Posted by Tina
I watched a portion of the debate tonight. The moderators apparently learned the lesson from the two previous debates…MSNBC lost. Serious questions were asked.
But I had to turn it off. A very good “blow by blow” account is here, a Live Blog at the WSJ.
It’s an insult to the intelligence of the American people that supposedly smart candidates can pretend after seven years that their party’s policies have nothing to do with the state of our economy, the rise of ISIS, and the fact that the middle class is shrinking and wages are low. It’s offensive to see this group of candidates stand on stage and spew the same old solutions as if they haven’t been tested and haven’t failed miserably.
I’m also more than turned off by the political talking points that insinuate the previous administration didn’t build a coalition to fight terrorism or a strong strategy for the war. It’s a bunch of garbage which just underscores Hillary’s lies and the general dishonesty and phoniness that permeates the party leadership and their cadre of special interest supporters.
Regarding Bush’s coalition, see here and here:
Coalition Countries – Iraq – 2003: Afghanistan, Albania,Australia, Azerbaija, Bulgaria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan – [Source: US State Department]
Left media, as well as the left faithful, conveniently forget things when it’s time to politically smear their opposition. It’s a tactic they’ve used for decades but it’s particularly distasteful when war has been waged against our nation and our kids are/were bleeding and dying for that war that they authorized. Hillary said tonight that the authorization for war is still in effect.
Lots of words were uttered to avoid commitment and to give the impression that they offer something different than we’ve had for seven years. But it was the same old song and I’ve heard it a million times. Visually I couldn’t take more of Hillary’s windmill arms, Bernie’s Mr. Magoo stare, or Governor O’Malley’s woodenness.
How about you? Who watched and what are your thoughts.
I don’t know how you can do it. I couldn’t stomach five seconds of it.
Instead I watched this. This UN conference is coming very soon so this is a must watch video.
The Technocratic Agenda: Sustainable Development and Climate Eugenics
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/technocratic-agenda-sustainable-development-climate-eugenics/
Bob the sustainable/techno cadre is made up of a bunch of ghouls and fools. I wish I had the time to watch the full video but work, family, this blog and the need for sleep keep me busy. Are there a couple of especially egregious points you could share? I’d appreciate it đ
LOL While I think Obama is an old school republican who has been too kind to the banksters You seem to think there was a Magic wand to reverse the devastation GW caused.
Both parties have helped the decline. But to pretend there was some easy recovery or Congress has not been idle stopping all progress is foolish.
Also Every single president has drank the Reaganomics kool-Aid. Privatize away.
Clinton did away with Glass Stegal and the telecommunications act and NAFTA. Those greatly harmed America as well.
The Citizens United decision however sold out America. That was SCOTUS.
Name the last Republican President who left a surplus instead of a deficit.
trickle down is a scam.
No Worries the Trade deals Obama has been sold will devastate America in less than 10 years that will be his failure and legacy. Yet no one here reads it.
Obama an “old school republican? You’ve got to be kidding. By what possible measure would this Marxist schooled, “white privileged” hating man ever be considered a republican? You are nuts my friend…nuts!
Bush did not leave a mess. The deficits under a Republican held Congress, during a particularly trying time in our history (recession, 911, aftermath of 911, war, hurricanes Katrina and Rita), were handled quite well considering the intensity and scope of the problems we faced. As long as Republicans were in power in Congress our deficit spending remained within historical ranges. When Democrats took the house (2008) deficit spending began to rise. It is The House that spends our money!
The second column reflects inflation adjusted figures:
2005 $318 Billion Deficit $390.18 Billion Deficit
2006 $248 Billion Deficit $294.89 Billion Deficit
2007 $161 Billion Deficit $186.13 Billion Deficit
2008 $459 Billion Deficit $511.14 Billion Deficit
2009 $1 413 Billion Deficit $1578.77 Billion Deficit
2010 $1294 Billion Deficit $1421.98 Billion Deficit
2011 $1299 Billion Deficit $1384.86 Billion Deficit
2012 $1100 Billion Deficit $1148.23 Billion Deficit
2013 $680 Billion Deficit $699.59 Billion Deficit
2014 $492 Billion Deficit $497.98 Billion Deficit
Note that after 2012, when Republicans took control of the House, deficit spending started coming down (2013, 2014).
It is also important to note that Bill Clinton’s final years that showed a “surplus” were the result of the Republican revival of 2004 when they had control of the House:
1992 $290.4 Billion Deficit $496.41 Billion Deficit
1993 $255.1 Billion Deficit $423.05 Billion Deficit
1994 $203.2 Billion Deficit $328.8 Billion Deficit
1995 $164 Billion Deficit $257.86 Billion Deficit
1996 $107.5 Billion Deficit $164.12 Billion Deficit
1997 $22 Billion Deficit $32.84 Billion Deficit
1998 $69.2 Billion Surplus $101.76 Billion Surplus
1999 $125.6 Billion Surplus $180.72 Billion Surplus
2000 $236.4 Billion Surplus $329.25 Billion Surplus
2001 $127.3 Billion Surplus $172.26 Billion Surplus
2002 $157.8 Billion Deficit $210.12 Billion Deficit
2003 $377.6 Billion Deficit $491.67 Billion Deficit
2004 $413 Billion Deficit $524.11 Billion Deficit
Had Bill and Hillary remained unimpeded (higher taxes, no welfare reform, healthcare policy) with a Democrat House, we would have seen deficits much higher and there would never have been a surplus!
So my friend, you have to look at the entire picture when you make such high handed remarks as, “Name the last Republican President who left a surplus instead of a deficit.”
But to answer your question as asked it was Eisenhower’s last budget, 1960. Democrats remained in charge of Congress for most of forty years until 1994, and they became more and more radical as time went on, so they are largely to blame for major deficit spending and the big government programs that cause it.
Citizens United leveled the playing field. Prior to the passage of that bill large government unions could spend all kinds of money in elections bashing business, as activists for draconian regulations and taxes, advocating for special interest groups, and working against any republican that dared to suggest we couldn’t afford all of their crazy demand. Although many people believe there is too much money in politics generally, to think the money coming from business is somehow unfair is ridiculous. Proof? Who was the current President’s biggest donor in 2008? University of California. (Second was Goldman Sacks, third Harvard, fourth Microsoft, and fifth JPMorgan Chase & Co).
Everybody is looking for an angle, an advantage. But this is the system we have and it includes free expression. If you can’t accept that, if you seek to limit expression, you do not really support free speech rights, you’re just another person looking to manage elections. If we adopted that idea you can be sure that within a short time we’d have tyranny.
Please expand on your idea that trickle down is a scam. tell us how that works Dewey. Tell us what works better and and explain how it works! If you are going to bash or champion a concept you had better understand it.
We’ve seen the alternative to trickle down over seven years under Obama and I have to tell you, it stinks!. The stock market has had a good run pumped by fed spending rather than real growth in most cases. But main street Americans are hurting. Human Events (Aug. 2014) summarizes:
Do yourself a favor and read the entire article. You might actually learn something!
The trade deal was negotiated in secret. The trade deal was withheld from our representatives who were finally allowed to “read it” (thousands pages) by strict rules: visiting a small room, reading within a limited time frame, unable to take notes or bring in staff. YOU HAVEN’T READ IT. Wikileaks released it but I doubt you have the ability to read and understand it.
We posted one article about it and gave you an opportunity to share in detail your wisdom and knowledge. To the best of my knowledge we never heard from you.
America needs a trade agreement with this part of the world if we are to remain competitive and crate the kind of jobs FOR AMERICANS that we need. But I am against the TTP for the simple reason that the Obama administration participated in it’s creation. Obama’s goal has been to marginalize America and bring us down to a third world level as a means to bettering the lives of emerging market countries. Instead of policies that lift those nations up, making everyone better off, Obama’s policies just drag us down…we have to PAY for being successful (privileged).
And Yes we would not be fighting at all if Obama was not using the powers still in affect granted to GW. It is the duty of Congress to debate and declare war. Obama asked them several times and then said screw you. Bottom line this block everything Obama wants has to stop. Whether it’s Obama or someone else I find this unconstitutional and disgusting. Congress needs to be cleaned out and functional again. This Fight for conservative ways only has to go. It needs to be a bipartisan working body not a coup.
Congress works for the Donors and lobbyists period. The people are to be compliant and not heard. This is not the Conservative States of America.
Obama’s request to Congress was POLITICAL and disingenuous. His request asked for a declaration AFTER he had already been engaging for months. Obama already had authorization under the bipartisan passed Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001:
The enemy that attacked the US on 911 is the same enemy that attacked our ally in Paris a couple of days ago…the war continues….
The Republican fight for “conservative ways” is being fought no more nor no less than the democrat fight for “socialist ways”. In every political battle their are two basic sides just like football.
What you really want is to shut the Republican voices up completely…as if they had the super majority power that Democrats enjoyed when they shoved Obamcare down our throats. Republicans don’t have a super majority in congress and we have a Democrat president.
It isn’t Conservatives who work to keep the donors and lobbyists in business. conservative policies would LIMIT or END lobbying or the dire need to make big donations. Your loyalties run toward those who make those things necessary!
You don’t have a clue about how our republic was established or why it’s the best devised system ever or you wouldn’t say such ridiculous things.
Dewey does it occur to you that “private” companies and associations are possible because of the Constitution and are fundamental to the American experience? In America private control is supported by the rule of law.
If we have a problem today it is that we have forgotten the fundamentals of freedom. In our ignorance we have allowed our justice system and our congress to usurp power vested in the people and to corrupt the rule of law. This in turn creates cronyism, collusion, extortion, lobbying and all of the other problems we’d like to see ended.
Government control in its various forms is incompatible with the American experience and the Constitution. A history lesson…again.
Library of Economics and Freedom:
(I consolidated the article, please do read the entire thing)
I discovered that I was out of my anti-nausea medicine, so I didn’t turn it on . . . .
I watched the whole thing and thought it so entertaining I popped some popcorn.
The moderators did do an excellent job. They took off the kiddy gloves and asked hard hitting questions. Watching Hillary squirm trying to not answer her first question about her foreign policy and the rise of ISIS was worth sitting through the two hours.
Hearing the audience moan and laugh at Sander’s 90% plus tax for the rich was another priceless moment. I think some light bulbs actually went off in a couple of minds finally.
The rest of the debate was listening to them talk about the horrible economy and blaming it on invisible members of their own party. No plans were presented to grow our economy, other than raising taxes and the minimum wage.
It was a great info commercial for anyone with an IQ over 40 on why any of them would be bad for anyone who wants a better and safer life.
The best thing to do when Democrats dig a hole is to stand aside and hand them a shovel.
Re : Dewey “LOL While I think Obama is an old school republican who has been too kind to the banksters You seem to think there was a Magic wand to reverse the devastation GW caused.”
Has Dewey been institutionalized yet?
Now there’s a question!
I think of Dewey’s posts as sparkling opportunities to set the record straight. I hope it’s not too boring for the rest of our beloved PS family. If the process moves Dewey a little that would be cause for celebration, but I don’t expect it.
Hillary isn’t just a politician liar, she is a compulsive liar — http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_DEBATE_FACT_CHECK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-11-14-23-51-34
Incredible! But I think my favorite of all was Bernie who said the 1% were making all the money. The reason was the big bonuses given to employees so they could avoid the sting of pending tax increases and keep more of their own money. Interesting that the extra money apparently went right back into the economy:
You would think the left would be able to connect the dots. The wealthy spend, they invest, and they create wealth and jobs that creating more spending and investment in the lower classes. Pretty soon you have a robust economy going! (Trickle down works)
Unfortunately they’ve been schooled by dolts with the same mindset as Bernie and company.
LOL
First the deficits were started by GW Bush. He kept those wars off the books and PBO had to put them on. The cost of GW’s market crash, and wars were inherited. Bottom Line Republican presidents spend and create deficits. GW Bush the conservative created this middle east mess as well.
The deficit has been reduced by 1 Trillion under Obama. That is a fact.
GW is the only president to cut revenue (Taxes) and start 2 wars on a credit card off the books.
Clinton left a surplus. Bottom Line GW wasted it. Between 1998 and 2000, President Bill Clintonâs Treasury Department paid off more than $360 billion in debt. As a result of 115 straight months of economic expansion that began after an increase in the top income tax rate.
G.W. Bush had begun to turn that surplus back into deficits that grew and grew, despite funding two wars on emergency supplemental bills that were not figured into the budget.
Dick Cheney said: âReagan proved deficits donât matter.â But deficits do matter to RepublicansâŚwhenever there is a Democratic president.
Two Big Lies: The President is responsible for the deficit, which is nearly entirely the result of Bush-era choices that the GOP refused to abandon, and the deficit is responsible for the poor economy.
The opposite is true.
Bottom Line: Democrat Bill Clinton was president the last time the federal budget was balanced, and Republicans controlled Congress.
Eisenhower was the last GOP President to balance the budget
http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2012/12/17/how-eisenhower-and-congressional-democrats-balanced-a-budget/
Dewey’s continued response is that it’s always the Republicans’ fault, no matter who is in the WH or Congress. When that tactic is called out, he blames both parties.
Whenever tax cuts have been implemented they have resulted in economic growth every time. Deficits do not come from tax cuts they come from overspending. That is a liberal bait & switch. Cut government spending and let the private sector grow, or grow government spending and we’ll all be in Sanders-esque soup lines.
Democratsâ PC Refusal to Name âRadical Islamâ Betrays a Deeper Weakness
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427116/democrats-radical-Islam-charade