McConnell Admits GOP Nothing More than Hostage Takers in Debt Crisis

So you noticed that when I reference your posts, things get all twisted up. I cannot believe you are actually learning how hypocritical your own logic is.

 

Not so much! Only true believers such as yourself can see only the faults of the other party. They never recognize their own side's problems. There has always been plenty of blame to go around. One minute you are saying things like, "it was on Obama's watch" while the next minute you are saying don't blame one of ours when yours were in congress. Then you top it off by accusing anyone else that you disagree with of doing the same thing. Recognizing your own hypocrisy seems to be beyond your rather limited abilities.

 

This says it all;

Still no comment on just who was in charge of that $11T of debt, huh? The facts getting in your way?

 

You need to look directly into the mirror & repeat these words.

 

You are so full of yourself aren't you? There is no way to determine this without counting all of the votes cast for each spending bill. If you have that information, go ahead and post it. I'd love to see it. Personally, I think you're just talking out of your ass again. Last time I corrected your nonsense and proved that the number of Con and Dem controlled House of Reps wasn’t all that different, you simply ignored it and posted a different question completely. That's how you operate, when cornered, twist and spin. I'll be waiting for the votes cast on all those spending bills. You threw it out there, you must have easy access to what you are referring to. Right?

 

What on earth difference does who voted for each bill have to do with who had the votes to pass any bill they so desired?

Just to refresh your memory, your "spendthrift" Reagan had the dips in charge all 8 years. You shining example of a Democratic balanced budget (Clinton) had 80% of his debt accumulated under the dips during the 2 years they controlled the house and then the Reps managed to balance the budget for him. Then comes Bush2. The dips only controlled the house for his final 2 years, but still managed to accumulate nearly half of his total debt.

 

It appears that in every other administration there was equal blame to go around but this loser we're stuck with now has taken debt & spending to a whole new level. No other Prez, regardless of party, had us teetering on the edge like BO has.

 

LOL here we go again, when he took over the not only the US of A but the entire world was teetering on the Brink of financial ruin David now that is a fact (care to try and dispute it?) the financial markets were in meldown, banks were going under, morgage companies toppling, insurers going out of buisness!!
And regardless of how little you happen to like it that did not happen under this President but the last (and before any of you start I am not blaming President Bush) you have not experienced anything quite like that under President Obama nor was he the architect of that mess.
In 2007 the housing bubble burst, in 2008 the banks lost liquidity, from the end of October 2007 the markets started to fall going practicaly terminal by october 2008
It is estimated that US banks alone will have lost over 1 trillion + $$ in toxic debts in 2007/08 over 100 morgage lenders went bust, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Washington Mutual, Wachovia, and AIG all went bottoms up in 2008 how many have gone recently ?
A lot of the negative market reactions at the moment are due to speculaters trying to force the price of shares down to make a killing, rumours abound like the French goverment was going to be downgraded (utter rubbish) but it started a run on french shares and on it goes

 

Are you taking lessons from the brilliant U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner? After all, this guy has his finger on the pulse of the U.S. economy and gives advice to the president. Who better to listen to? Oh, wait..........

 

Perhaps if the politicians on both sides had actualy come to a proper agreement as he was hoping then you woudn't have lost your triple A rating but no your elected officials were to busy trying to promote there own self images rather than take some hard decisions to cut programes and to raise tax's if you read S & P's report you will see this for yourself
It is the credit rating companies themselfs who came out and said the French position was ok bit of a diffrence there as they were the ones saying the US would be downgraded
So you could say I am taking lessons from the people who got it right

 

Really? Really? "What difference does who voted for each bill have to do with....." blah blah blah You'd rather look at everything in black and white but that isn't how it works. If every spending bill were voted on 100% Dem and 0% con, I'd buy what you are saying but that isn't the truth is it? The truth is that both parties voted for spending bills and they were signed by con presidents into law so pleeeeeeez provide the vote counts so we can see who was really to blame. Stop dodging and come up with the numbers you are basing your claim on.

 

Unlike Obama care, I never said that every spending bill had on 100% dip vote. However, what it does say is that every spending bill required at least some dip support and none of them required any Republican support. In other words, the dips could have stopped any bill they desired or passed any bill they desired regardless of what the House republicans wanted.

You want to say that both parties voted for too much spending, sure they did. You want to say both parties share some blame, sure they do. If you want to say it is all the presidents fault. Yep, they get some of the blame too, but remember your prior statement "What is it that you two do not get about the legislative process? Where do bills originate? Think about it.....In the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES." (All though it is technically wrong since only the financial bills are required to originate in the House.) Sure, he can veto the bill. Then what? He gets the same bill right back and we make zero progress.

BTW, the numbers came from the US Treasury Department and your prior link that I cannot find any more because Peter still has not enable the searching.

 

First of all, I NEVER said that both parties spend too much. I said both parties spend. My belief is that they collect too little in taxes from those swimming in wealth and bleeding this country dry financially.
Second, what I said or didn’t say in a previous thread had meaning in the context of that conversation and can’t be applied in a blanket fashion to every other conversation. The fact that you simply grab a sentence out of the middle of an extended conversation and apply your own spin to the current conversation is just intellectually dishonest and sort of reeks of desperation on your part. Try to stay in the present conversation instead of try and failing to play “gotcha” all the time.
Lastly, what numbers? If there are stats out there go look them up. It takes a couple of clicks and believe me, having actual numbers to back up anything you claim would be refreshing.

 

And then we have the explanation for several of you guys...
http://soundcloud.com/mike-in-raleigh/obama-derangement-syndrome

 

You received more actual numbers than you gave in initial accusation (post #55). And then you go off to you insults. I guess that means that you have conceded I am correct.

 

If insulting you actually proved that you were right, you would be right a lot of the time. However, just because someone points out what an A$$HAT you are, does not by any stretch of logic prove that you right about anything. That is something you tell yourself when you can't keep up with the conversation. Good for you!

 

It does not "prove" I am right, but that is what you do every time you get backed into one of your corners because you cannot show any evidence I am wrong. And, yes, that happens a lot. You always have problems showing any evidence, but you have that insult bit down pat.

 

Excuse me! Are you really that delusional? I posted the number of House sessions controlled by the Dems and the cons and I posted the number of years the WH was under either Dem or con control. I have asked repeatedly that you supply the votes that determines which parties voted for which spending bills that would support your assertion that all this spending was by the Dems but you have yet to do anything but dodge and twist. I'd say that makes you the one in the corner but there is not real way to logically argue with an ideologue like you. You simply have an inability to think beyond your current beliefs.

 

Excuse me! Are you really that delusional? I posted the dollars attributable to the dip controlled houses. Again, the exact voting is totally meaningless unless you are so liberal the truth is meaningless and you use only lies, insults and intimidation to promote your views. I'd say that makes you the one in the corner but there is no real way to logically argue with an ideologue like you. You simply have an inability to think up to the current reality.

 

You even have to badly twist my articulation because you can't articulate you own thoughts. How sad. I believe this was most popular back in grade school.