Republicans are such phonies
5 trillion down the hole in Iraq and not one of them says a word. 50 billion on schools and medications for kids in the US and they call the accountants. Complete hypocrites.
5 trillion down the hole in Iraq and not one of them says a word. 50 billion on schools and medications for kids in the US and they call the accountants. Complete hypocrites.
This entry was posted on Monday, February 23rd, 2009 at 3:26 pm and is filed under Domestic Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Design by Sunaryo Hadi. A Couple Things is proudly powered by
WordPress
Entries (RSS)
and Comments (RSS).
29 queries. 3.126 seconds.
February 23rd, 2009 17:11
How does that fit the definition of hypocritical?
February 23rd, 2009 19:28
So how many people does the Spendulus bill free from tyranny, oppression, and murder? Oh, I forgot, you’d prefer us not to help others truely in need…paying for STD awareness and corrupt green energy that can’t compete in a free market is definitely better than freeing 25 million people, uncovering mass graves or stopping people from being put through woodchippers. Gotcha.
February 24th, 2009 08:18
Norman, your point is a good one, but let’s not downplay the importance of STD awareness for young kids and environmentally sound uses of Energy. Simply pointing out that the Iraq war is money well spent stands on its own without belittling other important causes.
February 24th, 2009 08:44
Are you kidding, YF, about the hypocritical part?
Republicans are saying do as I say (no more spending bills), not as I do ($5 trillion down the toilet in Iraq). Further, they’re saying that the “doom and gloom” needs to stop. Where were these folks during all the inflated discourse about Iraq’s threat and that doom and gloom scenario?
Hypocrites.
February 24th, 2009 08:45
Norman, your comment is silly. Republicans would also be against a spending bill that freed folks from tyranny. Hell, they vote for bills that increase tyranny. See the Patriot Act.
February 24th, 2009 10:38
Scholar, you are so off base here. Republicans never say don’t ever spend money. But there are clear policy preferences as to where they believe money should be spent by the government. Get your definition straight, bud.
For your second point, Repubs are hypocrites on that one…as are the Dems.
February 24th, 2009 10:41
LOL.. Republicans are famous for going around saying they’re for small government and against high government spend. Only problem is that under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II we got huge deficits. It took Clinton to clear the mess of the first two and will take Obama to clear the mess of the third.
I can’t believe you’re arguing that Republicans are not hypocritical here. With a Republican in office they’re all for spending. With a Democrat in office, suddenly they call the accountants.
February 24th, 2009 10:46
If you want to call Repubs who backed up Bush’s bailout bill and now cry foul on Obama’s hypocrites, great. But you misunderstand the definition of the term when you try to compare national defense with domestic spending on government run programs.
February 24th, 2009 10:47
No I don’t at all. Both situations are about national security. In fact the financial situation is much more of a threat to our well-being than Iraq ever was.
Can you cite me one Republican who was speaking out against the $5 trillion spent in Iraq?
February 24th, 2009 10:48
You are dense today.
February 24th, 2009 10:49
Repubs are consistently opposed to domestic big government run programs…you again are talking foreign national defense, in which Repubs place a different value.
February 24th, 2009 10:53
I see. So deficits are ok when it comes to worthless wars but not ok when it comes to education programs and infrastructure. Is that the Republican philosophy these days? How exactly is that better than being hypocritical?
February 24th, 2009 11:01
Being so biased makes you look less intelligent.
February 24th, 2009 11:10
LOL, nice retort!
Look it is obvious what is going on here. Republicans spend like drunken sailors when they’re in office and then become accountants and actuaries when a Democrat gets into office. Hypocrisy at its finest.
February 24th, 2009 11:13
Thanks, for the compliment, it is true…when you are as biased as you are, you can’t think outside of your own corrupt head. You are trying to compare apples and oranges. When Repubs are in office they argue for greater spending on national defense than on government run domestic programs…when Repubs are out of office they argue for greater spending on national defense than on government run domestic programs. Deal, you are wrong on this one…again.
February 24th, 2009 11:15
Only someone with severe myopia would argue that the strength of our financial system is not a national defense issue…
February 24th, 2009 11:18
right, but there are different ideas behind how to achieve the end goal of financial national defense v. military. You are wrong on this issue.
February 24th, 2009 11:21
The only “different ideas” here are when spending matters. For Republicans spending is not an issue when one of their own is in office; it is an issue when a Democrat is in office.
How else do you explain the deficits of Reagan and the two Bushes???
February 24th, 2009 11:23
Wrong wrong wrong wrong. When Republicans start screaming and yelling that Obama is spending too much money on Afghanastan, then come talk to me. Until then you are wrong.
February 24th, 2009 11:24
Again, answer the question. How is it that “small government” Republicans are always the ones giving us big government? Why is it that Democrats have to fix the deficits?
February 24th, 2009 11:26
Check this out: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2009/02/deficit_concern_jumps_among_gop.html?hpid=topnews
“By contrast, 74 percent of Republicans in the new poll expressed grave worry about the deficit, 29 points higher than in December when George W. Bush held the reins.”
Thank you for making my point, Republicans. When GWB is in office, no one cares about the deficit. Obama gets in and boom, now they care.
Game. Set. Match.
February 24th, 2009 11:27
First, I think you misunderstand what “small government” means..not surprising. It doesn’t necessarily mean not spending money, but rather cutting government run programs on the domestic level…government being in charge is large government, staying out of the way of the states is small government. This doesn’t fit on the foreign policy realm because states cannot declare war.
So high spending in the two Bush administration comes from war.
February 24th, 2009 11:32
Wow you really are digging a hole for yourself. From CATO (a Republican thinktank):
“Although defense spending has increased in response to the war on terrorism, President Bush has made little attempt to restrain nondefense spending to offset the higher Pentagon budget. Nondefense discretionary outlays will increase about 36 percent during President Bush’s first term in office. Congress has failed to contain the administration’s overspending and has added new spending of its own. Republicans have clearly forfeited any claim of being the fiscally responsible party in Washington.”
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-087es.html
Game. Set. Match. Again.
February 24th, 2009 11:37
hahaha…your bias is unyielding. we’re not going to get anywhere on this one.
February 24th, 2009 11:38
The only thing we’re getting is that you have absolutely no support for your claims, as usual.
I know it kills you to think that Republicans might be hypocritical when it comes to what they say and what they do, but the sooner you realize this fact, the better.
February 24th, 2009 16:38
This is clearly the reason the moniker says “scholar IN TRAINING”. Apparently the training hasn’t been accomplished where the wool comes off the eyes…
February 24th, 2009 16:40
Ouch, such a devastating critique of my position! What am I to do with myself?
February 26th, 2009 09:24
What was the budget surplus while Jimmy Carter was in office?
February 26th, 2009 09:24
LOL, what does that have to do with Republicans?
February 27th, 2009 15:47
Ahem. 40% of the earmarks in the stimulus bill are from *Republicans*:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200902260026?f=h_top
In a February 26 Associated Press article on the omnibus legislation passed by the “Democratic-controlled House” on Tuesday, David Espo reported that “Republicans assailed the legislation as too costly” and quoted Republicans criticizing the bill as, in the reporter’s words, “bristl[ing] with earmarks.” While Espo included examples of Democratic earmarks, at no point did he give any indication that many of the earmarks were included in the bill at the request of Republicans. Moreover, Espo cited the Taxpayers for Common Sense as a critic of the earmarks in the bill, without noting that the group cited earmarks by both Democrats and Republicans.
While quoting Republicans attacking the bill for earmarks, Espo did not note a handout distributed on February 24 by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) titled “You can’t spell ‘earmark’ without an ‘R,’ ” asserting that “40% of the earmarks in the omnibus appropriations bill are Republican earmarks.” The handout also stated that “[t]he earmarks in the omnibus appropriations bill total less than 1% of the budget,” and that they “were reduced by 43% last year, and the omnibus appropriations bill reduces earmarks by another 5%.”
Espo also wrote that “[a]fter persuading lawmakers to keep earmarks off the stimulus bill, Obama made no such attempt on the first non-emergency spending measure of his presidency. The result was that lawmakers claimed billions in federal funds for pet projects — a total of 8,570 earmarks at a cost of $7.7 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense [TCS].” He added: “Majority Democrats declined to provide a number of earmarks, but said the cost was far smaller, $3.8 billion, 5 percent less than a year ago.” However, Espo did not note that TCS highlighted both Republican and Democratic earmarks.
Indeed, in its February 24 item on the earmarks in the omnibus bill, TCS reported that Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R-MT) sponsored an earmark designating $300,000 for a “Montana World Trade Center,” Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) sponsored an earmark designating $200,000 for an “Oil Region Alliance,” and Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY) sponsored an earmark designating $190,000 for the “Buffalo Bill Historical Center.”
March 15th, 2009 20:49
Scholar in training….You need to train more and learn to do research. The amount of spending the Obamanation administration has done is beyond belief. By the time his first twenty months have passed he will have spent more than the entire Bush Presidency. here are some numbers and a link to prove my point which you time and again fail to do. Stop listening to this socialistic pig and stand up for your rights before they are all gone. Obama thinks the Constitution is open to interpretation…Wrong! The following is from: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/11/big-bailouts-bigger-bucks/
Whenever I discussed the current bailout situation with people, I find they have a hard time comprehending the actual numbers involved. That became a problem while doing the research for the Bailout Nation book. I needed some way to put this into proper historical perspective.
If we add in the Citi bailout, the total cost now exceeds $4.6165 trillion dollars. People have a hard time conceptualizing very large numbers, so let’s give this some context. The current Credit Crisis bailout is now the largest outlay In American history.
Jim Bianco of Bianco Research crunched the inflation adjusted numbers. The bailout has cost more than all of these big budget government expenditures – combined:
• Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion
• Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion
• Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion
• S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion
• Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion
• The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)
• Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion
• Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion
• NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion
TOTAL: $3.92 trillion
All of these past events cost 3.92 trillion dollars in adjusted amounts. Amazingly Obama’s current stimulus bills have already spent 4.6165 TRILLION. What are the American People thinking. These cash loans are being floated by Countries like China. Recently Hillary Clinton delivered a Document to the Chinese Government granting EMINENT DOMAIN on American soil. WTF! here is your source link:
http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=981726
Again MR Scholar someday you will learn to support your arguments with data and facts and not some twisted belief system where you blindly follow a party. Wake up SCHOLAR Wake UP!
March 15th, 2009 21:02
Also i did fall short in mentioning one thing. Your sources all follow the incredible media bias that has taken television by storm. You are a true product of a corrupt media and education system. Our schools teach our children that we live in a democracy!!!! We do not live in a democracy we live in a REPUBLIC and the governemnt does not exist to make laws to control us their job is to defend America and maintain international relationships with other world powers. I guess your in training so we should take it easy on you right. I have a piece of advice for you. Don’t engage in a conversation without understanding the facts of both sides. I have an idea! You should take a debate class you could learn much from this.
March 15th, 2009 21:03
Also i did fall short in mentioning one thing. Your sources all follow the incredible media bias that has taken television by storm. You are a true product of a corrupt media and education system. Our schools teach our children that we live in a democracy!!!! We do not live in a democracy we live in a REPUBLIC and the government does not exist to make laws to control us their job is to defend America and maintain international relationships with other world powers. I guess your in training so we should take it easy on you right. I have a piece of advice for you. Don’t engage in a conversation without understanding the facts of both sides. I have an idea! You should take a debate class you could learn much from this.