I don't think that was Mahers intention.

Ha ha, trying to blame the democrats is like blaming the other person on a sinking boat when neither of you saw it coming. I can't recall any concerted alarm from the republicans in congress, actually quite the opposite. The Democrats were trying to curb spending for Iraq whilst the republicans were beating the drum for more spending. And along with that neither saw the housing bubble burst coming.

Both parties spend like they're on free crack. The GOP to make a class of uber wealth, the Dems numerous social programs.

In the end, both suck, but at least the Dems spend on Americans. Sadly, both parties spendig habits have done us in.

No, but coupled with your post right above it, it works that way.

Not really. :hmmm:

You can't recall it because you have blinders on to everything your precious Democratic party does.

The Democrats were trying to cut funding to Iraq because of ideological reasons not because of financial reasons. After all they DID vote to fund the war. Their only objection was to where the money was spent, not that it was spent. The proof of that is the biggest deficit in American history, courtesy of a Democrat controlled US Congress and Administration.

So is it more their fault for going along with it, or more the Republicans fault for proposing it?

You can't recall it because you have blinders on to everything your precious Republican party does.

I seem to recall some sort of democrat fellow changing his vote because of financial reasons, if my feeble mind stretches back that far it was because the structure for finance was changed entirely so that the US taxpayer got shafted with the full bill.
I think them publican fellows started ranting about him being a sandal or something like that for changing his mind over trivial finances on their ideological crudade.

As far as i'm concerned the decision to remove Saddam was the right one, but i'm not the one trying to make out like the Democrats were driven by fiscal concerns.

ok whoopty dee! Maybe we were voting over ideological reasons maybe we weren't...but the real point is that the republicans were willing to spend that much money in those wars...but now it's "oh my gosh, oh my gosh! spending is out of control!". Ha ha thats a joke. Again it's not about the budget, it's all a political move. They can whine and complain about how we spend to much to look good, and then slice programs they don't like to get their enemies out of the way.If they really cared about the fiscal spending they would vote us out of those pointless wars ASAP and take a long hard look at the defense spending of this nation, because it is one of the largest chunks there is. However, they like the Military industrial complex so they will never cut funding to the DoD. Apparently they hate the air and would also like to see our daughters get knocked up..because guess what was on the chopping block.

I agree with you there, but when they say "we're the party of spend less, they're the party of spend more" - it comes across as a bit disingenuous. Both parties are the party of spend more.

Really? I find the decision to remove Saddam highly questionable on several levels.

For example, the argument was made that he should be removed because he was a brutal dictator. The problem, though, is that the world is full of such people, and more often than not we do not get involved. So why remove this one guy in particular. We knew he was not a major threat (he did not have WMDs), and was not financing or supporting terrorist groups. The only other reason would be oil interests (and of course all those juicy government contracts).

By removing him we seriously destabilized the region, and allowed major in-roads when it comes to terrorist groups. There are also tones of other issues, and we are pretty stuck in there for a while.

So how exactly was all of this a good idea? It has (and continues to) cost us a fortune, many lost lives, screwed up the region, etc etc etc. In all likelihood in the long term the country will end up with yet another brutal dictator, probably more extreme (and anti western) then the last one.

I am increasingly coming to the opinion that west needs to stop trying to act like the world police force. It's not doing much good, not for us, and not for them either. It is however causing us a lot of problems, both internally, and a lot of hate externally.

Because money has been spent on other things in the past is not an excuse to go even more crazy now. Even you have to admit your Democrats have created the largest deficit ever in American history. Is Obamacare really that important?

I don't think progressives understand the term; "We have no more money."
I'll use a language they understand: No mas denero.

Don't cut my program bro.

who signed TARP into law?

I'm simply just pointing the hypocritical events that have taken place, where the republicans voted almost universally to throw more money to war yet have been climbing the walls when we propose social programs to help our countrymen or a bill to keep our country's economy from having the bottom fall out. Now however, when it is politically convenient to suddenly be fiscally conservative (at least from face value...until they start with handouts to the rich and businesses) they do so.

It's politics bro, if there was a republican president in office and they GOP wasn't worried about winning in 2012 we'd be selling our first born kids to send more money to haliburtion in Iraq.

And what have the Republicans done to address the problem? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. They kicked and screamed and threatened to shut down the government over 1.59% of the entire budget. 1.59% isn't about solving our deficit problems. It's about using the deficit as an excuse to cut programs that the GOP views as politically distasteful.

Anyone that believes any of this was about the budget and fiscal austerity is a rube.

I'd be happy to discuss this with you Neon but this isn't the thread to do it.

You're right, we don't have any more money, the GOP gave it all to corporations through tax shelters and loopholes.

When less than 5% hold over 50% of all wealth, compared to 60% of us holding it in the 70's, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see were creating a two class system via the corporate takeover of America.

It seems this nation is headed in one of two directions, corporate control or big government with social programs. The problem is one creates the other. The richer the corporations get, the poorer the mass population becomes. This creates a social and economic problem that many Dems. want to fix, face it, they believe in helping others even if it is with someone elses money, the GOP want to help the rich get richer so they can stay in office and force idealology down our throats.

It's laughable to say the GOP believes in smaller government. Anytime they had power, government and the budget increased.

And thus

Deadlock.

A lame duck president signed a Democrat created and passed bill. This is your argument? :DL