We avoided the frisky cliff

[clistensprechen]

Obama "added" trillions to the debt by putting Iraq and Afghanistan on the same set of books as the rest of the government. Dubya had 'em on "supplementals", pretending that supplemental expenditures weren't as much tax money as the rest of the government was.

In accounting circles, keeping two sets of books is illegal, and for good reason.

That's really a new and creative way of blaming Bush for Obama's failures.

Considering that cons invent new ways of blaming Obama for the deep hole Dubya tried to bury the U.S. into, that's rich.

[donni]

It takes a con to believe that fact is ridiculous.

that debt is war! stop that! we are agreed!

stop the war!
needs to become a mighty roar!

we should agree!

drones are a very poor representation of a willingness to help the world live well. we can-this is ridiculous-archaic!

[wbcoleman]

Obama "added" trillions to the debt by putting Iraq and Afghanistan on the same set of books as the rest of the government. Dubya had 'em on "supplementals", pretending that supplemental expenditures weren't as much tax money as the rest of the government was.

In accounting circles, keeping two sets of books is illegal, and for good reason.

That's really a new and creative way of blaming Bush for Obama's failures.

Considering that cons invent new ways of blaming Obama for the deep hole Dubya tried to bury the U.S. into, that's rich.

You cannot provide one single link to any conservative blaming Obama for Bush's spending.




<note from clara--I dammit hit the damn Modify button instead of the Quote button. Please disregard the "last modified" notice at the bottom.  I just do that by mistake sometimes.>

[Ted S]

Considering that cons invent new ways of blaming Obama for the deep hole Dubya tried to bury the U.S. into, that's rich.

You don't see that happening here.  As mister Coleman said, no conservatives here are blaming Obama for Bush's deplorable spending record.  Bush was bad, real bad, at at showing fiscal restraint but that doesn't mean we have to give Obama a pass.  Obama is simply worse than Bush.

For me Bush was far more disappointing than Obama.  I expect more from Republicans but Democrats by nature are going to be bad at watching the pocketbook.  I always knew Obama was going to be awful.  Clinton was the surprise.  He was more conservative than I ever expected him to be.  He was disappointing in other areas.

[wbcoleman]

Considering that cons invent new ways of blaming Obama for the deep hole Dubya tried to bury the U.S. into, that's rich.

You don't see that happening here.  As mister Coleman said, no conservatives here are blaming Obama for Bush's deplorable spending record.  Bush was bad, real bad, at at showing fiscal restraint but that doesn't mean we have to give Obama a pass.  Obama is simply worse than Bush.

For me Bush was far more disappointing than Obama.  I expect more from Republicans but Democrats by nature are going to be bad at watching the pocketbook.  I always knew Obama was going to be awful.  Clinton was the surprise.  He was more conservative than I ever expected him to be.  He was disappointing in other areas.

Dittos!  I cannot resist adding that Clinton became "more conservative" in the wake of the 1994 election results.  We didn't see that this time around.

[clistensprechen]

Obama "added" trillions to the debt by putting Iraq and Afghanistan on the same set of books as the rest of the government. Dubya had 'em on "supplementals", pretending that supplemental expenditures weren't as much tax money as the rest of the government was.

In accounting circles, keeping two sets of books is illegal, and for good reason.

That's really a new and creative way of blaming Bush for Obama's failures.

Considering that cons invent new ways of blaming Obama for the deep hole Dubya tried to bury the U.S. into, that's rich.

You cannot provide one single link to any conservative blaming Obama for Bush's spending.

That's because no conservative says anything about Dubya if they can help it. FACT: Obama's spending is on what Dubya racked up and tried to keep 2 sets of books for. Obama put 'em all on one book.  They're still what Dubya racked up.

[clistensprechen]

Considering that cons invent new ways of blaming Obama for the deep hole Dubya tried to bury the U.S. into, that's rich.

You don't see that happening here.  As mister Coleman said, no conservatives here are blaming Obama for Bush's deplorable spending record.  Bush was bad, real bad, at at showing fiscal restraint but that doesn't mean we have to give Obama a pass.  Obama is simply worse than Bush.

For me Bush was far more disappointing than Obama.  I expect more from Republicans but Democrats by nature are going to be bad at watching the pocketbook.  I always knew Obama was going to be awful.  Clinton was the surprise.  He was more conservative than I ever expected him to be.  He was disappointing in other areas.

When I interviewed Tea Party event organizers, I got that about Dubya--but they also held contempt for institutional Republicans as well. Sure, no conservatives HERE are blaming Obama, but others are, as well as pretending Obama's not cutting stuff when he is. What you claim is Dem nature isn't, either, by the way.  Not on the national level. I'll grant you that on the state level, I agree, but having lived in both Dem-run and Rep-run states, they're both nuts when it comes to spending, and they always line their own pockets whether they cut or expand. They leech both ways.

Clinton shouldn't be a surprise with the triangulation he came up with. He wasn't a conservative--he was a triangulator, until Gingrich showed up with his "revolution" and laid the foundation for the current congressional intransigence...and then was hoisted on his own petard.  I was there, I saw it happen, and nobody can convince me that what happened was anything different than that.

[clistensprechen]

It takes a con to believe that fact is ridiculous.

that debt is war! stop that! we are agreed!

stop the war!
needs to become a mighty roar!

we should agree!

drones are a very poor representation of a willingness to help the world live well. we can-this is ridiculous-archaic!

Bingo. And once again, donni hits the proverbial nail squarely on its proverbial head.

[wbcoleman]

Considering that cons invent new ways of blaming Obama for the deep hole Dubya tried to bury the U.S. into, that's rich.

You don't see that happening here.  As mister Coleman said, no conservatives here are blaming Obama for Bush's deplorable spending record.  Bush was bad, real bad, at at showing fiscal restraint but that doesn't mean we have to give Obama a pass.  Obama is simply worse than Bush.

For me Bush was far more disappointing than Obama.  I expect more from Republicans but Democrats by nature are going to be bad at watching the pocketbook.  I always knew Obama was going to be awful.  Clinton was the surprise.  He was more conservative than I ever expected him to be.  He was disappointing in other areas.

When I interviewed Tea Party event organizers, I got that about Dubya--but they also held contempt for institutional Republicans as well. Sure, no conservatives HERE are blaming Obama, but others are, as well as pretending Obama's not cutting stuff when he is. What you claim is Dem nature isn't, either, by the way.  Not on the national level. I'll grant you that on the state level, I agree, but having lived in both Dem-run and Rep-run states, they're both nuts when it comes to spending, and they always line their own pockets whether they cut or expand. They leech both ways.

Clinton shouldn't be a surprise with the triangulation he came up with. He wasn't a conservative--he was a triangulator, until Gingrich showed up with his "revolution" and laid the foundation for the current congressional intransigence...and then was hoisted on his own petard.  I was there, I saw it happen, and nobody can convince me that what happened was anything different than that.

What the hell do you think Obama is cutting?

[Don Houston]

She thinks that Obama holds the books somehow.  She hasn't realize that the books stay and have stayed with Congress.  Obama can not write a check with out Congress Approval and that is in the US Constitution.  Hell even he knows that.  This is why he is always trying to find ways around Congress, but that pesky document won't allow him to do it

[wbcoleman]

She thinks that Obama holds the books somehow.  She hasn't realize that the books stay and have stayed with Congress.  Obama can not write a check with out Congress Approval and that is in the US Constitution.  Hell even he knows that.  This is why he is always trying to find ways around Congress, but that pesky document won't allow him to do it

No, there is a leftist meme drifting about that conservatives are ignoring the fact that O is cutting spending.  Why they expect anyone to believe it is beyond me.