And once again, you've ignored all of my posts saying it's a bad thing. We've entered a dangerous new phase in war, and it means we can kill people anywhere for cheap.
Not me. I would have been rooting Bush on for it, just like I did for using WP to light buildings up.
So what else is new? It's not like US presidents from either party have ever given a shit about civilian casualties overseas, at least as far back as I can remember.
ok, but the Orwellian way to count them as Al-Qaeda , even if they happen to be innocent bystanders is just way over the top wrong...... Yes, politics might be dirty often times (sometimes extremely so) but i find that whole line of reasoning they are using appalling..there is just no justification..... Even employing the term "collateral damage" (as orwellian as that term is too) would be better....SO ok, if they use drones to get AlQaeda targets, it's ok if they trumpet their success in getting "THE" target(s) not to just go ahead and pretend there were no civilian casualties even when they DO occur....and to top it off to count them as 'more' "successful" Al-Qaeda target killings....when the victims may not even have had a a clue they were next to Al-Qaeda targets
I think the watershed on that was the German resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in mid- WWI, or rather the initial success of it. Before that there was an infant trend toward decency, including US Presidents. After that no head of state could really afford to care whenever there was real advantage to be gained by "killing them all and letting God sort them out." Wilson tried to reverse the trend, but the rest of the world wouldn't make the committment, and by the time the US was at war again, Nanking, Rotterdam, London, et al had pretty much eliminated any concern for German or Japanese civilians or collateral damage among Dutch, French, Belgian, Pacific island or Italian civilians whatever their sympathies...
For one thing, the loony bird who did the "study" counted almost all of Obama's first year spending (up to October 1st) as Bush's spending. That would mean that the 825 billion "stimulus" bill was Bush's. And all of us in Realville no that's not true. He only counted about 140 billion of that to Obama. Secondly, Obama signed off on a 410 billion spending bill that Dubya rejected, and Nutting put that money in Bush's column. Thirdly, Obama spent the second half of the TARP money. I believe Bush wasn't going to spend that money, because the crisis had passed, but he asked Bush to release it for him. So, if I have $100 in my wallet (not likley these days) and my wife asks me to leave my wallet on the table, but she's the one who goes to the store and spends it, I would say that she should get the spending credit. By the way, that was another 200 billion. To add all that up.....that's 1.295 trillion not credited to Obama.
You have to carefully distinguish a few concepts and notions in order to accurately discuss this issue. A lot of people are very happy to bunch Debt and Budget together, point out the total amounts of each, or simply throw a lot of numbers without really going deep into the substance. Every year the government sets a Budget based on its projections, policies and estimates where it counts its revenues (sources) and the programs where it’s spending this money. You could look at it several ways, but probably the best way to analize it is on per capita inflation adjusted amount. In other words, is not the same to compare 2002 dollars to 2011 dollars and if the population keeps growing (regardless of the reason) is just logical that more money is going to be needed to cover for the population needs. Another way to look at it is Revenues and Expenditures as percentage of the GDP; it is not easy to compare the economy of 2012 (the economy is growing - partly because of inflation and population growth), with the economy of 2008 (recession). Furthermore, in a recession is commonly accepted wisdom (is there such a thing?) that the government needs to increase its expenditures to compensate for the slowing of the private sector, especially when borrowing basically costs zilch (since the banks are troubled and the consumers strained, government can borrow at about 1.5% anual rate!!!). Debt is basically a source of funds and is cumulative, like your credit card if you do not pay it in full at the end of the month. If the economy is tanking as it was in 2008, government revenue decreases sharply and the US have to borrow in order to finance its programs. If the Congress and the president give substantial tax breaks to the so-called “job creators” revenue decreases and the US has to borrow to cover for its expenditures. So who put more expenses on the credit card? Finally, not all budget decisions are created equal. Under a fair and balanced perspective (is there such a thing?) Tax Cuts for the rich, Two wars of choice or Faith based initiatives CANNOT be equaled to Rescue of the Financial Sector, Auto Industry Bailout or Stimulus programs. Unless you live in an alternative reality where war is peace, ignorance is strength and freedom is slavery.
First, anybody who tries to make an apples-to-apples comparison of the Presidential budget from one year to the next without accounting for baselines is just silly. That said: Your racist hatred of the President and desire to win at all costs will blind you to this fact, of course, but Obama's rate of spending growth is one of the lowest in modern history by even the standards of your own goddamn party.
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with either of you, but I do think it is possible to criticize Obama without being a racist. It's too easy to discount all criticism as being racist.
Criticism without any evidence can be, sure it can. Yeah, I know you and Timon and Matt aren't, but c'mon...VFish is a white guy living in the South and Steamer's from the Rust Belt. Not too many explanations left.
Not planting Biden in Wisconsin, and not spending the weekend there may turn out a big failure. I hope not. It would be a hoot if the Dems were to identify Walkers strongest city and make a day long Presidential appearance there on Tuesday. Cause no end of road closures and traffic nightmares. Make voting there as difficult as possible. Rove would fume and admire simultaneously.
Yeah.. No idea why the Dems aren't even trying in Wisconsin. The DNC had to be dragged into the race kicking and screaming and even then it was just a minimal cash donation to Barrett's campaign. Even the unions were hesitant at first, but that was largely because Barrett beat their favorite candidate, so it took a bit for them to get over that loss.
The Dems are staying clear because the Wisconsin recall is framed as a union referendum. If it were more broadly the middle class versus the managing class, then the Dems would be happy to lend their support.
Exactly. It's not such a mystery when you consider at which teats both parties (including the Democrats) suck for campaign dough.
I have said all along that both parties do it. Doesn't make it right but does prove that I am not always wrong.
One member of the Democrats' House caucus picks his nose as the entire Republican caucus do it and you'd claim that both parties do it.