The GOP is completely dishonest and rails against policies it pushed for for decades simply because there's a Democrat in the WH?! Say it isn't so!

 

What's sad is that it largely works.

The Dems aren't exactly a paragon of honesty either... but I do think the leaders of the current GOP are more in denial of historical realities (whether political, scientific or simply factual) than any party leadership on either side that I have seen in my lifetime.

 

I don't know of any conservative who completely ignores prior deficits and places the blame solely on Obama. I think the issue is raising those deficits to historical levels going forward.

The GOP is completely dishonest and rails against policies it pushed for for decades simply because there's a Democrat in the WH?! Say it isn't so!

 

What's sad is that it largely works.

 

Yeah, like the Democrats and the deficit...

I don't know of any conservative who completely ignores prior deficits and places the blame solely on Obama. I think the issue is raising those deficits to historical levels going forward.

 

They completely ignored them when they were being accumulated to fund policies they preferred.

They completely ignored them when they were being accumulated to fund policies they preferred.

 

Lol, "they."

 

 

Yeah, like the Democrats and the deficit...

Huh?

They completely ignored them when they were being accumulated to fund policies they preferred.

 

Like the Democrats now ignore it when they want it increased to fund policies they prefer? GMAFB.

Edited September 12, 201114 yr by Jenksismybitch

Lol, "they."

Remember all the GOP deficit hawks 2000-Jan 2009?

Like the Democrats now ignore it when they want it increased to fund policies they prefer? GMAFB.

 

the democrats didn't pretend to be deficit hawks for a decade and then completely change course and fabricate reasons for it.

the democrats didn't pretend to be deficit hawks for a decade and then completely change course and fabricate reasons for it.

 

I must have just imagined it during the Bush admin.

I guess so?

 

eta there was rhetoric of "unfunded wars" and "unfunded taxcuts" but the democrats weren't proposing an ideological opposition to government spending as an alternative. It wasn't deficits themselves Democrats were railing against. They weren't demanding drastic cuts in other programs to pay for these things.

Edited September 12, 201114 yr by StrangeSox

There were plenty of Democrats railing against Deficits in 2001-2006.

I guess so?

 

eta there was rhetoric of "unfunded wars" and "unfunded taxcuts" but the democrats weren't proposing an ideological opposition to government spending as an alternative. It wasn't deficits themselves Democrats were railing against. They weren't demanding drastic cuts in other programs to pay for these things.

 

Of course not. That's anti-liberal. Spend more more and more, except on defense. That's the party mantra right?

 

Oh, then I retract my previous statements.

 

eta found a news article with all Senate dems signing a pledge against Bush's SS privatization proposal because it'd raise deficits and that'd be 'immoral'.

 

To be fair, though, basic Keynesian economics would be consistent with opposing running massive deficits when the economy is doing ok and advocating running big deficits to close the GDP gap when the economy is stuttering/falling off a cliff. I wouldn't actually attribute anything other than partisan opposition to Bush's plan to the Dems' position, though.

Edited September 12, 201114 yr by StrangeSox

Of course not. That's anti-liberal. Spend more more and more, except on defense. That's the party mantra right?

 

Democrat =/= liberal!

 

That appears to be the party mantra of whichever side is in power, with both sides spending tons on defense.

Hard to disagree with Ron Paul here.

The bait and switch of school "reform"

 

The dominant narrative, in other words, explains the fight for the future of education as a battle between the evil forces of myopic selfishness (teachers) and the altruistic benevolence of noblesse oblige (Wall Street). Such subjective framing has resulted in reporters, pundits and politicians typically casting the "reformers'" arguments as free of self-interest, and therefore more objective and credible than teachers' counterarguments.

I don't know of any conservative who completely ignores prior deficits and places the blame solely on Obama. I think the issue is raising those deficits to historical levels going forward.

I do... um, basically all of them?

Paul Krugman says the Bush administration used 9/11 as a wedge. Gets ripped for it.

 

You can't really state the obvious any more plainly than this, seriously. Bush's entire re-election campaign basically centered around either real or blatantly manufactured 9/11 drama. So did the domestic case for the Iraq war. It was extremely deliberate and well-coordinated. I honestly thought this was common knowledge.

Hard to disagree with Ron Paul here.

 

Nope it really easy..

 

9/11 had zero to do with the occupation of a Middle east country.. Just another old man ranting more than he knows about.

Nope it really easy..

 

9/11 had zero to do with the occupation of a Middle east country.. Just another old man ranting more than he knows about.

Ah ok. Thanks for clearing all of that up for us.

Then explain how Reagan was the first President to turn the US into a debtor.

 

During the Reagan years both parties learned they could get what they want. Reagan wanted a massive run up in military spending, the Dems wanted some nifty new social programs, let's have both! No worries about tax increases or spending money on one or the other. Let's have both! If you vote for X we'll vote for Y. And the public loved it. Something for everyone. Congress had nice approval ratings. Reagan was the Teflon King. It was all good during his time. Now, of course it wasn't Reagan alone, he had plenty of spendaholics on both sides of the aisle in Congress to go along with him.

They completely ignored them when they were being accumulated to fund policies they preferred.

I agree and I don't know if you are talking about Dems or GOPers.

Democrat =/= liberal!

 

That appears to be the party mantra of whichever side is in power, with both sides spending tons on defense.

 

And there is the huge elephant in the room when it comes to the debt.

Paul Krugman says the Bush administration used 9/11 as a wedge. Gets ripped for it.

 

You can't really state the obvious any more plainly than this, seriously. Bush's entire re-election campaign basically centered around either real or blatantly manufactured 9/11 drama. So did the domestic case for the Iraq war. It was extremely deliberate and well-coordinated. I honestly thought this was common knowledge.

 

One of the things people also don't remember is that Guiliani tried to use 9/11 to either stop the 2001 Mayoral election altogether or delay it for 3 to 6 months so he could maintain his grip on the mayor's seat.