Chef Jim Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Dude, how much worse can it get?... Oh, and don't you know, there is no more "poorhouse." How much worse can it get? Please explain to me how we're going to pay for all of these programs that the government is/has created. Think about that for just a bit and you'll have your answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 How much worse can it get? Please explain to me how we're going to pay for all of these programs that the government is/has created. Think about that for just a bit and you'll have your answer. What? Don't tell me they are going to touch my "disposable" income! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 What? Don't tell me they are going to touch my "disposable" income! So you don't have a problem when your disposable income becomes their disposable income? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 So you don't have a problem when your disposable income becomes their disposable income? Their = the unemployable; illegal immigrants; lazy; etc.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 So you don't have a problem when your disposable income becomes their disposable income? Just don't touch the 5 bucks I have in my pocket for Burger King! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Yeah you're right. Fug it, we'll just tax and spend our way into the poorhouse. I guess the status quo in your mind in just lovely. Why weren't all y'all teabagging in 2008 when the Bushistas ponied up 750b for the financial services industry and literally threw it at them with virtually no conditions as to its use?? You're totally freaked over Obama's $787b but that represents about half of the government's largesse...using our money. Just have to ask you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Why weren't all y'all teabagging in 2008 when the Bushistas ponied up 750b for the financial services industry and literally threw it at them with virtually no conditions as to its use?? You're totally freaked over Obama's $787b but that represents about half of the government's largesse...using our money. Just have to ask you know. We we're pissed then but we're really !@#$ING PISSED now. Satisfied? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Why weren't all y'all teabagging in 2008 when the Bushistas ponied up 750b for the financial services industry and literally threw it at them with virtually no conditions as to its use?? You're totally freaked over Obama's $787b but that represents about half of the government's largesse...using our money. Just have to ask you know. Speak out against our president? Why, that would be Un-American Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Why weren't all y'all teabagging in 2008 when the Bushistas ponied up 750b for the financial services industry and literally threw it at them with virtually no conditions as to its use?? You're totally freaked over Obama's $787b but that represents about half of the government's largesse...using our money. Just have to ask you know. From now on, all liberal actions will be referred to as "Cleveland Steaming" Because NOTHING reminds me of a big, hot steaming pile of sh-- more than a liberal. As soft as sh--. Full of sh--. And for a good many of them, especially at THEIR "protests", SMELL like sh--. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 From now on, all liberal actions will be referred to as "Cleveland Steaming" Because NOTHING reminds me of a big, hot steaming pile of sh-- more than a liberal. As soft as sh--. Full of sh--. And for a good many of them, especially at THEIR "protests", SMELL like sh--. That you are an expert on sh-t does not surprise me at all. I expect it comes from years of rolling in it. Of course that doesn't address the question of what it was about the addition $37b in Obama's bailout that y'all hated. The $750b Bush bailout = ok, but $787b Obama = outrage. Which just proves that this whole teabag thing was NOT a protest against govt control and spending in general, it WAS anti-Obama. So it's just another G(n)OP effort to contribute nothing in the way of solutions to a problem when they helped create. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 How much worse can it get? Please explain to me how we're going to pay for all of these programs that the government is/has created. Think about that for just a bit and you'll have your answer. Ask the British how much worse it can get... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8011321.stm 50% Tax Rates and significantly reduced deductions....Reykjavik on the Thames just got much worse.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Which just proves that this whole teabag thing was NOT a protest against govt control and spending in general, it WAS anti-Obama. So it's just another G(n)OP effort to contribute nothing in the way of solutions to a problem when they helped create. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that people respond differently to war spending than they do to spending their grandchildren's money on, oh, say, grape genetics and honey bee studies. Maybe the concept of liberating the people of Iraq carried some level of "doing good" when the concept of studying grape genetics...uhhhh...not so much. People see that the situation in Iraq actually has some postive results while they're still waiting for the billions of dollars spent on "shovel-ready jobs" to magically formulate despite being told that if the government didn't act immediately that the country would lose 500,000 jobs per month. Sometimes it's not what is happening, but how it was presented. Now, before you get your panties twisted because someone is debating your Rachel Madcow talking point, I am not using this argument to justify the spending Bush did because it clearly left a significant debt. But what you do and how you do it plays a role, and the people who were protesting were pretty adamant that the spending being passed on to our grandchildren is nothing more than the Democratic party paying off everyone who got them back into power by leveraging the government-caused economic crisis to start laundering taxpayer money back to their causes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Maybe it has something to do with the fact that people respond differently to war say what ? react differently to war spending? You mean the contrived war just so he could get re-epected? Talking bail out $$$ The $750b Bush bailout w/o spending stipulations = ok in your right winged eyes, The $787b Obama with spending stipulations = outrage in your right winged eyes. spending stipulations = No more Million $ bonus', No more Half Million $ spa weekends, No more Golden Parachute clauses, and a $500K cap on bail out salaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 say what ? react differently to war spending?You mean the contrived war just so he could get re-epected? Talking bail out $$$ The $750b Bush bailout w/o spending stipulations = ok in your right winged eyes, The $787b Obama with spending stipulations = outrage in your right winged eyes. spending stipulations = No more Million $ bonus', No more Half Million $ spa weekends, No more Golden Parachute clauses, and a $500K cap on bail out salaries. Actually the "BUSH" bailout was scheduled to be implemented in 2 parts. Bush and crew had half to play with and the agreement was the rest would be released Obama and crew. I hated that bailout. What made the second one bad was Obama and crew now have not only spent the origical 375 that their admin was supposed to target where they thought it best could be used, but now have more than doubled it by that much more to fund their friends and family pet projects to thank folks for getting them elected. So Obama and crew did get 800 billion they had 1.15 trillion to spend in the last 2 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 That you are an expert on sh-t does not surprise me at all. I expect it comes from years of rolling in it. Of course that doesn't address the question of what it was about the addition $37b in Obama's bailout that y'all hated. The $750b Bush bailout = ok, but $787b Obama = outrage. Which just proves that this whole teabag thing was NOT a protest against govt control and spending in general, it WAS anti-Obama. So it's just another G(n)OP effort to contribute nothing in the way of solutions to a problem when they helped create. Where was I last year? Where the !@#$ were YOU and your pals when Clinton was sending waves of F-18s into Bosnia and dropping cruise missleswilly nilly into Sudanese factories????!!!??? And dont think we didnt "occupy" Iraq back then either. The term "no fly zone" ring a bell? Desert Fox? Funny....I didnt see any "protests" or "outrage" then from our friends on the left about that stuff. Typical...so !@#$ing typical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Where was I last year? Where the !@#$ were YOU and your pals when Clinton was sending waves of F-18s into Bosnia and dropping cruise missleswilly nilly into Sudanese factories????!!!??? And dont think we didnt "occupy" Iraq back then either. The term "no fly zone" ring a bell? Desert Fox? Funny....I didnt see any "protests" or "outrage" then from our friends on the left about that stuff. Typical...so !@#$ing typical. I certainly wasn't on this board, and I am not sure what "occupying" Iraq has to do with all this? Did your head explode or something, rendering you even less comprensible than usual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I certainly wasn't on this board, and I am not sure what "occupying" Iraq has to do with all this? Did your head explode or something, rendering you even less comprensible than usual? I think his point was something like "Realistically, we've been at war with Iraq since 1991, how come you only object to certain parts of it?" Which is certainly not an invalid question. He's just a little too dopey to phrase it coherently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I think his point was something like "Realistically, we've been at war with Iraq since 1991, how come you only object to certain parts of it?" Which is certainly not an invalid question. He's just a little too dopey to phrase it coherently. I think she's been advocating all along that we could have easily handled Iraq with a hug, a smile, a bow and a book swap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I think she's been advocating all along that we could have easily handled Iraq with a hug, a smile, a bow and a book swap. No, I suspect she's more in the "But sanctions were working!" group. Not that I've ever seen her say that...but I suspect that's how she'd roll... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I think his point was something like "Realistically, we've been at war with Iraq since 1991, how come you only object to certain parts of it?" Which is certainly not an invalid question. He's just a little too dopey to phrase it coherently. I was happy when Raygun bombed Tripoli. I was happy when Bush bombed Afgoonistan. Otherwise - the "wars" we've fought since WWII have not had my support (not that I was alive for all of them). Now what ALL this has to do with idiots and their teabags is beyond me. They have no credibility and now that it's coming out who all is behind it, the idea that this is a populist movement is going up in smoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts