Kenny. You are correct on the vetoes. Mea culpa.

Such as?

Both farm bills vetoes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25244839/

The medicare veto.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1529466020080715?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

A water projects bill veto.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/08/congress-defeats-bush-veto/

How about admitting those things that you were wrong on now?

Obamunism will turn any recession into a depression, just like FDR did.

As we can see from the budget deficit and the level of debt, they did exactly as you say.

More ignorance from an ignorant liar. The Treasury figures are indisputable. You are confused, as usual.
The restrictive energy policies of the Pelosi Congress cost us billions in increased energy costs, while depriving us of the prosperity that would have been generated by pumping our own oil, selling it on the world market, building new powerplants and refineries, with all the employment and wages lost by the restrictions, not to mention the tax revenues lost from the income that wasn’t generated.

Cause and effect.

Get over it. The debating of the facts is over. Non partisan readers will formulate their opinions about what we said. Have a wonderful day.

You continue to be fact-free, fascist.

Freudian slip robert108? Have you revealed to us your inner mantra?

If we have a down turned 4th quarter, Obama will inherit a bush recession.

More ignorance from an ignorant liar.
robert108 on November 14, 2008 at 10:07 am

No. The ignorance is yours. You are confused, as usual.
Borrowing to give tax cuts increased the income of certain tax payers and therefore their tax burden. It was artificial. Now the bills are due. So we have record budget deficits and astronomical debt.

The US treasury borrows to make up for the budget
shortfall. That is why the debt ceiling increased.

Wrong again! That was in spite of the tax rate cuts. You are still woefully ignorant on this subject. The debt ceiling is about spending, not taxation. If the greedy govt spends too much, no amount of tax revenues will suffice. You just don’t get it.

Such as?

Still waiting for your cause and effect arguments on any of your claims. How did anything you mention cause anything recessionary? Please explain just how it works; no bullshit talking points, but actual facts and logic.

Some of the things Bush has vetoed have been passed over his objection.

Kenny on November 14, 2008 at 07:20 pm

Such as?

Obama will inherit the bush recession.

Ah! Now we are down to the short strokes. Why did the Democrat controlled Congress not stop the out of control spending.

Got an answer for us, Bitch?

Still waiting for your cause and effect arguments on any of your claims. How did anything you mention cause anything recessionary? Please explain just how it works; no bullshit talking points, but actual facts and logic.

robert108 on November 14, 2008 at 07:40 pm

You can wait till kingdom come. You, the one that never answers questions demand that I answer your loaded questions? That is laughable.

I think they planted the hair on the coke can too.

Kenny. This thing has been brewing for many years. To blame the Congress of the last two years is dishonest.
Since among other things we are talking about Bush, may I ask what happened to his veto power?
Dishonest. Tsk. Tsk.

The record budget deficits of the past two years are ONLY from the past two years. They are clearly the fault of the Democrats in Congress.

Stop changing the subject. You blame the tax cuts for the deficit, which is stupid. You blame Bush for deficit spending (ballooning under Dem control)…which we have always done, which is dishonest. Some of the things Bush has vetoed have been passed over his objection.

So when I point out you have no clue what you’re talking about in taxes and spending, you jump into talks about things that have been “brewing for years”. Nothing has been brewing for years that is relevant to this discussion.

Stay on topic or admit you’re clueless and shut up.

Here is your answer: Medicare drug prescription.

You have yet to prove anything “outrageous”; just reciting old tired leftie talking points only proves how ignorant you are.
Cause and effect, please.

Furthermore it is you that are changing the subject.

You lie again; I asked rbb to list the Bush economic policies and how they caused recession, and he made a list, which I refuted point by point. You come along, make ridiculous and nonsensical arguments, all of which I refuted, and none of which you came close to proving. You changed the subject, and now you lie again, trying to blame me for changing the subject. You have no ethics, morality, integrity or credibility. You have yet to give a cause and effect argument that anything on that list is recessionary.
In fact, tax rate cuts, which leave more money in the private sector, are anti-recessionary.

This thing has been brewing for many years.

Yeah; since the Carter administration. Glad you finally admitted to something true.

Ellinas: Just disagreeing is NOT an answer!

It is an attempt to avoid honest debate. I have never known Kenny to be unkind, rude or hyper-partisan and I think he deserves more for his honest and direct effort than nine short, meaningless words!

Irrelevant to your ignorance about tax rate cuts…….
robert108 on November 14, 2008 at 03:33 pm

Why irrelevant? Because you say so? You have neither proven nor disproven anything.

Rbb said: “Outrageous spending increases”

Then you responded:Outrageous spending increases “Again, please explain the cause and effect relationship here, especially since Gore, Kerry and Obama promised even more spending.”
robert108 on November 14, 2008 at 09:53 am

robert108, please try to make an intelligent reply.

If we have a second straight quarter of negative growth, Obama will have inherited a bush recession.

You can wait till kingdom come.

Of course, since you lack the knowledge. You just lie and repeat tired out, obsolete leftie lies, and then bail when you are asked to make any valid argument. I have already give my arguments against your bullshit claims. You lie again. You do nothing but lie. You have nothing, and are arrogant in your ignorance. You are a piece of shit.

What “banking deregulation” was due to the President’s policies; remember that it was Congress who actually passes laws.

Gramm’s most cunning coup on behalf of his friends in the financial services industry–friends who gave him millions over his 24-year congressional career–came on December 15, 2000. It was an especially tense time in Washington. Only two days earlier, the Supreme Court had issued its decision on Bush v. Gore. President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress were locked in a budget showdown. It was the perfect moment for a wily senator to game the system. As Congress and the White House were hurriedly hammering out a $384-billion omnibus spending bill, Gramm slipped in a 262-page measure called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Written with the help of financial industry lobbyists and cosponsored by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the chairman of the agriculture committee, the measure had been considered dead–even by Gramm. Few lawmakers had either the opportunity or inclination to read the version of the bill Gramm inserted. “Nobody in either chamber had any knowledge of what was going on or what was in it,” says a congressional aide familiar with the bill’s history.

It’s not exactly like Gramm hid his handiwork–far from it. The balding and bespectacled Texan strode onto the Senate floor to hail the act’s inclusion into the must-pass budget package. But only an expert, or a lobbyist, could have followed what Gramm was saying. The act, he declared, would ensure that neither the sec nor the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (cftc) got into the business of regulating newfangled financial products called swaps–and would thus “protect financial institutions from overregulation” and “position our financial services industries to be world leaders into the new century.”

Borrowing and increasing the debt ceiling to
give tax cuts is voodoo economics.

No one “borrows” with tax rate cuts; the fact is, revenues to the Treasury increased. Wrong again.

Outrageous spending increases. Do you disagree with the fact that during the Bush years we had outrageous spending increases?

Off-topic; please explain the cause and effect relationship between that and the present situation.

While you’re at it, please explain the cause and effect relationship between your claim of “banking deregulation” and the present situation.

As far as “war spending” is concerned, aren’t you lefties always squealing about “war profiteering”? Please explain how profits are recessionary.

With every comment, you continue to illustrate your absolute ignorance about economics.
BTW, borrowing includes paying back the loan; tax and spend contains no such promise.

Your leftie mantra is ignorance personified.

Liar e: Now you’re changing the subject; you started with your inaccurate bullshit about tax rate cuts requiring borrowing, and now that you have been repeatedly smacked with the truth, you tell more lies. You have yet to prove that the spending increases were “outrageous”, and have yet to give a cause and effect explanation of how they might cause a recession, especially since they are a smaller percentage of GDP than Clinton’s spending, and you deny recession there. Once again, you mouth leftie lies, no matter how many times you get smacked with the truth.

Maybe you don’t know what “cause and effect” means, in which case I must apologize to the mentally handicapped.

Barry will continue the Pelosi/Reid shrinking of the economy.

The debating of the facts is over.

With you, it never started. You have been completely fact-free on this subject, as usual.
You provide no evidence that you know the meaning of either “cause and effect relationship” or of “changing the subject”. As a typical lying leftie, you just define words to suit your agenda, while being completely ignorant of their real meaning.
Get help, psycho!

Why irrelevant? Because you say so? You have neither proven nor disproven anything.

Actually he has. Tax revenues increased after the tax cuts.

You’re citing increased spending, which is the problem, to prove the tax cuts were a bad policy. A person gets a second job, and takes out a loan on a car they can’t afford. They are making less money a month because their increased spending outpaced the increased funding. Do we blame the second job? Of course not.

Ask ex Senator Phil Grahm.

Phil Grahm is not the President fool. And you’re citing things from the 90s to tar Bush. Dishonest. Tsk. Tsk.

Robert108. The US govt borrowed to finance budget shortfalls. I know you understand this, and I know you will not admit it because it does not jive with your politics or philosophy.

So, remind me again, which part ran Congress for the past two years, and REALLY jacked up the budget?

I don’t think you can claim the gov’t has “nationalized” the banks in this country, as far as I understand it, they don’t have any CONTROLLING interest in the banks… They’ve invested heavily into them using preferred stock buys, among other things, but the gov’t doesn’t have any directional control over any of those institutions, do they?

You have no facts; that’s what makes you fact-free. You have the emotional need to censor any opinions not in line with your ideology. That makes you a fascist.
Don’t you know anything?

robert108. Thank you, for the name calling, and reasoned arguments. Your use of the word “lie” is meaningless. Your self back patting is dully noted.
Please try to make an intelligent reply.

And tax cuts increased revenues taken in, not reduce them.

Whatever else you may say, President Bush is right about this. Since ’06, this country has been saddled with a leftie Congress.

It’s a Pelosi, Carter and Clinton recession, exacerbated by the fear of Obamunism. Since the election, the market has plummeted. Obama is causing his own recession.

This whole “bailout” scheme is collapsing, as it should.

Give us a few examples, welfareboy.

You are trying realy hard to entice me into rearguing the same issues again.

You lie again; you have yet to make a cause and effect argument in support of your allegations, so it is not possible to “reargue” what you haven’t argued.

Neiman: rbb falsely asserted that if there was a second quarter of negative growth, then the Obamunist would be “inheriting a Bush recession”. I then asked him to list any Bush economic policies that have been recessionary. He made some unsupported claims, then ran away when I asked him to show a cause and effect relationship for them. Liar e then chirped in with the same ignorant crap, and has yet to make any cause and effect arguments to support his allegations. Sound familiar?
His cowardice is amply illustrated by his refusal to debate any of the issues he has raised, instead squealing that he doesn’t have to do so. He has also lied about ever making any arguments. He has failed to do that, only spewing and echoing rbb’s unsupported claims.
There you have it.

robert108. Thank you, for the name calling, and reasoned arguments. Your use of the word “lie” is meaningless. Your self back patting is dully noted.
Please try to make an intelligent reply.

I’d like an answer to his question too. How did borrow and spend cause the banking crisis? How did Bush’s calls for INCREASED regulations lead to deregulation? How is Phil Gramm’s work in the 90s Bush’s fault? How are the tax cuts to blame for the defecit when tax revenues INCREASED? How are the defecits under a Republican congress relevant, but the democrat defecits irrelevant? How are you not a liar for repeatedly changing the subject when facts debunk your rhetoric?