Kearny on the Web: the current Congress - Kearny on the Web

Congress may be unpopular but this Congress has now passed several major pieces of legislation, including historic health care reform and now both Houses have passed major financial reform. That is far more than most Congresses have accomplished in recent memory. Obstructionist Republicans don't like it but it's hard to argue that the current Congress hasn't gotten things done.

Guest, on May 21 2010, 04:52 AM, said:

Oh, they've gotten things done. To the tune of 13 trillion in debt that we'll never get out from under. But hey, free healthcare for illegal aliens makes it
all worthwhile.

2smart4u, on May 21 2010, 07:32 PM, said:

You're lying again. Most of that debt was accumulated by Republican presidents. That's not debatable. It's a fact.

Here is a link to the facts, Stupid, not that the facts matter to you.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports...bt/histdebt.htm

When Reagan took office, the national debt was less than $1 trillion. When Bush 41 left office, the debt had quadrupled to more than $4 trillion. When Clinton left office, the debt had risen another $1.5 trillion. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports...debt_histo4.htm

When Monkey Boy took office, the debt was approximately $5.5 trillion. When the jackass left office, the debt was more than $10 trillion and the economy was on the brink of collapse. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports...debt_histo5.htm

That makes $8 trillion dollars of debt run up under Reagan, Bush and Bush. And we got nothing for it. The middle class got creamed while the rich got richer and our long-term national needs, like energy and infrastructure, were ignored. It was redistribution of wealth in favor of the rich and to hell with 95% of us. If you want to complain about socialism, there it is - only it's right wing socialism, which usually is called fascism.

We have had to accumulate more debt in the past year and a half to prevent the economy from collapsing. If we invest in the future, as we should have been doing for the past thirty years, we can eventually get out of debt. It's not going to happen under Republicans. They have proved that they are horrible in running up debt.

And yet you continue to berate the current President, who is only doing what has to be done to bring our economy into step with the demands of the 21st century. You don't care why he's doing it. You hate him and nothing else matters to you. And you're willing to lie to try to make your ridiculous argument, and ignore all the facts that don't fit the fairy tale you keep telling.

I mean this sincerely: You're a lying right-wing scumbag.

Guest, on May 22 2010, 11:12 AM, said:

Ok, let's look at the numbers. Under Reagan, Bush and Bush; 20 years / 8 trillion (used to bankrupt the Soviets under Reagan and fight terrorism under the Bush's).
Under Comrade zerO: 2 trillion in first year. (At the current rate he'll hit the 8 trillion mark in 4 years, that's 5 times faster than Reagan, Bush and Bush). And most of zerO's spending has been on leftist socialist programs like free health care and tuition for illegal aleins.
Now tell me again who's been "horrible" in running up the debt. Wise up, dummy.

2smart4u, on May 23 2010, 02:50 PM, said:

Stupid,

Obama will not run up $2 trillion a year. He won't run up $8 trillion and he will be re-elected because the people know that he's spending the money because he has to. You never address the fact that if he hadn't done this, the economy would have collapsed. So by silence you admit it. That would cost us far more than $2 trillion, Stupid.

It's like buying a house or taking out a big loan to finance a college education. You can't do it every year. And you don't. Obama isn't stupid. Far from it. But you will never give him a chance, even if we completely wipe out our debt by freeing ourselves from oil, ending Bush's two wars and rebuilding our manufacturing base. You watch. Obama will not run up $8 trillion in additional debt during his first term, or in his two terms combined.

In stark contrast with that, Bush didn't have to run a deficit. Clinton had left him in the black. He consciously gave away the money that rightfully belonged to the middle class to the rich in a foolish tax cut weighted toward the wealthiest. Then he started a completely unnecessary war that he didn't pay for. He didn't have to do that either. Reagan promised to balance the budget and then did exactly the opposite. He didn't have to spend more money on the military while cutting taxes but he did. Sure, it stimulated the economy in the short term but he ignored our long-term needs. Bush I was the only one of the three who came close to having any sense and for being responsible he was voted out of office.

You're the one who needs to wise up, Stupid. If we do not invest in our country's future, our country will decline and will no longer be a world power. That's the trend Reagan, Bush and Bush put us on. Obama is trying to reverse it by investing in our future.

2smart4u, on May 23 2010, 02:50 PM, said:

I thought your complaint about the health care legislation was that everyone was going to have to pay into it. How is that free health care?

Yes, there are people who will get care without paying into the system, just like there were under the old law. So again, how is the new law "free health care"?

Yet again, YOU ARE LYING.

2smart4u, on May 23 2010, 02:50 PM, said:

F**K you 2 smart. Nobody givesa rusty F**K or a rolling donut about anything you have to say. F**K off and die you piece of shit!

Guest, on May 23 2010, 07:34 PM, said:

"Investing in our future". Has a nice ring to it, kind of like putting money into a college tuition fund. Except the situation Comrade zerO has put us in is anything but saving money. Our future and our kids future will see nothing that resembles an investment, our futures will be massive debt.

So you keep skipping down that rosy path Comrade zerO has laid out for you, but at the end of that path when you look around for all the "investments" you have coming to you and only find a big tax bill, the reality of Socialism will dawn on you.

2smart4u, on May 24 2010, 01:46 PM, said:

If I thought it would make your head explode, I would become a commie in a heartbeat.
Care for some Kool-Aid, Commrade?

2smart4u, on May 24 2010, 01:46 PM, said:

Amen brother, Reality 101. I have a hard time understanding the mind-set of Dems that are unable to recognize the economic disaster we're racing toward and keep using dumb platitudes (investing in our future) to defend this soaring debt.

2smart4u, on May 24 2010, 01:46 PM, said:

Stupid,

The reality of socialism is here to stay, whether you and I like it or not. Like it or not, we're going to have a big military and government-run highways and regulation of nearly every sector of our economy and government-regulated utilities, etc. You can't have this lifestyle without major government involvement in the economy. No nation on Earth does, and never will again unless technologies advance to such an extent that economies can become local and regional again.

In our lifetimes, the corporations have grown bigger and more powerful and have expanded to become international. If government does not rein that in, you will be under the tyranny of fascism, which is worse than socialism. At least with socialism in a democracy, you get to vote for the policies you want. If we hand control over to the corporations, we won't even have that.

Guest, on May 24 2010, 07:54 PM, said:

OK, then I'll explain it to you again.

The debt was already soaring under Bush because of his tax-cut giveaways to the rich and his two unfunded wars. You just didn't call it that when he was in office.

Obama came into office with the economy on the brink of disaster. (Why do you right wingers always ignore that key piece of history?) If the government hadn't done the two stimulus packages, huge companies would have failed and the economy would have collapsed. That would have resulted in even more debt than now, plus tens of millions more people unemployed than now.

We now have a national health care system. This was necessary because costs were rising under the old system and were progressively strangling the economy. Those will have to be brought under control.

Congress is also moving toward sensible regulation of the banks and financial institutions again. The undoing of those regulations led to the near collapse of our economy.

We are also investing in new energy and in infrastructure again - not enough in my opinion but Obama is being sensitive to the mounting debt. He gets it just fine. Yes, we have accumulated more debt but if we pay attention to long-term needs we can rebuild our economy and eventually make up for decades of neglect during the Reagan era.

You don't get it. That doesn't mean Obama isn't doing the right things.

Guest, on May 24 2010, 10:26 PM, said:

"The reality of socialism is here to stay" ? Spoken like a true card-carrying Loony. Fortunately, you don't have a clue, the mid-terms in Nov. will put an end to your Socialist utopian Kool-Aid dreams. And when 2012 rolls around Comrade zerO will be send back to Chicago where he can reunite with his terrorist friends.
Then the next GOP president will have to deal with the mountain of entitlement debt this inexperienced socialist community organizer has saddled the USA with.

2smart4u, on May 25 2010, 11:53 AM, said:

Spoken like a truly stupid person. Socialism isn't a utopian dream. It's a fact of life in every developed country on earth. Name one developed country in which government doesn't play a major role in health care, education, regulation of banking, finance and industry, environment, highways, etc. You can't name one because

THERE AREN'T ANY.

So you see,

STUPID,

I call you STUPID because you act STUPID. You can have any opinion you want. But when you

IGNORE THE FACTS,

that's

STUPID.

If you weren't so

STUPID,

You would admit the

FACTS

that for all their talk, Republicans since Reagan
never reduced the national debt.
Just the opposite, they blew it through the roof.

If you weren't so busy trying to act tough, you might have noticed that
the rich have been picking your pocket,
mainly with the help of Republicans you're so fond of.

If you didn't blindly hate Obama and every other Democrat, you would address the near catastrophe he faced coming into office. You never admit the fact that the economy was in crisis when Obama took office and he has saved this country's economy from collapse. You just ignore it, like you ignore everything that doesn't fit with your fairy tale.

And if you really wanted to have a discussion about the new health care bill or the pending regulatory legislation or the stimulus packages or the money being invested in new energy sources, you would
pay attention to the facts,
especially when they don't fit your narrative, a/k/a, political fairy tale.

But you don't. Ever. All you ever do is mock everyone who doesn't agree with you, without a single fact to back you up. And that is why you've earned the name of

STUPID.

Guest, on May 25 2010, 03:47 PM, said:

Poor boy, you're confused. I suggest you look up socialism in the dictionary. You'll see that road construction, bank regulations, etc. have nothing to do with socialism.
BTW, I do like your multi-colored large print. It doesn't make your mistaken ideas on socialism any different, but I like it.

2smart4u, on May 25 2010, 05:45 PM, said:

I know what the word has meant historically. I also know how it has been used to mean any involvement by government in the economy. For decades, the American right wing has fought against government regulation as an aspect of socialism, i.e., government control. For the business community, this was a convenient foil to preserve their privileges. Even some of the brightest right-leaning economists, such as Milton Friedman, argue that any interference into the "free market" is socialism. (See the PBS interview below.) The right wing continues to make this argument today. See, for example:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Socialism
http://en.wikipedia....State_socialism
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/...onfriedman.html
http://www.cato.org/...s/pa-421es.html
http://www.reuters.c...M71801220080922
http://www.dickmorri...2010/05/21/989/
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/09/28/...et/tab/article/
http://aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view...343&posts=2
http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/blogs/fi...ulation-bill-is

Look at that, nutcake. You disagree with Conservapedia. You must be one of those Loony Lefties!

So yet again, you have no idea what you're talking about. You pick one definition out of many and call it gospel because it suits your argument at that moment; in fact, you've been making a contrary argument all along. You're so freaking STUPID you probably don't even realize it.

But good, let's call it progress: you have no problem with highways and bank regulations. How about the regulatory bill now before Congress, which both Houses have passed and now must reconcile before the measure becomes law? Are you OK with that? If not, why not?

Let's go issue by issue. If you really want to have an honest discussion as a patriotic citizen, which is what you claim, you should welcome it.

2smart4u, on May 25 2010, 05:45 PM, said:

Oh, and while you're at it, call all the Congressional Republicans who are opposing the regulatory legislation and tell them to knock it off.

As predicted, 2stupid4words cannot
Name one
developed country in which government doesn't play a major role in health care, education, regulation of banking, finance and industry, environment, highways, etc. He can't name one because

THERE AREN'T ANY.

Keith, on May 23 2010, 09:34 PM, said:

You have a great command of the English language, you could be a spokesman for the democratic party. You talk at a level the Dems could understand.

2smart4u, on May 26 2010, 09:21 PM, said:

No, Stupid, that's not how to do it.

The idea is to respond to the
substantive ideas and arguments
in a post and ignore the personal attacks.

You can't exactly say that you didn't respond to the other posts because you thought they were insulting. And you see, when you trade insults with Keith and completely ignore everything that actually responds to the points you raise - however badly you may raise them - it only proves what he's saying.

I'd really prefer not to call someone STUPID. But when you do what you're doing, you don't leave much choice and there's nothing to lose.

Is that the kind of country you want to live in? Think about it - for once.