Republican proving primitive an idiot

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6720525

Oh my.

Another primitive in over his head:

Justyce  (1000+ posts)      Wed Oct-07-09 06:12 PM
Original message
 
Argument with an idiot repub...

Anyone feel like writing a smartass answer for me? My brain is tired from work, but I don't want to let this fool get the last word, so if anyone is feeling feisty, I'd appreciate it...

"First...There was NO Clinton surplus. That is a myth. Research it. What it ACTUALLY was was that there would be a budget surplus if everything remained exactly as it was when he left office and Congress did not spend ANY money for about 10 years. THAT is NOT a surplus.

Second....if it is ANYONE's unjust war, it is CONGRESS' unjust war. Bush could not start nor send troops to war WITHOUT the approval of Congress, and several Democrats voted for it too. So if you are going to condemn, condemn ALL the guilty.

It was the Democrat majority who raided social security funds (and they had to make a law to allow themselves to do that, since it was against the law to do it, very creative those Democrats)...it was two Democrats, Chris Dodd and Barney Franks who started the economic downfall that required the bailouts...so Bush is not at fault either...and yes, Bush did the first bailout, did that mean Obama had to follow suit with trillions more ALREADY, because as you point out, he has only been in office a few months. And already his deficit is higher than Bush's was in 8 years INCLUDING his bailout.

Bush gave tax cuts across the board, not just to corporations. I got mine. I hope to heck the Democrats don't take it away from me. And I am NOT a corporation.

This massive debt we are in now lays right at the feet of two Democrats...Dodd and Franks. FACT. Can be proven, if you are really interested in the truth and not democratic talking points.

With all due respect."

AllentownJake  (1000+ posts)        Wed Oct-07-09 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
 
1. I talked to a Toomey Supporter the other day and they denied Bush had anything to do with the housing crisis.

I had them google, Bush and ownership society.

I won.

Yeah, sure you did.

Justyce  (1000+ posts)      Wed Oct-07-09 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
 
2. They're in such deep denial, it hardly seems worth the time to argue with them, but this particular one is really pissing me off...

orleans  (1000+ posts)        Wed Oct-07-09 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
 
3. "dear 'friend' -- **** off"

there. done. hope that was helpful.

The usual primitive answer.

icnorth  (420 posts)        Wed Oct-07-09 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
 
4. Grab your ears tightly with both hands and pull your head out of your ass.

Now, the above's great advice.....for the primitives.

The rich kid grazing primitive:

jgraz  (1000+ posts)        Wed Oct-07-09 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
 
6. I take it "kiss my ass you inbred hillbilly" won't cut it?

First...There was NO Clinton surplus. That is a myth. Research it. What it ACTUALLY was was that there would be a budget surplus if everything remained exactly as it was when he left office and Congress did not spend ANY money for about 10 years. THAT is NOT a surplus.

You'll never convince this ignoramous otherwise. So just ask him who added more to the debt, Bush or Clinton?

Second....if it is ANYONE's unjust war, it is CONGRESS' unjust war. Bush could not start nor send troops to war WITHOUT the approval of Congress, and several Democrats voted for it too. So if you are going to condemn, condemn ALL the guilty.

So, fine. Condemn the Democrats for either believing Bush's lies or using them for cover. Right after you send that lying POS W. to the gallows for treason.

It was the Democrat majority...

It's "Democratic". I really wish these foreigners would learn proper English.

...who raided social security funds (and they had to make a law to allow themselves to do that, since it was against the law to do it, very creative those Democrats)

Both parties have raided the Soc Sec Trust Fund, mostly for wars. Johnson did it for Vietnam, Bush did it for Afghanistan. Of course, who was it who wanted to move the entire trust fund into the stock market? I wonder how that would have worked out...

...it was two Democrats, Chris Dodd and Barney Franks who started the economic downfall that required the bailouts...so Bush is not at fault either...

Yeah, that's crap. http://rawstory.com/2009/10/study-bush-blocked-efforts /

and yes, Bush did the first bailout, did that mean Obama had to follow suit with trillions more ALREADY, because as you point out, he has only been in office a few months. And already his deficit is higher than Bush's was in 8 years INCLUDING his bailout.

Of course, the debt is a direct result of Bush's craptacular presidency, especially because Obama insisted on fighting Bush's wars on the budget. Or does your Repuke friend think we should immediately pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan? That would certainly cut down on the deficit.

Bush gave tax cuts across the board, not just to corporations. I got mine. I hope to heck the Democrats don't take it away from me. And I am NOT a corporation.

So make up your mind. Do you want tax cuts or a lower deficit? Cuz you can't have both. Here, let him argue with a Nobel prize winner:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/bush-tax-cu...

This massive debt we are in now lays right at the feet of two Democrats...Dodd and Franks. FACT. Can be proven, if you are really interested in the truth and not democratic talking points.

This idiot should brush up on the meaning of the word FACT. It does not mean "the last thing that Glenn Beck pulled out of his ass."

With all due respect.

I have zero respect for the willfully stupid. **** this asswipe.

I dunno if I'd use rawstory and Paul Klutzman as sources.

MrModerate  (1000+ posts)        Wed Oct-07-09 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
 
7. Partial answer:

1) Yes, it was a projected surplus based on the premise of rational government following the Clinton presidency (and no, it didn't require Congress to spend nothing for 10 years). Unfortunately, we didn't get rational government -- we got Bush, who oversaw the greatest transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich in the history of the world.

2) The IWR gave the president the authorization to go to war if certain criteria of threat from Iraq were met, and also required a sincere and effective peace effort. Neither happened. The threat was totally bogus, manufactured by the Bush White House, and the peace effort a sham. That having been said, Congress erred in giving Bush even that much leeway, since millions of Americans already recognized his bloodthirsty mendacity and cried out for Congress to rein him in. They should have listened to the voices of the people in the street. And we haven't even begun to pay down the trillion-dollars-plus squandered in the totally unecessary and wicked Iraq war.

3) The "raid" on Social Security funds has been going on since the creation of the program; was inherent in the way the program was set up and has been administered for nearly 70 years; and was agreed by Republican and Democratic Congresses alike.

4) Hundreds of legislators -- including Dodd and Frank -- contributed to the regulatory climate that allowed the ponzi-like investment schemes that have nearly brought on a second Great Depression. But let's not forget that relaxed regulation is a rightwing mantra, so let's shift the center of the blame where it lies.

5) Bush's tax cuts gave next to nothing to low wage earners, pennies to the middle class, and trillions to the truly wealthy and fictional persons (corporations). That's how "sharing the wealth" upward works. Unfortunately, there was a huge vacuum when revenue shortfalls are calculated. And that's the Bush legacy deficit.

Winterblues (1000+ posts)      Wed Oct-07-09 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
 
8. Well the very first one is completely wrong

The US General Budget was indeed in Surplus for the last two years Clinton was in Office. It is true we remained in Debt, so a real Surplus did not happen but the National Debt Clock was shut off for the first time since Reagan and the Debt was actually being paid down.

Democrats did indeed raid the Social Security Fund but they tried hard to end the practice and Al Gore got ridiculed mightily for his "lock box" which was for the social Security fund.

Bush* kept saying it was the people's money and it should be returned. Bush* did indeed give tax cuts across the board but they were most heavily weighted toward the very wealthy.

And yes Congress did indeed give Bush* authority to invade Iraq with the Iraqi War Resolution and many Democrats did vote for that including Hillary and Reid and many many others. It probably is the single most damning issue that sunk Hillary's campaign.

DFemocrats are certainly not without blame in America's problems but compared to how Republicans Rule, they don't hold a candle. Republicans Rule while Democrats Govern.

OffWithTheirHeads  (1000+ posts)      Wed Oct-07-09 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
 
9. Ask him how old he thinks the world is.

If the answer does not contain the word billions, your time would be better spent talking to rocks.

jljamison (96 posts)     Wed Oct-07-09 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
 
10. On the deficit

One other point to make - Bush's budgets and his annual "Deficits" were always fiction, because he accounted for all of the war spending through emergency appropriation bills, rather than putting the war spending in the budget.

That is something that Obama did when he put together his first budget. So right away hundreds of billions of dollars were "added to the deficit" without actually spending one single additional dollar.

Lastly, the exploding budget deficit is not just based on additional top line spending but a drop in tax revenues as a result of slowed growth. There is no hiding Bush's responsibility here - the so called stimulative effect of his tax cuts was short lived and did not set the stage for prolonged growth, his appointment of nincompoop regulators was significantly responsible for the lack of oversight and proactive action to avoid the catastrophe that ensued, and fully 1 third of the budget deficits are due to the Bush tax cuts. So there ya go...

[The Village Idiot]

They are not worth it. Not enough neurons for a mouse between the lot of them.

[dutch508]

What was that? Did I hear the DUmpmonkie threaten GWB with death?

Is that a death threat?

...send that lying POS W. to the gallows for treason...

where is my phone...

[TheSarge]

You know...I could wade into DU and by myself and with the links I've gathered over the years along with knowledge gained first hand and lay waste to all of their little conspiracy theory BS tinfoil kookery.

One DUmp troll comes over here or engages a normal American in the real world and they have to enlist the entire hive to give them the answers they themselves are incapable of coming up with on their own.

It's no wonder the DUmmies and Libtards in general have trouble functioning on their own out in society.

[Chris_]

It's no wonder the DUmmies and Libtards in general have trouble functioning on their own out in society.

Shit; they have trouble functioning on their own in their own little DUmp world.  It is a given that their ability to function in the world of reality is like turning Spock loose in 20th century San Fransisco to look for whales.

[mamacags]

Justyce  (1000+ posts)      Wed Oct-07-09 06:12 PM
Original message
 
Argument with an idiot repub...

Anyone feel like writing a smartass answer for me? My brain is tired from work, but I don't want to let this fool get the last word, so if anyone is feeling feisty, I'd appreciate it...

"First...There was NO Clinton surplus. That is a myth. Research it. What it ACTUALLY was was that there would be a budget surplus if everything remained exactly as it was when he left office and Congress did not spend ANY money for about 10 years. THAT is NOT a surplus.

Second....if it is ANYONE's unjust war, it is CONGRESS' unjust war. Bush could not start nor send troops to war WITHOUT the approval of Congress, and several Democrats voted for it too. So if you are going to condemn, condemn ALL the guilty.

It was the Democrat majority who raided social security funds (and they had to make a law to allow themselves to do that, since it was against the law to do it, very creative those Democrats)...it was two Democrats, Chris Dodd and Barney Franks who started the economic downfall that required the bailouts...so Bush is not at fault either...and yes, Bush did the first bailout, did that mean Obama had to follow suit with trillions more ALREADY, because as you point out, he has only been in office a few months. And already his deficit is higher than Bush's was in 8 years INCLUDING his bailout.

Bush gave tax cuts across the board, not just to corporations. I got mine. I hope to heck the Democrats don't take it away from me. And I am NOT a corporation.

This massive debt we are in now lays right at the feet of two Democrats...Dodd and Franks. FACT. Can be proven, if you are really interested in the truth and not democratic talking points.

With all due respect."

[Chump]

Shit; they have trouble functioning on their own in their own little DUmp world.  It is a given that their ability to function in the world of reality is like turning Spock loose in 20th century San Fransisco to look for whales.

 

[claret1995]

So many IDIOTS and so little time



Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945), aDemocrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program..  He Promised:
     
1.)     That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
2.)     That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first   $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.)     That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,
4.)     That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.)     That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following:






If  I recall correctly, 1958 is the first year that Congress, not President Eisenhower, voted to remove some funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for Congress to spend.
If  I recall correctly, it was a democratically controlled Congress.
>From what I understand, Congress logic at that time was that there was so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out / be used up for the purpose it was intended / set aside for







Question:   Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?

Answer:   It was Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat,Term of Office:  November 22,1963 to January 20, 1969) and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.     






--------------------------------------------------------------------
Question:   Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security
(FICA) withholding?

[franksolich]

Great points, claret1995.

This hat's off to you.

[VelvetElvis]

You know...I could wade into DU....<snip>

Don't do it !!!

You'll get Cooties!!

 

[Chris_]

Argument with an idiot repub...

Anyone feel like writing a smartass answer for me?

They are the self-proclaimed smartest people on the internet, maybe even the world. They constantly brag about their so-called IQ scores. They repeatedly talk about how stupid and idiotic republicans are.

So why do they have to run for help every time they get in a debate with a republican?

[Carl]

They are the self-proclaimed smartest people on the internet, maybe even the world. They constantly brag about their so-called IQ scores. They repeatedly talk about how stupid and idiotic republicans are.

So why do they have to run for help every time they get in a debate with a republican?

They can`t think only feel and believe.
That is why they never venture far from the island where they just tell each other that stuff and never have to test it.

[jukin]

Facts to a DUmmy is like soap to a french.

[YupItsMe]

So make up your mind. Do you want tax cuts or a lower deficit? Cuz you can't have both. Here, let him argue with a Nobel prize winner:

  Bullshit.  Revenues to the IRS increased as a result of Bush's tax cuts.  Unfortunately, both Reps and Dems just took that as a message to spend more. 

A little history lesson DUmmies.  Tax revenues increased when JFK cut taxes, tax revenues increased when Reagan cut taxes and then again when Pres. Bush lowered taxes. 

  Here's another little lesson for you DUmmies to try to comprehend.  My tax rate went down close to 20% because I'm in the lower income class and had three kids to support at the time.   My father, who at the time made more than me, saw his tax rate go from 38% to 35% a reduction of of less than 1%.   (3 divided by 38)  =.790  .  Looks to me that the tax cut was geared to help the lower income people the most.