called OBAMA DICK SUCKERS.

More stimulus needed? We are losing 500k jobs a month, and the first one has already failed MISERABLY and has made it worse. That is already going down in history as Obama's biggest failure in the first year.

And these LIBFUCKS want another one?

I swear to GOD this is right down the line with AFRICAN COLONIALISM. PRINT MORE MONEY as the solution to ALL problems.

WOW. You liberals can't admit this guy is a failure yet?

WTF is it going to take? 25% Unemployment and your house is worth 1/4 of what you STILL OWE on it?

You fucking kidding me?

Kuma

More bad news from the idiots who brought you "CHANGE......... Isn't it exciting... Oh we are saved!

WTF is it going to take? 25% Unemployment and your house is worth 1/4 of what you STILL OWE on it?

They still wouldn't say a bad word about Obamanation......

He's the first Black President and that would be racist...

He's the new JFK!

All of the photos of the Obamas with euro leaders make them look so out of place it is embarrasing..

The one with the italian pres and his wife dressed up next to the obamas dressed like idiots is shamefull...

Someone needs to teach this couple how to represent the US not the fucking Getto!

The term Formal Wear needs to be impressed upon them...

("You claimed Bush was going to attack Iraq no matter what.Period.")

No, I claimed there were first-hand witnesses who stated Bush had made his mind up about going into Iraq before 9/11. Why are you back to your troll tricks of putting bullshit into other people's mouths?

Now you're just lying. Here's what you said. "I damn sure do believe it, Danforth. Were we not attacked? Would we have gone into Iraq had we not been attacked? "

Um...we weren't attacked by Iraq, so I guess the answer is "yes".

You said that we would have gone into Iraq had we not been attacked and now you're trying to back out of that?

"You said that we would have gone into Iraq had we not been attacked and now you're trying to back out of that?"

No, I admitted as much.

I also reiterated the fact you're an idiot who refuses to believe several folks who've gone on the record. And if your scenario of the whats and whys of Iraq were actually true, Dubya would be on his way to The Hague for war crimes.

I also reiterated the fact you're an idiot who refuses to believe several folks who've gone on the record.

Actually you ignorantly called me an idiot claiming I believed Cheney. Tough thread for you today Danforth?

Obama Adviser: First Stimulus 'Too Small'

I think this is apropos......

That's what she said.

"Actually you ignorantly called me an idiot claiming I believed Cheney."

No, Cheney or someone like him, hence the ever-present question mark. Slow on the uptake today?

Nothing will be fixed until the mindset characterized by Bernanke, Geither and Summers is expelled.

Actually you ignorantly called me an idiot claiming I believed Cheney."

No, Cheney or someone like him, hence the ever-present question mark. Slow on the uptake today?

Instead of me pointing out another of your several flawed posts on this thread, you ignore and dig further. Instead of accepting your mistake or simply moving on. Trying to back away from your earlier posts which you clearly implied was Cheney, doesn't really matter. Seeing as you were completely wrong. Calling someone an idiot no less.

Danforth, no matter what the case may be the fact still remains that we went into Iraq legally. If you want to believe that we would have even if we hadn't have been attacked that's fine, but it still would have been our right to do so. We could have done it on the fact that they had shot at our planes in the no fly zone if we wanted to, but there were still plenty of other reasons to make it a legit campaign.

You either don't like war period or you don't like the Iraq war because Bush engineered it. What was done needed to be done. Almost every person in our government agreed that Saddam had to go, especially in our new world of terrorism on our shores. And it can not be proven, but I think everyone knows that there were WMD, they just got moved out to Syria. If not, where did they all go? He didn't use them and he certainly didn't just throw them away. Any logical person will reach this conclusion.

But you libbies hate Bush so much that your reason is tainted and distorted so you chant things like Bush lied people died. The fact of the matter is, we may never know just how much thanks you actually owe the guy. There is no telling what attacks were stopped or halted because of Bush's actions. I don't look at Bush as one of our great presidents, but I am thankful that it was him in office on 9/11/2001.

The sad thing is that even with all of the successes in Iraq none of you can even bring yourselves to admit that things are better there than before. Oh sure, some lib will chime in and say they would have been better off left alone, but the Iraqis know that isn't the case. Only liberal Americans believe that they're worse off. It's a good thing not one of you was in office when this all began. We would be the laughing stock of the world by now.

"Danforth, no matter what the case may be the fact still remains that we went into Iraq legally"

Yeah, to get AQ over there, according to you.

" If you want to believe that we would have even if we hadn't have been attacked that's fine, but it still would have been our right to do so."

Using that "logic", China has every "right" to attack us.

"You either don't like war period or you don't like the Iraq war because Bush engineered it"

You're either an idiot or a complete moron.

"And it can not be proven, but I think everyone knows that there were WMD, they just got moved out to Syria."

Okay, a complete moronic idiot.

"But you libbies hate Bush so much"

Wrong, and wrong.

"even with all of the successes in Iraq "

Tribalism has increased, neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed, and women's rights have been curtailed. Wow.

"You either don't like war period or you don't like the Iraq war because Bush engineered it"

"You're either an idiot or a complete moron."

No answer so deflect to insults.

"Okay, a complete moronic idiot."

See above.

"But you libbies hate Bush so much"

Wrong, and wrong.

Oh really? That's a false statement?

"even with all of the successes in Iraq "

Tribalism has increased, neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed, and women's rights have been curtailed. Wow.

Anyone can point to the things that have gone wrong. The media does it every day. I suppose you deny that much progress has been made and that much good has come out of the war. Bad things always happen during a war. That's easy to point that out. But a person such as yourself will never admit to the good things that have happened. Why don't you find an Iraqi vet and tell him that only bad came out of what he did.

#195 | Posted by Danforth

"No answer so deflect to insults."

Let me get this straight: you post blatant idiocy, giving me a choice of two lies, but don't like it when it's done to you?

"Oh really? That's a false statement?"

Yes. I'm not a libbie, and I don't hate Bush.

"Why don't you find an Iraqi vet and tell him that only bad came out of what he did."

Because they did their job admirably. The "bad" was from those prosecuting the war. Nice deflection, though, away from the cowardice of our leaders and onto the backs of our bravest.

You're the one who has been saying that we were going to attack Iraq whether we were attacked or not and I'm the idiot? Hey, I admit, maybe we would have, but a few reports about war plans do not mean that we would have. You are trying to prove something that, obviously, can't be proven. And you must have something against Bush or you wouldn't be so vehement about calling him a war monger. We will never know what would have happened but to say that you know what would have happened is nothing more than bullshit.

"You're the one who has been saying that we were going to attack Iraq whether we were attacked or not and I'm the idiot?"

Yes, you're the idiot for not being able to tell the difference between me saying it, and Bush-appointed insiders saying it.

"you must have something against Bush or you wouldn't be so vehement about calling him a war monger."

When did I call Bush a 'war monger'?

"We will never know what would have happened"

But we know what DID happen, and several people have gone on the record stating the Iraq invasion was already planned before 9/11. Maps were drawn up showing oil fields. And we know the invasion happened, despite Iraq having NOTHING to do with 9/11. So your statement we were taking the fight to the attackers is...how did you put it....nothing more than bullshit.

I just want to know how you make the jump from the fact that there were detailed plans to we were going to attack. Of course there were oil fields in the plans, just like there were ammo facilities and fortified areas. And the reason I don't take the insiders word for it is because it's politics and there is no telling what their motivation could be for stating that we were going to attack Iraq. Like I said, maybe we were, but detailed plans do not make it so.

"And the reason I don't take the insiders word for it..."

But you'll take an insider's word who WON'T go on the record?!?

"I just want to know how you make the jump from the fact that there were detailed plans to we were going to attack. "

Via an insider who was willing to go on the record:

www.cnn.com

I never took anyone's word on anything. You have me confused with someone else.

"I never took anyone's word on anything. "

Including the insider willing to go on record. Yeah, we know.

"I never took anyone's word on anything. "

Including the insider willing to go on record. Yeah, we know.

Why don't you point out the post danforth? You pasted the article about the insider, show everyone where Everlong or crispee agreed. Seeing as you have ignorantly accused both of us. Show the fucking posts. Or STFU and move on. You look like a fucking idiot.

"Seeing as you have ignorantly accused both of us."

Sorry, Crispee, upon re-reading, only you were that ignorant. Did I hurt your feelings by making Everlong share some stupidity with you? My bad.

Sorry, Crispee, upon re-reading, only you were that ignorant. Did I hurt your feelings by making Everlong share some stupidity with you? My bad.

Should I paste the posts? Which will again make you look like a fucking fool? Or should I wait for YOU to back up your bullshit? Man up. Put it in my face. Be somebody danforth.

Including the insider willing to go on record. Yeah, we know.

#203 | Posted by Danforth

Dude, I tried to give you the easy way out by telling you that I did not take the word of anyone. Meaning I didn't read the link posted nor have I been going on anyone else's words but my own. Now you just look like an idiot. Please be so kind as to show me where I responded to something that was linked. You're just raging on without a clue as to who you are addressing on what point.

You're just raging on without a clue as to who you are addressing on what point.

The sad part is he has yet to get one post right. Yet he continues to call others stupid or an idiot.

I think the real truth about Iraq is one that we will never hear discussed... to try and understand Dubya and his relationship to his Dad is part of it.. think that he had made up his mind to attack Iraq, at any cost, prior to 9/11 and a great part of that was a revenge in his soul for his Dad and hopefully to get recognition from Dad for that.. I think that Dubya is just that simple-minded to make that kind of decision..of course, beside the fact of argument that Hussein needed out and after the 9/11, it gave more credence to his decision along with adding the BS on weapons, etc..
As to the stimulus money, we do not have enough out there from the first to discuss a second one.. and, also, what we are supposed to be spending on anyway is not going to really help.. for government projects, you are only looking at '1-shot' deals and that is not long-term sustaining... we need to be directing that to the base of small businesses and the foundation of American economy... to elements that will be around for longterm... look at all the closings on every level of spectrum..most all of these will never return in any form or fashion.. our manufacturing base has and is eroding to a serious fault... until we direct the stimulus in the right direction and also make it work, this is a vicious circle of ineptness...
from some of the posts on here, it seems that there are few true businessmen or owner's of their business...

Ironic isn't it, Crispee OC?

Misses Obama carries $6,000 handbag in Russia!! The Obama's are out of touch with the American people despite the pretty speeches.

How out of touch? When unemployment is at records highs and Americans struggling to put on the table, here is what Misses Obama is doing:

"Back in April she wore a pair of $540 Lanvin sneakers at a Washington food bank. Earlier this week (while strolling the wooded landscape outside of Moscow), she carried a sexy black clutch, which Italian luxury house VBH boasts is their shiny black alligator manila bag with a retail sticker price of $5,950."

Add this to the $25,000 taxpayer funded date in New York and the $100 a pound Wagyu beef White House dinners and you start to get the picture of a superelitist powermonger family that does not give a rats ass about the American people.

www.nydailynews.com

I'd rather be a tea-bagger than a free-bagger.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable