US Debt Clock

You can't accept or argue Lincoln's actions in terms of precedent. If we as a nation accepted his actions as precedent, we would already be living in a dictatorship.

What Lincoln did was illegal and regrettable; while at the same time the 14th amendment was necessary and proper.

I think the best course forward is to simply let sleeping dogs lie.

As for our current mess, it is true that liberal/progressives have neutered the Constitution to the point where no one is safe from the evil that is unconstrained government.

They are fools, and just like the fools of the past, their ignorance, greed, dishonesty, and vice is tearing a once stable nation apart.

So the question is - what do we do with them??

Civil war??

My preference would be divorce. I've had my full of living with these idiots.

 

We have really had no choice but to "simply let sleeping dogs lie" for over 153 years. Otherwise, the central Federal Government will send military power to enforce its will on the rest of us, and "states' rights" and the 10th Amendment be damned.

Oh, and the 'Civil War' was certainly not the last time we saw this happen in the United States....

. Little Rock, Arkansas, 1957

 

Already refuted, the only bill that would have fixed the problem was the Republican 2005 bill which the Democrats opposed. All their bills would have made the situation worse.

 

Once again the strawman that Presidents singularly control the budget and resulting debt.
Reagan requested LESS spending every year than Congress authorized and they refused to pass all the spending recessions he sent to them.
Bush41 of course the Democrat spending cuts they promised for the tax rate increases never came.
Clinton, Gingrich and Kaisch forced him to sign THEIR budgets and tax rate reductions that brought about the balanced and surplus budgets
Bush43 and the Republicans brought the deficit down to their paltry $161B heading to surplus again and then the Democrats took back the Congress in 2007 and increased spending 10% in 2008 and then 20% in 2009, taking Bush completely out of the budget process, taking the deficit to $1,400B
Obama, who was a Senator and support those bloated Democrat budgets which exploded the deficit kept it over $1,000B for the next three years and was only saved by the Republican sequester and austerity plans which cut the deficits.

 

Both sides won when the cold war ended. If one was to declare a bigger winner it would be Russia. Russia is far more powerful - from a military and economic perspective - now than it was during the cold war.

That Reagan's spending and massive deficits had something to do the end of the cold war in any significant way is nonsense.

This glorification of Reagan - the most fiscally irresponsible administration since Trump - is the worst kind of historical revisionism.

Rotten Ronnie did massive damage to this nation - and we are now doubling down on his reckless and irresponsible ways and the mindless ideologies promoted by his administration.

 

Unsupported gibberish as usual.

 

What are you disputing and be specific?
For instance why do you have Bush listed through 2009 when in fact those were Democrat budgets especially 2009?

 

I am not disputing anything. I am stating the simple fact that you do not back up your claims - and that this is the norm with you.

Then you turn around scream "Prove it Prove it" when another poster makes an unsupported claim. When a poster does provide support for claim you ignore this support and restate your unsupported claim as if repetition constitutes proof of claim.

 

You can’t refute historical fact, lol. I gave you every bill proposed and showed republicans killed every single one of them.

 

Already refuted I gave you the one bill, a Republican bill that would have actually fixed the problem.

 

If you aren't disputing what I posted then no need to cite it AGAIN. What are you disputing and be specific for in the past when I back up my claims as I always do you refuse to even try to refute it.

For instance why do you have Bush listed through 2009 when in fact those were Democrat budgets especially 2009? Why do you give credit to Clinton when in fact it was Gingrich and Kaisch who balanced the budget and produced the surpluses.

 

You can’t refute historical fact, lol. I gave you every bill proposed and showed republicans killed every single one of them.

 

Um, prez's can do a go around, see NE on the border to shift funds.
And yes, I've said countless times, congress spends, but the prez has to sign the spending bill or veto the bill. So the prez gets blame and praise typically.

 

Do explain how Bush could have vetoed the Dems 2009 Omnibus Spending bill. And yes I know people speciously and ignorantly assign budgets solely to who is president. That's doesn't mean they are the presidents budget. Doesn't work that way. And do not even attempt to claim that you support government shutdowns.

 

Nope you ignore the Republican 2005 bill which would have actually fixed the problem makes your statement entirely false as it has been refuted over and over.

 

Well given that 70% of military personnel are conservatives and that most conservatives own guns, it would be a short war. If there is a divorce instead it should happen sooner than later. Progressives are swarming red states and changing their demographics at a pace that is unprecedented in my lifetime. They have caught on to the fact that they no longer have to change minds, just import people with their worldview.

 

I am disputing that your claim has been proven. It hasn't. It is a naked claim. I don't dispute the claim itself since I do not know the subject matter well enough to know whether or not the claim is true or false. What I do know is that you sure as hell have not proven your claim to be true.

When I told you that the spending in 2009 was a function of the Bush administration - and obviously congress - and not Obama - that is a fact. This has nothing to do with the degree to which congress (Red or Blue) or the administration (Bush in this case) was involved. The fact of the matter is that the 2009 deficit was not on Obama's head. Further - I gave you evidence from the Cato institute that fully attributes the deficit to Bush. Regardless of whether we want to blame Bush, Congress (and if I recall it was not a Dem super majority) or both - it was not Obama's fault - as you were wanting to claim.

Further - I gave credit both Clinton and the Republican Congress .. and neither Clinton or the Republican congress. Yes it is true that spending was reigned in and taxes increased but, neither wanted to do this. The nature of Gov't is to spend more not less - and certainly this has been the case when ever Red is in power (you conveniently like to forget the Presidential Veto and you also do not blame Red congress when they are in power).

The fact of the matter is that Congress and Clinton were forced to do what they did due to the dire fiscal situation created the fiscal mess that Reagan created.

 

You can’t refute historical fact, lol. I gave you every bill proposed and showed republicans killed every single one of them.

 

I did that's why I cited the historical fact that the only bill that would have actually fixed the problem was a Republican bill which the Democrats opposed.

 

Well if you don't know anything about the economic history then don't go around citing it and claiming other people are not making accurate statements.

The Bush administration had nothing to do with the 2009 Democrat budget, they didn't even start working on it until Bush had lost reelection and didn't pass it until after he had left and President Obama got his spending priorities in it and HE signed it. The 2009 deficit along with the 2008 is on the DEMOCRATS head and Obama was a full voting member of that Democrat Senate and supported those budgets and got his spending request as President into the 2009 budget.

How many times do I have to post the historical reporting at the time?

"In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008. President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009.

The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills. Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills. CQ reported that “in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.” And they did.
The Truth about President Obama's Skyrocketing Spending


"Unlike last year, when Bush forced Democrats to accept lower spending figures, this year could prove more difficult for the president. The fiscal year begins Oct. 1, less than four months before he leaves office.

"He doesn't have us over a barrel this year, because either a President Clinton or a President Obama will have to deal with us next year," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We are not going to be held hostage to the unreasonableness of this president."

Much of the president's plan has little chance of passage, lawmakers and budget experts say. Nearly $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings need congressional approval, which Democrats are unlikely to provide. "Dead on arrival," vowed Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-03-bush-budget_N.htm

Clinton opposed those budgets and the tax rate cuts but after his political adviser Dick Morris told him he either better get on board or he would lose reelection. His tax rate cut failed to do as he said and in fact slowed economic growth and tax revenue growth. It was Republicans and Republican policies that cut the deficits and produced the surpluses just as the brought the deficit down to the paltry $161B in 2007. The case has been Republicans restrained spending increases to produces the low deficits and surpluses and then the Democrats EXPLODED it doubled the debt and is was only because of Republican sequester and austerity that the deficits were cut in spite of Obama trying to take credit for it. Clinton inherited one of the strongest economies we ever had thanks to Reagan policies but he almost blew it and was saved by Gingrich and Kasich.

 

You can’t refute historical fact, lol. I gave you every bill proposed and showed republicans killed every single one of them.

 

No you self servingly left out the one the would have actually fixed the problem, the Republican one.

"Much if not all of that could have been prevented by a bill cosponsored by John McCain and supported by all the Republicans and opposed by all the Democrats in the Senate Banking Committee in 2005. That bill, which the Democrats stopped from passing, would have prohibited the GSEs from speculating on the mortgage-based securities they packaged. The GSEs' mission allegedly justifying their quasi-governmental status was to package or securitize such mortgages, but the lion's share of their profits—which determined top executives' bonuses—came from speculation."
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...rats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac
Stop posting your fallcious statements that Repubicans opposed every measure, they were the only ones proposing something that would have fixed the mess.

 

You can’t refute historical fact, lol. I gave you every bill proposed and showed republicans killed every single one of them.

 

Gift, you have to understand that blues doesn’t know anything about basic civics.

He’s not aware of how bills become laws, or the separation of powers.

 

"Much if not all of that could have been prevented by a bill cosponsored by John McCain and supported by all the Republicans and opposed by all the Democrats in the Senate Banking Committee in 2005. That bill, which the Democrats stopped from passing, would have prohibited the GSEs from speculating on the mortgage-based securities they packaged. The GSEs' mission allegedly justifying their quasi-governmental status was to package or securitize such mortgages, but the lion's share of their profits—which determined top executives' bonuses—came from speculation."
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...rats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac