Republicans Must Apologize for Kansas and Louisiana

[OpportunityCost]

OC, we don't. what would post that. We are simply giving him credit for saying. these are really simple concepts.

Ah. So you are using him for a scapegoat and a shield to criticism for bad policy.

 

[Vern]

People have been saying the "Debt doesn't matter" since Jay Cooke, the civil war financier. However, Paul Krugman [your side] has been defending that position much more recently than anything Cheney might have said. [and which you never sourced]

Krugman’s Debt Doesn’t Matter Mantra——Goes Back To America’s Greatest Swindler, Jay Cooke | David Stockman's Contra Corner

Paul Krugman Slams The Debt Alarmists - Business Insider

BTW: Cheney said deficits not debt.

Maybe you should read the links you posted and then cut and paste what you think supports whatever point you are trying to make. And here's my first post to you. Why don't you actually read it.

I really cant believe this is still a conservative narrative. Cheney said "deficits don't matter". google it. We mocked conservatives sudden concern for deficits that started 1/20/2009. When conservatives obediently started ranting about deficits in their divisive attacks on the stimulus, we simply pointed out that deficits were not the priority. The economy cratering at -8.2% and losing 700,000 jobs a month was the priority. And get this, we were right. Now you could claim republicans and the conservative media were simply wrong but I think the consistent string of hyperbolic claims that were false proves they knew it was a lie. And not only did they not explain how they were so wrong, you and yours didn't demand an explanation.

 

[Vern]

Ah. So you are using him for a scapegoat and a shield to criticism for bad policy.

OC, if you're not even going to attempt an honest and intelligent discussion, why are you here. Here's my first post to WCH

I really cant believe this is still a conservative narrative. Cheney said "deficits don't matter". google it. We mocked conservatives sudden concern for deficits that started 1/20/2009. When conservatives obediently started ranting about deficits in their divisive attacks on the stimulus, we simply pointed out that deficits were not the priority. The economy cratering at -8.2% and losing 700,000 jobs a month was the priority. And get this, we were right. Now you could claim republicans and the conservative media were simply wrong but I think the consistent string of hyperbolic claims that were false proves they knew it was a lie. And not only did they not explain how they were so wrong, you and yours didn't demand an explanation.

respond to what I posted not the delusions swirling around in your head. and if you can find the time, explain how reducing the trillion dollar Bush Deficits to below the 40 year average while maintaining positive GDP is bad policy.

 

[OpportunityCost]

OC, if you're not even going to attempt an honest and intelligent discussion, why are you here. Here's my first post to WCH

respond to what I posted not the delusions swirling around in your head. and if you can find the time, explain how reducing the trillion dollar Bush Deficits to below the 40 year average while maintaining positive GDP is bad policy.

Tea Party protests began before the end of Bush's term. I don't support the spending Bush engaged in. I didn't support the stimulus. Now if you can stop using monolithic terms to describe some conservatives as all conservatives, it would be appreciated.

One thing remains though, you use the Cheney quote as an excuse, as a shield from criticism about spending in the Obama administration, saying "he did it first" doesn't make either instance right.

One last thing, I don't need anyone's god damned permission to post here and my reasons for being here are my own, I am not delusional and I would appreciate if you quit with the asinine remarks and stuck with the facts.

 

[MrT]

There are, I believe, 30 republican governors out there. Apparently, two of the 30 didn't do a particularly good job--that's assuming the blame lies with them, which is a big and possibly erroneous assumption. So what? Why should every republican apologize for the potential incompetence of two when 28 others are doing a terrific job by any measure?

Specifically because those two are failing because they fully implemented conservative policies to a full extent and, instead of ignoring the influence and impact of those policies, Republicans refuse to be asked about the potential negative impacts that could occur when implementing those same policies on a national scale.

 

[Vern]

Tea Party protests began before the end of Bush's term. I don't support the spending Bush engaged in. I didn't support the stimulus. Now if you can stop using monolithic terms to describe some conservatives as all conservatives, it would be appreciated.

Yes, there were a few conservatives who were concerned about debt before 2009. Here's a thread I started about it.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...appy-birthday-conservative-debt-concerns.html

One thing remains though, you use the Cheney quote as an excuse, as a shield from criticism about spending in the Obama administration, saying "he did it first" doesn't make either instance right.

That's the funny thing OC, when I use "monolithic terms to describe some conservatives as all conservatives" at least I'm referring to actual conservative narratives. You are literally making up the "cheney quote as an excuse" narrative. We are not saying "he did it too". We said the economy cratering at 8.2% and losing 700,000 jobs was the priority. Say that as many times as necessary to understand what we are saying. Again, I don't have "misparaphrase" what conservatives say. You just cant quite get your head around the facts and you keep trying to change the facts to something more palatable. And I see conservatives, "monolithically" speaking, still don't understand that cutting spending to cut spending would have made the Great Bush Recession worse.

One last thing, I don't need anyone's god damned permission to post here and my reasons for being here are my own, I am not delusional and I would appreciate if you quit with the asinine remarks and stuck with the facts.

OC, you have flailed and flailed at me and my posts. Your posts are mish mish of spin and delusion. Lets look at this silly post that has no basis in reality

Since when do Democrats listen to anything Cheney has to say? I mean really.

I explained it to you so it morphed into this

Ah. So you are using him for a scapegoat and a shield to criticism for bad policy.

I explained that we don't use him as a shield for "bad policy". we say it was the right policy. See how you're simply not graspng a clear simple point. It serves no purpose to discuss things if you insist on ignoring the posts and assume your delusions are fact. And look. You simply repeat your narrative.

One thing remains though, you use the Cheney quote as an excuse, as a shield from criticism about spending

You are simply posting what you wish was true and ignoring what's being discussed. And look how you "courageously" avoided me asking you to "explain how reducing the trillion dollar Bush Deficits to below the 40 year average while maintaining positive GDP is bad policy. " You not only deflected, you simply repeated your narrative. congratulations you're a conservative.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Yes, there were a few conservatives who were concerned about debt before 2009. Here's a thread I started about it.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...appy-birthday-conservative-debt-concerns.html



That's the funny thing OC, when I use "monolithic terms to describe some conservatives as all conservatives" at least I'm referring to actual conservative narratives. You are literally making up the "cheney quote as an excuse" narrative. We are not saying "he did it too". We said the economy cratering at 8.2% and losing 700,000 jobs was the priority. Say that as many times as necessary to understand what we are saying. Again, I don't have "misparaphrase" what conservatives say. You just cant quite get your head around the facts and you keep trying to change the facts to something more palatable. And I see conservatives, "monolithically" speaking, still don't understand that cutting spending to cut spending would have made the Great Bush Recession worse.



OC, you have flailed and flailed at me and my posts. Your posts are mish mish of spin and delusion. Lets look at this silly post that has no basis in reality



I explained it to you so it morphed into this



I explained that we don't use him as a shield for "bad policy". we say it was the right policy. See how you're simply not graspng a clear simple point. It serves no purpose to discuss things if you insist on ignoring the posts and assume your delusions are fact. And look. You simply repeat your narrative.



You are simply posting what you wish was true and ignoring what's being discussed. And look how you "courageously" avoided me asking you to "explain how reducing the trillion dollar Bush Deficits to below the 40 year average while maintaining positive GDP is bad policy. " You not only deflected, you simply repeated your narrative. congratulations you're a conservative.

No, its really obvious what you are doing. You are using the Cheney quote to deflect from criticism of policy, I wont even label it good or bad. If you need to use the quotes of your political opponent to justify, rationalize or excuse what you are doing, the policy could stand some scrutiny.

What you fail to understand is that we should have let it crash and burn because it didn't work, because government was up to its neck in it, and it was pretty much naked greed from top to bottom. Let it burn. Too big to fail should never be part of the equation. Because then it becomes to big, greedy and stupid to fail. Corrections happen for a reason.

 

[Absentglare]

Show me the rate of foreclosure by years in the mortgage. I believe it will show something one way or the other.

I'm not clear on what you're asking for....

Here's a left wing source, forbes, giving some analysis :

"Of course a slightly lower foreclosure rate on more recently originated loans is to be expected all things being equal. Borrowers on these newer vintage loans have simply not had as much time to get into trouble and stop making mortgage payments. Still, the sharp drop from 2008 to 2009 foreclosure rates indicates a much higher quality of loan product."

"To the contrary, 75 percent of all loans that are actively in the foreclosure process were originated from 2004 to 2008, while only 14 percent were originated from 2009 to 2012, and only 11 percent were originated in 2003 or earlier."

Forbes Welcome

 

[Absentglare]

Ah. So you are using him for a scapegoat and a shield to criticism for bad policy.

By pointing out the hypocrisy of blaming democrats for the horror of deficits while claiming deficits don't matter ?

 

[OpportunityCost]

By pointing out the hypocrisy of blaming democrats for the horror of deficits while claiming deficits don't matter ?

Nope, I don't like deficit spending from either party and have always thought that. Again, I'm pointing out that if you guys didn't have some reservations you wouldn't care what Cheney said or thought. So why do you?

 

[Absentglare]

Nope, I don't like deficit spending from either party and have always thought that. Again, I'm pointing out that if you guys didn't have some reservations you wouldn't care what Cheney said or thought. So why do you?

Because it points out a glaring hypocrisy among the GOP where one end claims "fiscal responsibility" and "balanced budgets" while Cheney and President Reagan endorse racking up the debt.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Because it points out a glaring hypocrisy among the GOP where one end claims "fiscal responsibility" and "balanced budgets" while Cheney and President Reagan endorse racking up the debt.

Can you please point me to the post where I supported deficit spending? I know you THINK I do, but I do not. Reagan did not endorse racking up debt, in fact he argued against it.

Regarding Cheney, he was arguing for a tax cut. I suppose I have to ask, if Democrats are the serious ones about deficits, why don't they generally support spending cuts? Does it cut both ways, or doesn't it?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Wait...I thought you folks said debt doesn't matter?

That was Dick Cheney, I think he is one of your folks

Or more to the point he said deficits don't matter

 

[Vern]

No, its really obvious what you are doing. You are using the Cheney quote to deflect from criticism of policy, I wont even label it good or bad. If you need to use the quotes of your political opponent to justify, rationalize or excuse what you are doing, the policy could stand some scrutiny.

What you fail to understand is that we should have let it crash and burn because it didn't work, because government was up to its neck in it, and it was pretty much naked greed from top to bottom. Let it burn. Too big to fail should never be part of the equation. Because then it becomes to big, greedy and stupid to fail. Corrections happen for a reason.

OC, see how you cling to your narrative about Cheney. and it wasn't even your first narrative. Its literally your back up narrative. No where in this thread or anywhere am I even remotely pushing the Cheney's quote to "deflect from criticism of bad policy". I've clearly stated that President Obama's policy was the right choice. As a conservative your brain simply rejects the facts. You are literally intolerant of the truth.

Its good that you clearly backtrack from your "bad policy" narrative but you "labeled" it bad policy to justify your delusional narrative of "use cheney quote to deflect from criticism of bad policy". so try to focus. If you realize that we are not trying to justify "bad policy", why don't you then realize that your "use cheney quote to deflect from criticism of bad policy" narrative blows up in your face. Oh that's right, you're a conservative.

When you grow up and can accept the facts, feel free to reply. this is a debate forum. Its not a chatroom.

 

[OpportunityCost]

OC, see how you cling to your narrative about Cheney. and it wasn't even your first narrative. Its literally your back up narrative. No where in this thread or anywhere am I even remotely pushing the Cheney's quote to "deflect from criticism of bad policy". I've clearly stated that President Obama's policy was the right choice. As a conservative your brain simply rejects the facts. You are literally intolerant of the truth.

Its good that you clearly backtrack from your "bad policy" narrative but you "labeled" it bad policy to justify your delusional narrative of "use cheney quote to deflect from criticism of bad policy". so try to focus. If you realize that we are not trying to justify "bad policy", why don't you then realize that your "use cheney quote to deflect from criticism of bad policy" narrative blows up in your face. Oh that's right, you're a conservative.

When you grow up and can accept the facts, feel free to reply. this is a debate forum. Its not a chatroom.

Arrogant, condescending, partisan swill.

I tell you what, you rewrite this so there isn't a single snide remark or insult and Ill consider answering it. That should put you at 2 sentences or so.

 

[Vern]

Arrogant, condescending, partisan swill.

I tell you what, you rewrite this so there isn't a single snide remark or insult and Ill consider answering it. That should put you at 2 sentences or so.

mmmm, let me type this slower for you. Here's where you backtrack from your "use cheney quote to deflect from criticism of bad policy".

You are using the Cheney quote to deflect from criticism of policy, I wont even label it good or bad. .

You took this cowardly tact when I asked you to explain why it was bad policy. Lets review. Here's where you called it bad policy.

Ah. So you are using him for a scapegoat and a shield to criticism for bad policy.

the reason you are cowardly running away from your own statement is that I asked you to "explain how reducing the trillion dollar Bush Deficits to below the 40 year average while maintaining positive GDP is bad policy." sure it was smart to cowardly run away from your own narrative but it was still cowardly.

And thanks for the hearty laugh in making demands before you bless us with your response but feigning umbrage is just another conservative dodge. I've never let any "single snide remark or insult " (real or imaginged) stop me from proving my point. But that's the difference, my points are based on the facts so I don't have to feign umbrage as an excuse.

 

[OpportunityCost]

mmmm, let me type this slower for you. Here's where you backtrack from your "use cheney quote to deflect from criticism of bad policy".



You took this cowardly tact when I asked you to explain why it was bad policy. Lets review. Here's where you called it bad policy.



the reason you are cowardly running away from your own statement is that I asked you to "explain how reducing the trillion dollar Bush Deficits to below the 40 year average while maintaining positive GDP is bad policy." sure it was smart to cowardly run away from your own narrative but it was still cowardly.

And thanks for the hearty laugh in making demands before you bless us with your response but feigning umbrage is just another conservative dodge. I've never let any "single snide remark or insult " (real or imaginged) stop me from proving my point. But that's the difference, my points are based on the facts so I don't have to feign umbrage as an excuse.

Except your response to my question is to dodge and question me in an asinine manner. You do understand how civil works? There is no feigned umbrage, I don't like being insulted by anyone, curb your ****.

If the policy is sound why bring Cheney's quote up at all? Please make an attempt to answer this time.

 

[WCH]

That was Dick Cheney, I think he is one of your folks

Or more to the point he said deficits don't matter

I pointed out that none of that is new and both parties are at fault. Keynesian economics has been around for years. Trouble is Keynes thought we should pay back the loans not, ignore them.

https://www.maynardkeynes.org/maynard-keynes-economics.html

 

[Vern]

Except your response to my question is to dodge and question me in an asinine manner. You do understand how civil works? There is no feigned umbrage, I don't like being insulted by anyone, curb your ****.

If the policy is sound why bring Cheney's quote up at all? Please make an attempt to answer this time.

er uh OC, what question are you awaiting an answer for? I answered the only question you asked (post 99. answer 100) but I get the impression from this post that you think you've asked "if the policy is sound why bring up Cheney?". I cease to be amazed by what conservatives can convince themselves is true. OC, you asked no question "why bring up cheney". and the funny thing is if you have bothered to read the thread you would see I was simply correcting another false conservative narrative about who exactly stated "debt doesn't matter". that's why cheney was brought up. mmmmm, that's funny, I posted my first post in this thread to you to help you understand the conversation (post 103). so its pretty obvious why cheney was mentioned if you had bothered to read it.

I really cant believe this is still a conservative narrative. Cheney said "deficits don't matter". google it. We mocked conservatives sudden concern for deficits that started 1/20/2009. When conservatives obediently started ranting about deficits in their divisive attacks on the stimulus, we simply pointed out that deficits were not the priority. ......

harrumph, how uncivil for you to ignore my post to you. Speaking of civil, after you posted "So you are using him for a scapegoat and a shield to criticism for bad policy" I asked you to "explain how reducing the trillion dollar Bush Deficits to below the 40 year average while maintaining positive GDP is bad policy. " You didn't respond. harrumph again.

Oh and OC, you asked about foreclosure rates in post 93. I answered in post 95. I also asked about your glass steagall narrative that you brought up several times. And fyi, I asked about your glass steagall narrative and I showed you the default data before you started using the "feigned umbrage" dodge. harrumph indeed.

 

[Absentglare]

Can you please point me to the post where I supported deficit spending? I know you THINK I do, but I do not. Reagan did not endorse racking up debt, in fact he argued against it.

Regarding Cheney, he was arguing for a tax cut. I suppose I have to ask, if Democrats are the serious ones about deficits, why don't they generally support spending cuts? Does it cut both ways, or doesn't it?

Why would i try to prove something i never claimed ? Do you think i won't notice your shifting of the goalposts from criticizing GOP hypocrisy to some personal squabble with you ...?

President Reagan multiplied public debt far more than any other president in recent history. That's what my graph showed you. Why did he do this ? Well, he had to pay for his tax cuts for the rich, you know, giving money away to the people who need it least without them having to work any harder to get it, and he figured old Uncle Sam could pick up the tab. Once the deficits from his historic tax cuts started coming home, once it was obvious that they weren't the boon to the economy he was told they would be, and once his advisors started all warning him that he had to raise taxes, he then raised taxes. But not so much on the rich, so there's that.

I don't recall claiming that democrats are serious about deficits. I was condemning GOP hypocrisy where "deficits don't matter" when the GOP is in power but deficits become catastrophic when the democrats are.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Why would i try to prove something i never claimed ? Do you think i won't notice your shifting of the goalposts from criticizing GOP hypocrisy to some personal squabble with you ...?

President Reagan multiplied public debt far more than any other president in recent history. That's what my graph showed you. Why did he do this ? Well, he had to pay for his tax cuts for the rich, you know, giving money away to the people who need it least without them having to work any harder to get it, and he figured old Uncle Sam could pick up the tab. Once the deficits from his historic tax cuts started coming home, once it was obvious that they weren't the boon to the economy he was told they would be, and once his advisors started all warning him that he had to raise taxes, he then raised taxes. But not so much on the rich, so there's that.

I don't recall claiming that democrats are serious about deficits. I was condemning GOP hypocrisy where "deficits don't matter" when the GOP is in power but deficits become catastrophic when the democrats are.

Again, you claim they aren't important, but you point to a republican for cover that they are not.

Now who controlled budgets when Reagan was in office? As I recall Reagan traded tax cuts for the budget that Democrats wanted. So who raised spending? Who made a deal to reduce spending but didn't follow through in Reagan's term?

As for Bush, I'm not going to make excuses. I don't like the way he spent. But I flatly refuse to adhere to a tax cuts are bad groupthink. Because the government refuses to live within its means does not mean people are not due some of their own money back. So, Democrats refuse to be responsible about spending, why should Republicans be responsible about cutting taxes? Its a catch 22.

 

[OpportunityCost]

er uh OC, what question are you awaiting an answer for? I answered the only question you asked (post 99. answer 100) but I get the impression from this post that you think you've asked "if the policy is sound why bring up Cheney?". I cease to be amazed by what conservatives can convince themselves is true. OC, you asked no question "why bring up cheney". and the funny thing is if you have bothered to read the thread you would see I was simply correcting another false conservative narrative about who exactly stated "debt doesn't matter". that's why cheney was brought up. mmmmm, that's funny, I posted my first post in this thread to you to help you understand the conversation (post 103). so its pretty obvious why cheney was mentioned if you had bothered to read it.



harrumph, how uncivil for you to ignore my post to you. Speaking of civil, after you posted "So you are using him for a scapegoat and a shield to criticism for bad policy" I asked you to "explain how reducing the trillion dollar Bush Deficits to below the 40 year average while maintaining positive GDP is bad policy. " You didn't respond. harrumph again.

Oh and OC, you asked about foreclosure rates in post 93. I answered in post 95. I also asked about your glass steagall narrative that you brought up several times. And fyi, I asked about your glass steagall narrative and I showed you the default data before you started using the "feigned umbrage" dodge. harrumph indeed.

When you decide to quit posturing and preening and coaching insults, Ill respond to you.

You have to start by trying. There is no feigned umbrage, you are not being civil.

You will note I answered Absentglare, he doesn't post like someone trying to score points with the cool kinds by insulting someone. I have yet to read a post from you that doesn't contain a dig or a sharp elbow, why don't you try just to prove you don't HAVE to post like a jerk.

 

[Absentglare]

Again, you claim they aren't important, but you point to a republican for cover that they are not.

Now who controlled budgets when Reagan was in office? As I recall Reagan traded tax cuts for the budget that Democrats wanted. So who raised spending? Who made a deal to reduce spending but didn't follow through in Reagan's term?

As for Bush, I'm not going to make excuses. I don't like the way he spent. But I flatly refuse to adhere to a tax cuts are bad groupthink. Because the government refuses to live within its means does not mean people are not due some of their own money back. So, Democrats refuse to be responsible about spending, why should Republicans be responsible about cutting taxes? Its a catch 22.

I didn't claim they aren't important...

What i think isn't important is cutting taxes on the rich, aka taking money from the public and handing it out to rich people. This is giving money away, for free, from the public. They don't have to work to earn it like infrastructure spending, they just get free money from the government. That's what it is. If you care about deficits, it is gross hypocrisy to support tax cuts for the rich.

I don't mind cuts to regressive taxes nearly so much. When a multi-trillion dollar tax cut gives hundreds of thousands to rich people every year, and only gives a poor American a hundred bucks, that's just irresponsibly bad policy.

 

[MrWonka]

Suppose that instead of a Tea Party sweeping into power in 2010, we had a liberal wave. And now, let's imagine that Bernie Sanders became the governor of Vermont and a liberal house and senate enacted every liberal policy (free college education, single payer health-care system, raising minimum wages and raised taxes) that they could want.

And then, six years later, the state of Vermont was in utter ruin. Unemployment skyrocketed, the State turned a massive surplus into a massive debt, schools shut down, and pensions were cut. If that happened, would you want the Democratic candidates to answer questions about the failure of their model blue state failure? Would you be pissed if the media did not ask those questions? What if I told you that the Democratic candidates are proposing national tax plans that are predicated on the same failed models?

What's funnier yet is that you don't really have to even imagine that scenario. in 2008 and 2010 Minnesota did in fact sweep a very liberal Governor into office with a very liberal house and state senate and enacted a ton of very liberal policies. As of last year the results are in.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/24/americas-top-states-for-business.html

Minnesota is the #1 state in the country for Business.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I didn't claim they aren't important...

What i think isn't important is cutting taxes on the rich, aka taking money from the public and handing it out to rich people. This is giving money away, for free, from the public. They don't have to work to earn it like infrastructure spending, they just get free money from the government. That's what it is. If you care about deficits, it is gross hypocrisy to support tax cuts for the rich.

I don't mind cuts to regressive taxes nearly so much. When a multi-trillion dollar tax cut gives hundreds of thousands to rich people every year, and only gives a poor American a hundred bucks, that's just irresponsibly bad policy.

Real question, who the hell do you think is paying for government? Because it isn't the poor and increasingly, it isn't the middle class either.

Bolded: IT DOES NOT BELONG TO THE PUBLIC IT BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE THAT EARNED IT. Any other assumption makes you a thief that uses the government to steal from people by force.

Irresponsible policy is being unable to cut spending for decades.