"Let me repeat: your Lord Obama has never produced a budget!"

OUTIGHT LIE !!!!!

He had one last year. They had an up or down vote on it with no modifications. It was voted down 99-0. What else would you have expected without giving Senators a chance to modify it, negotiate over it, etc. But Obama did have a budget.

We are tired of the history re-write and the outright lies. Anyone can google to see that what I just wrote is true. It just makes you look bad.

You really like to re-write history. You talk about Obama and bailouts, so let me give you a few facts:

TARP was enacted under Bush. Why? Because no one could thing of any reasonable alternative. Not on the right and not on the left and letting those institutions fail would have sent us into a much worse depression. These were loans offered to various financial institutions, not gifts. For the most part, they have been paid back with interest (imagine that, the government made a profit on a program), and I am not aware of a significant missed payment or default.

The auto bailout was actually started under Bush with a small loan and later expanded significantly under Obama. Again, there was really little choice. Mitt Romney loved to say that GM and Chrysler should have gone through bankruptcy and be refinanced with private capital. The only problem with that logic is that financial institutions were not lending money (see above). There were no private funds. And again, the loans are being paid back with interest. GM was also getting hard by the financial crisis in other ways. 2008 was the first year that baby boomers could start to access social security (at age 62). And as many were being laid off, they decided to retire, just at a time when their pension funds and 401(k)s were crashing due to over agressive investment. So more employees were starting to draw against a much smaller amounts. The whole thing was a mess. And right now, it looks that was also a pretty good investment.

Did Obama spend too? Yes. He spent alot on people laid off from the recession he inherited. Guess what? Had he lost, John McCain would have faced the same situation and have little choice in terms of solutions.

You would have let all of those companies fail. And what would you have expected as an outcome and what would your next step be? Lower taxes for the rich more? Eliminate regulation altogether? I've shared my ideas which, you may have noticed, are not fully in line with Obamas. Now it's your turn. Stop complaining and attacking the President and give us some specifics of what you would do and what the expected impact would be. And most important, why. Link the action to the outcome with something more than simple assertion.

I love the retarded guy's idea that government waste is very visible. Hussein has never produced a budget! Even though he's required to by law.

Let me repeat: your Lord Obama has never produced a budget!

Uh, no. We have a choice whether we buy a company's goods and services. They are in competition with other companies and if they don't pay attention to the bottom line they could go out of business. It's important that failed companies fail and be replaced with other companies that pay attention to the bottom line.

That's why Obama has been so successful in crushing economic growth. He bails out crap companies so they can still compete even if they run inefficiently. Our resources are being diverted to crap rather than things we want and need.

Read "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy" by Joseph Schumpeter and pay attention to the bit about creative destruction..

I just love your number 15.

I worked for a company that once spent half a million dollars to entertain 400 customers at an elaborate dinner, and that was in 1980's dollars. Who do you think picked up the tab for that? You and I and everyone else who uses that company's products and services.

Remember that government waste is very visible. Far greater waste in the private sector is generally well hidden, but still costs Americans.

So tell us, please. Do you believe in double standards or not?

All that adds up to chicken feed. That's the problem with Republicans. They talk a big game, but when it comes to specifics they always come up short. You are talking a few hundred thousand here, a couple of million there. If we are going to deal with our problems we need solutions dealing with billions and trillions. A good example is the development of the new F-35 fighter which has been a black hole for federal dollars, is a weapon that most branches of the military don't even seem to want or need, and which consumes far more dollars than the sum of your list. I would guess that even one F-35 airplane costs more than what you have on your list, actually.

No one is interested in your trivia. Please go back to the drawing board and come back with something economically meaningful rather than a random selection of relatively low-cost and tiny impact projects. We are not fools. We know how to do arithmetic. Do you?

Your approach is roughly the equivalent of finding a starving person on the edge of death, and offering him a single M&M. The bottom line is that you can't fix things without going big, and you can't solve things by cutting big and extremely popular programs.

I hear all this talk about entitlement reform. Care to make a specific proposal on how much and what you'd cut? Do you have the real courage of your convictions and are you willing to withstand the storm of protest such proposals might receive? Are you really willing to defend and sell such proposals against strong opposition? (For the record, I have posted, several times, entitlement reform proposals that are about big money and not nickels and dimes and which, I believe would be far more acceptable to most Americans than your cut, cut, cut mentality).

Are you willing to discuss cuts to the military?

Are you willing to talk real tax reform that gets rid of preferences for the rich elite who feel that these breaks are their entitlements? Like most conservatives, you probably hate the idea of the government meddling with the ecomony to benefit the poor. Are you equally opposed to government laws and regulations that affect the economy by benefitting the rich? (Once again, we have this goose and gander problem, don't we?)

I am more than willing to look at spending cuts for the future as long as you are willing to consider (temporary) revenue increases to pay for what both parties have already spent.

If you are really serious, let's talk and negotiate. If you wish to continue with the small ball and present ideas which have been repeatedly rejected by voters and aren't even close to dealing with the real problem, then I'm afraid you're on your own. I am a very practical person who has a long history of solving problems, primarily by not getting hung up with preconceived notions. I do not enjoy wasting time on mental masturbation.

Here's a few reasons why we should entrust our government with more tax money. Both Dems and Reps voted for these and have both screwed us over.

#1 The U.S. government is spending $750,000 on a new soccer field for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.
#2 The Obama administration plans to spend between 16 and 20 million dollars helping students from Indonesia get master’s degrees.
#3 The U.S. government has spent $175,587 “to determine if cocaine makes Japanese quail engage in sexually risky behavior”.
#4 The U.S. government spent $200,000 on “a tattoo removal program” in Mission Hills, California.
#5 The federal government has shelled out $3 million to researchers at the University of California at Irvine to fund their research on video games such as World of Warcraft. Wouldn’t we all love to have a “research job” like that?
#6 The Department of Health and Human Services plans to spend $500 million on a program that will, among other things, seek to solve the problem of 5-year-old children that “can’t sit still” in a kindergarten classroom.
#7 Fannie Mae is about to ask the federal government for another $4.6 billion bailout, and it will almost certainly get it.
#8 The federal government once spent 30 million dollars on a program that was designed to help Pakistani farmers produce more mangos.
#9 The U.S. Department of Agriculture once gave researchers at the University of New Hampshire $700,000 to study methane gas emissions from dairy cows.
#10 According to USA Today, 13 different government agencies “fund 209 different science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education programs — and 173 of those programs overlap with at least one other program.”
#11 A total of $615,000 was given to the University of California at Santa Cruz to digitize photos, T-shirts and concert tickets belonging to the Grateful Dead.
#12 China lends us more money than any other foreign nation, but that didn’t stop our government from spending 17.8 million dollars on social and environmental programs for China.
#13 The U.S. government once spent 2.6 million dollars to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly.
#14 One professor at Stanford University was given $239,100 to study how Americans use the Internet to find love.
#15 The U.S. Postal Service spent $13,500 on a single dinner at Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse.
#16 The National Science Foundation once spent $216,000 to study whether or not politicians “gain or lose support by taking ambiguous positions”.
#17 A total of $1.8 million was spent on a “museum of neon signs” in Las Vegas, Nevada.
#18 The federal government spends 25 billion dollars a year maintaining federal buildings that are either unused or totally vacant.
#19 U.S. farmers are given a total of $2 billion each year for not farming their land.
#20 The U.S. government handed one Tennessee library $5,000 for the purpose of hosting a series of video game parties.
#21 A few years ago the government spent $123,050 on a Mother’s Day Shrine in Grafton, West Virginia. It turns out that Grafton only has a population of a little more than 5,000 people.
#22 One professor at Dartmouth University was given $137,530 to create a “recession-themed” video game entitled “Layoff”.
#23 The U.S. Department of Agriculture once shelled out $30,000 to a group of farmers to develop a tourist-friendly database of farms that host guests for overnight “haycations”.
#24 The National Institutes of Health paid researchers $400,000 to find out why gay men in Argentina engage in risky sexual behavior when they are drunk.
#25 The National Institutes of Health also once spent $442,340 to study the behavior of male prostitutes in Vietnam.
#26 The National Institutes of Health loves to spend our tax money on really bizarre things. The NIH once spent $800,000 in “stimulus funds” to study the impact of a “genital-washing program” on men in South Africa.
#27 According to the Washington Post, 1,271 different government organizations work on government programs related to counterterrorism and homeland security.
#28 The U.S. government spent $100,000 on a “Celebrity Chef Fruit Promotion Road Show in Indonesia”.
#29 The feds once gave Alaska Airlines $500,000 “to paint a Chinook salmon” on the side of a Boeing 737.

Then what is it that you are proposing or offering?

Absolutely nothing. Never any specifics that add up to anything meaningful.

All I see you offering is to spread your hatred, anger and bigotry. You do more to help the cause of liberalism by showing the average American your true colors (lily white) of negativism (are you one of those nattering nabobs that Ted Agnew used to talk about?). Even the Ryan budget that passed twice is very thin on specifics as to what will be cut (other than the long term and extremely unpopular proposal to eliminate Medicare). Most of the cuts that got specified were minor in terms of real dollars and were purely motivated by right wing conservative philosophy rather than decent economics. The leaders of your movement have no real plan and neither do you. In contrast, I have offered several specific ideas over the past couple of years here that deal with the budget deficit, the long term national debt, AND entitlements.

Anti-Obama does not mean pro-Bush. One finished screwing us, but is now out of office. Now Santa Claus is only half finished screwing his sheeple.

The national debt increased by 86 % under George W. Bush.

That is almost a doubling of the national debt.

In eight years, George Bush did not veto a single spending bill.

During that time, Republicans controlled Congress for six of the eight years.

A signficant part of the current budget deficit is a result of increased government expenses for those who lost their jobs as a result of Bush policies, and the loss of tax revenues from the unemployed.

And Republicans continue to accept not a shred of responsibility for our current economic woes. They just want us to return them to power so they can go back to the same old policies that caused so many of today's problems.

How stupid do they thing Americans are?

Obviously you didn't get the memo. We just had an election. The choice was to continue with Obama or go back to the same people who created the mess in the first place .. Republicans and their financial 'genius' Paul Ryan.

Do you need to be reminded who won and who the American people believed? Do you need to be reminded of how a democracy works?

Do you need to be reminded of the Americans reacted to the Bush proposal to privatize social security? Or how Americans responsed to the Paul Ryan budget that was designed to end Medicare? Americans want these two programs fixed, not eliminated. Republicans continue to fight the majority opinion so they can bring us back ... back to 1932 before the New Deal.

And we liberals love watching the right wing exercise in futility. You bricks just don't get it at all.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I love to hear duh libruhls try to defend Obamanomics!

Going on five years and we still have unemployment above 7%! And that unemployment rate doesn't include discouraged workers.

We have 20 million unemployed you jackasses!

When will you progressives acknowledge the failure of your crap ideas? People are suffering. At long last, have you no decency?

Medically speaking, alcohol is a narcotic (e.g., it induces sleep). The biggest difference between alcohol and 'drugs' is that the former has a rich, powerful lobby that effectively protects its own interests. Since 'drugs' represent a wide range of compounds and a wide range of effects, they should only be discussed on an individual basis. To lump them all together would be the equivalent of lumping all alcohols together and we all know the different effects on human health when comparing things like methanol, ethanol, or iso-propanol, just to mention a few of the more commonly available ones.

The above may be far too subtle for some of the posters here to comprehend ..... and I don't care.

Ok so you prefer narcotics. Got it. That explains everything.

is Pluto, the furthest dog from the Sun?

What makes you think I'm drinking at all? Just another one of your ASSumptions?

What are you drinking?
Old Crow?

Old Grand Dad. Perfect. I'm sure it fits you to a tee. And PBR? At least there's a tie in with this site. P-L Biochemicals. As for the beer, to each his own. If you think that the brand correlates with patriotism, you won't need too many to numb your mind. You're already halfway there.

Do you really expect people to take you seriously with posts like that? Are you for real? Or a new species ... the RepubliToon?

Shots of Old Grandad with PABST BLUE RIBBON chasers you Commie!

Martini?
Beer?
Wine cooler?
420?
Tequila shots?
Fine wine (with cheese)?
Jim or Jack?
Rum (and the sugary fruit of your choice)?

So many ways to numb the mind; so few minds to numb.

What a great country we live in !!!

It's Happy Hour.

SNICKERSNICKERSNICKERSNICKERSNICKER

Hmmmmm ........ more Silence of the Lames from the right wing today, eh? Maybe a few of them got new jobs, too. It must be killing them that things really are getting better by almost any measurement (jobs, housing, unemployment claims), albeit at a slow rate.

Bad news ---> attack Democrats
Good news ----> deafening silence

A bunch of irresponsible fools. Keep your eyes on the march of history. In 20 years, I will be considered to be a conservative and today's conservatives will all be extinct. Despite occasional setbacks, progress and mankind continue to move forward and there is nothing the right wing can do to stem the tide of freedom and greater political and economic equality.

*Throws the old white guys a bone .... for them to gum on*

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Where is the right today with the new jobs numbers? They must be caucusing somewhere to figure out how to put the worst possible spin on the data. Once again, conservatives just tearing down America.

"Wouldn't it be compassionate to admit Progressivism has failed and change course?"

Only if you tell us what the new course is. All I hear from conservatives is to return to the same policies that go us into the current recession, and quite a few others in the past. Right now, the best you seem to be able to do is the Ryan budget which claims it will fix things by 2030 and will completely kill Medicare. Sorry, but this is a 'no-sale' with the American people. Too much can happen between now and 2030 to make the reactionary, highly politicized Ryan budget realistic.

Maybe the current administration isn't perfect. Things are definitely better than when they came into office despite every attempt by conservatives to gridlock things and oppose everything, even their own ideas when accepted by Obama. Pure hypocrisy if you ask me. You guys want another chance? Then come up with something new and realistic and acceptable to the majority of Americans rather than a re-treaded plan to make the rich even richer. The constant hot air of criticism is not an alternative; it is just sniping from a bunch of bigoted old white men.

(btw ... even the Ryan budget does NOT specify where cuts are to be mamde ... it's all smoke and mirrors and designed to eliminate very popular progressive plans).

Do you really think Americans are as dumb as the Tea Party gang? If you do, how does a Sarah Palin-Rand Paul ticket sound to you? It sure sounds great to us liberals ... another 4 years in office.

Wahh! Bush cut taxes! Wah! Bush invaded Iraq! Wah! Bush doesn't floss!

-Hussein the Magnificent

Going on five years and no recovery.

Wouldn't it be compassionate to admit Progressivism has failed and change course?

This entire fixation on Piers is completely anal. All these posts make Piers far more important than he really is. In case you haven't realized, he is an entertainer, not a newsperson. He runs a talk show which is based on generating a certain amount of controversy much like all the other talk shows. Are your lives so empty and minds so shallow that you really need to waste your time with someone as insignificant as Piers really is?

Remember what they say in show business: There is no such thing as bad publicity. I'm sure that Piers, his agent, and his network appreciate all of this free publicity you have been giving him.

I am continually amazed at how many people fail to see the consequences of their own actions.

From the posts here, it's clear that Americans have wised up.
So, Piers should get on a plane now.

i'd horsewhip you if i had a horse.

One more thing I should have added - the only kids he did not financially bankrupt were the ones he killed by sending them off to his Dad's war.

Anti-Obama does not mean pro-Bush. They both have bankrupted our children's future. Obama is just the person holding the hammer and pounding the nail into our coffins while all of the democrats cheer him on.

more importantly, when is the best season for a cruise around The Islets Of Langerhans?

Ahhh, you are wise beyond your years young Skywalker. But please, can you update me on Sarah Palin and her followers. To what degree have they disappeared up their own asses.

And Thats How Darkies Were Born

Bush dealt with the economy by almost doubling the national debt (borrow and spend), by having virtually zero job growth, and by leaving office with the economic in terrible shape. Once again, facts don't seem to enter your thinking, if we can call it that.

One can only imagine what might have been. Imagine if, after 9/11, Bush had come before the country and said that the war on terror would be costly and that sacrifice should be borne by all, not just our fighters. What if he had said that, for the good of the country, that the 2001 tax cut be reversed or delayed until the war was concluded? What if he had not proposed another tax cut in 2003? What if he had said to the nation early on: We are finally winning the budget battle. We have a surplus budget now. So let's roll up our sleeves and pay down the national debt while we can? What if Bush had paid attention to the growing real estate bubble. It didn't matter who was at fault by then. What was important was how to prevent it from becoming a big crash. What if Bush had tried to be pro-active in some way to curb some of the excesses that ultimately triggered the crash? Things would have been alot better if Bush had been thinking about the good of his country rather than his rich buddies and the upper few percent.

Republicans: Still trying to rewrite history.
Democrats: Cleaning up Republican messes since 1933.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The Obamanation is oddly familiar; the antisemitism, the redistrbution of wealth, the personality cult, the arbitrary executive decrees, the use of thug groups to slience political opponents...

Hey Obama! The 1930s called, they're missing their fascism!

Uh "mitigating factor"?
Bush dealt with his economy.
Obama can't. Why? (Hint: the problem is between his ears.)

"You can't claim the dot.com bust as a mitigating factor for Bush and then turn around and claim that the Bush housing bust and Great Recession is not a mitigating factor for Obama"

Simple solution. Change channels.

Or don't you believe this is a free country anymore?

If enough people agree with you (which is highly unlikely), they will all turn Piers off and he will get dropped for loss of advertising revenue. Maybe you just don't believe in the free enterprise system and the power of the purse. Are you really a secret Piers-hating Commie, perhaps? You sure could have fooled us.

And just for your personal amusement, I almost never watch Piers. It isn't so much about his politics, about which I could care less; I just find him to be pompous and self-centered, thus making the show all about him and not so much about his guests. He will certainly never achieve the role of King of prime time interviewers (double entendre intended).

Anyway I just wish Piers Morgan would f**k right off the tw*t

In your case, what's wrong with Obama is simply the color of his skin !!!

There was ZERO job growth during 8 years of Bush; there have been 4+ million new jobs created under Obama.

You can't claim the dot.com bust as a mitigating factor for Bush and then turn around and claim that the Bush housing bust and Great Recession is not a mitigating factor for Obama .... well, unless you're simply a bigot. And before you start in on the budget again, keep in mind that Obama was saddled with much higher costs for unemployment and food stamps and much lower revenue due to the recession that happened under your guy's watch (not to mention deficit contributors like the unfunded Iraq war and Medicare Part D - the Republicans 'Borrow and Spend' plan to help make drug companies richer). What excuse do you like to give for the Bush contribution to the deficit; the largest percentage increase in the national debt since ......... ummmmmm ......... Ronald Reagan. Look up the real numbers if you don't believe me, but the real truth is that deficits have gone up far more under Republican presidents than under Democratic ones. Just another one of the myths and lies promoted by the right wing.

If the American people actually bought into your lies you would have won the most recent election in a landslide. But you lost, and you lost big and you lost on every national front. You lost the Presidential race, you lost seats in the Senate and House, and Democratic candidates for the House received roughly a million more votes than Republican candidates did. The only reason Republicans control the House today is the result of the extremely undemocratic use of gerrymandering on the part of Republican controlled state legislatures. You lost this past election purely on credibility and you don't seem to have learned anything from that result.

Keep lying.
Keep up the racial hatred.
Keep losing support.
Keep losing elections.
Keep the liberals happy and growing politically.

MAKE MY DAY !!!

I have the facts on my side. You just have lies. (Just out of curiousity, do you ever find your pants on fire? Maybe that would explain why you think you are such hot 'SHtuff'.)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

George W. Bush had the dot-com bust and terrorists blowing up a section of the financial section of New York. He pulled the economy out of recession into robust growth and low unemployment.

What's wrong with Obama?

Excuse me, Mr. writer of revisionist (a la Soviet style) history. Who was in office when the recession started? Who was in office when the Great Depression started? Who has been obstructing anything and everything proposed by the man elected by a significant majority of the American people?

All you have in your miserable life is lies and more lies. And it just shows what you think of the American public when you assume they are stupid enough to believe anything you say anymore.

Where's your response to allowing knives on airplanes or do you have to wait for your talking heads to provide you with the appropriate talking points?

Just how mindless are you really?

So what if we put the economy into continual recession?

We're smart! And compassionate.

We're smart and compassionate!

-The Progressives

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCb0TsSIqI0

We wear purple shirts not brown shirts stupid RethugliKKKans!

-The Progressives

bin Laden's son-in-law captured !!

Another point for Obama; another opportunity missed by the guy who came before him.

OK. Here is one for all you NRA gun enthusiasts and Obama haters.

The TSA has just decided to allow passengers to carry small knives onto airplanes.

Is this part of the 'right to bear arms' in which case you should approve of this decision by the Obama adminstration ....

or ....

is this just an invitation to the next terrorist who wants to use an airplane as a weapon in which case you would criticize the adminstration.

It's a tough one, isn't it. You either have to yield a bit on your 2nd amendment argument to try to prevent more airplane terrorism, or, even worse, finally find something about Obama you can accept and like.

Don't you just love it when conservatives have to deal with such conflicts?

(For what it's worth, I see no reason to allow any knives on airplanes, so I actually oppose this latest TSA rule.)

Conservatives, right wingers, and NRA members: Please discuss the above and provide at least three good examples to support your position. You may not, repeat NOT, take both sides and have it both ways as you so often try to do.

Liberals are invited to do the same once they stop laughing at this latest predicament that is probably making many on the right squirm right now.

In the meantime, I will just sit back and re-charge my internal laughing mechanism. You conservatives are wearing my laughter out ... and I just love you all for it...

xoxoxoxox

"FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFUFUFUFUFUFUFUGFYSTFUFUFUFU"

Very impressive. Did you think that one up all by your little old self?

Just parroting right wing talking points about Korea. Your guy had 8 years to stop the nuke development and all he ever did was sanctions too. Are you proposing another war? Didn't you learn anything from Iraq? Are you planning to fund it this time or just add to the debt as you did with Iraq and Afghanistan?

How nice to hear you repeat Roger Ayles 'ashtray' remark. Even if one accepts it as true, it should be noted that the right wing and the Republican party are NOT ashtrays .... they are the noxious waste that people put into ashtrays. That would make you a cancer on America.

Hey, how about an original thought instead of someone else's talking points? Don't you have a mind of your own? Maybe I should just call you a RepubliCLONE!!!

Hard to tell who is full of more hot air and bluster ... you or the North Korean leader. Try putting his 'threat' in context with what is going on at the UN right now. It's a tactic ... a ploy .. probably something far to subtle for your mind to absorb.