Obama has increased government spending less than any president in at least a generation.

[zeke]

Hey redfish, list the bills Obama got passed that accounted for the 10 trillion dollars he spent. Can you do that?

 

[Andylusion]

That is a total crock of shit, statistics lie and liars use statistics. The national debt when he took office was 10 trillion, it took 43 presidents more than 200 years to run that up, your dear leader is on pace to double that in 8 years, so it is ludicrous to say he's spending less.

The graph is from the Office of Management and Budget ; Congressional Budget Office ...what is your source Einstein ?

The other poster is incorrect. These two posters are exactly right.

If you take the Federal budget in 2010, as the base line, and plot spending increases from then until now, then based on that difference, Obama has increased the Federal Budget less than any president in recent history.

Keep in mind, this involves attributing all the bailouts, that Obama himself voted for, and was in favor of, and continued, as all being Bush, and thus not Obama's fault.

That's one of the keys to this specific argument. If you consider the Bailouts, which Obama supported, voted for, and continued when he got into office, as being part of Obama's budget, then the picture isn't a rosy.

However, none of that matters.

If I am promoted to CEO of GM, and I take over the company budget, and find that GM is losing $5 Million a year.... simply increasing corporate spending by a lower rate, won't solve anything. I'm still going to go bankrupt.

If revenue declines to $4 Million, and I decide "well I'm only going to increase spending from $5 Million, to ONLY $5.1 Million! Yay look at me! I increased spending less than the previous CEO!"

Um... Bankrupt?

You would fire that CEO, or end up bankrupt.

Those on the left, such as the posters quoted in this post, fail to grasp the reason for limiting the Federal budget. We're not doing this for any arbitrary purpose. We don't just magically enjoy small numbers.

The entire purpose of limited, reducing, or cutting the Federal budget, is to stop growing, and hopefully start reducing, the Federal debt.

To the point, when Obama got into office, the national debt was $10 Trillion. Now it's $18 Trillion.

When Bush was in office in 2008, the national deficit was $450 Billion, which was a record high. Now we dream of only having a $450 Billion deficit.

Regardless of the "gov spending has not increased 'as much' as prior presidents", it doesn't matter. What matter is, the deficit. The purpose of holding spending down, to to prevent the run up of debt. This Obama, has failed to do.

 

[Iceweasel]

If you take the Federal budget in 2010, as the base line, and plot spending increases from then until now, then based on that difference, Obama has increased the Federal Budget less than any president in recent history.

Keep in mind, this involves attributing all the bailouts, that Obama himself voted for, and was in favor of, and continued, as all being Bush, and thus not Obama's fault.

That's one of the keys to this specific argument. If you consider the Bailouts, which Obama supported, voted for, and continued when he got into office, as being part of Obama's budget, then the picture isn't a rosy.

However, none of that matters.

If I am promoted to CEO of GM, and I take over the company budget, and find that GM is losing $5 Million a year.... simply increasing corporate spending by a lower rate, won't solve anything. I'm still going to go bankrupt.

If revenue declines to $4 Million, and I decide "well I'm only going to increase spending from $5 Million, to ONLY $5.1 Million! Yay look at me! I increased spending less than the previous CEO!"

Um... Bankrupt?

You would fire that CEO, or end up bankrupt.

Those on the left, such as the posters quoted in this post, fail to grasp the reason for limiting the Federal budget. We're not doing this for any arbitrary purpose. We don't just magically enjoy small numbers.

The entire purpose of limited, reducing, or cutting the Federal budget, is to stop growing, and hopefully start reducing, the Federal debt.

To the point, when Obama got into office, the national debt was $10 Trillion. Now it's $18 Trillion.

When Bush was in office in 2008, the national deficit was $450 Billion, which was a record high. Now we dream of only having a $450 Billion deficit.

Regardless of the "gov spending has not increased 'as much' as prior presidents", it doesn't matter. What matter is, the deficit. The purpose of holding spending down, to to prevent the run up of debt. This Obama, has failed to do.

Great post. The left won't care but it was great anyway.

 

[Redfish]

That is a total crock of shit, statistics lie and liars use statistics. The national debt when he took office was 10 trillion, it took 43 presidents more than 200 years to run that up, your dear leader is on pace to double that in 8 years, so it is ludicrous to say he's spending less.

The graph is from the Office of Management and Budget ; Congressional Budget Office ...what is your source Einstein ?

The other poster is incorrect. These two posters are exactly right.

If you take the Federal budget in 2010, as the base line, and plot spending increases from then until now, then based on that difference, Obama has increased the Federal Budget less than any president in recent history.

Keep in mind, this involves attributing all the bailouts, that Obama himself voted for, and was in favor of, and continued, as all being Bush, and thus not Obama's fault.

That's one of the keys to this specific argument. If you consider the Bailouts, which Obama supported, voted for, and continued when he got into office, as being part of Obama's budget, then the picture isn't a rosy.

However, none of that matters.

If I am promoted to CEO of GM, and I take over the company budget, and find that GM is losing $5 Million a year.... simply increasing corporate spending by a lower rate, won't solve anything. I'm still going to go bankrupt.

If revenue declines to $4 Million, and I decide "well I'm only going to increase spending from $5 Million, to ONLY $5.1 Million! Yay look at me! I increased spending less than the previous CEO!"

Um... Bankrupt?

You would fire that CEO, or end up bankrupt.

Those on the left, such as the posters quoted in this post, fail to grasp the reason for limiting the Federal budget. We're not doing this for any arbitrary purpose. We don't just magically enjoy small numbers.

The entire purpose of limited, reducing, or cutting the Federal budget, is to stop growing, and hopefully start reducing, the Federal debt.

To the point, when Obama got into office, the national debt was $10 Trillion. Now it's $18 Trillion.

When Bush was in office in 2008, the national deficit was $450 Billion, which was a record high. Now we dream of only having a $450 Billion deficit.

Regardless of the "gov spending has not increased 'as much' as prior presidents", it doesn't matter. What matter is, the deficit. The purpose of holding spending down, to to prevent the run up of debt. This Obama, has failed to do.

good recap, don't expect any of the dem/libs to understand.

 

[Redfish]

Hey redfish, list the bills Obama got passed that accounted for the 10 trillion dollars he spent. Can you do that?

how many spending bills did he sign? all of them contributed to the debt increase.

Now, if he had reduced spending or balanced the budget, you might have a point, but he did neither.

 

[zeke]

how many spending bills did he sign? all of them contributed to the debt increase.

You the one making the claim there red. You ought to be able to point out the expenditures and or tax cuts that attributed to this 10 trillion dollars you say he (Obama) spent.

If you can't do that, it makes your claims sound like pure bullshit. Is that the case?

 

[healthmyths]

Nutters are very find of pretending that liberals don't know the difference between the deficit and the debt. That's silly of course.

What isn't silly....is that nutters don't know the relationship between the two.

Obama will have added more to the deficit than all other Presidents combined. That is the only fact that matters.

Brilliant!

Adding to the deficit Bush vs. Obama - The Washington Post

What a crock of shit. The usual leftard propaganda. Bush tax cuts added to the deficit? Total bullshit. And btw....Obama extended those tax cuts!

The math is real simple. Deficit when Obama took office. $10 trillion. Deficit when Obama leaves office $20 Trillion. Even complete idiots should be able to compute math that simple.

slight correction, thats debt, not deficit

Right! Debt is made up from DEFICITS!
Here are the deficits.... As Mr. Rogers would ask "Which is the larger number"???

Federal deficit falling to lowest in Obama presidency
Total deficits Obama will have left totaling $6,356,000,000,000 ($6.3 trillion)

Total Deficits BUSH $3.294 trillion!

Obama will have increased DEFICITS by 207%!!!
Which means DEBT increased by $6.3 trillion under Obama!
OBAMA:
FY 2017 - $458 billion
FY 2016 - $531 billion
FY 2015 - $564 billion
FY 2014 - $649 billion
FY 2013 - $680 billion.
FY 2012 - $1.087 trillion.
FY 2011 - $1.299 trillion.
FY 2010 - $1.546 ($1.293 trillion plus $253 billion from the Obama Stimulus Act that was attached to the FY 2009 budget).

President George W. Bush: Total = $3.294 trillion.
FY 2009 - $1.16 trillion. ($1.416 trillion minus $253 billion from Obama's Stimulus Act)
FY 2008 - $458 billion.
FY 2007 - $161 billion.
FY 2006 - $248 billion.
FY 2005 - $318 billion.
FY 2004 - $413 billion.
FY 2003 - $378 billion.
FY 2002 - $158 billion.

Which had the bigger deficits?
Obama with total deficits of $6.3 trillion or
Bush with $3.29 trillion?

Hmmm Mr. Rogers would have to say... $6.3 trillion is bigger number the $3.29 trillion!
PLUS Was there ONE single event in Obama's administration equal to these FOUR EVENTS that occurred during Bush's?
1) Do YOU agree a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Source: USATODAY.com - It s official 2001 recession only lasted eight months

2) Do YOU agree that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in losses?
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble How to lose 5 trillion 8211 Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs

3) Hard to believe but people forget that 9/11 cost $2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone.
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: The Top 10 Financial Events of the Decade

4) $1 trillion in written off losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. Andrew slammed into South Florida in 1992 as a Category 5. It caused 40 deaths and $30 billion in property damage. More than 250,000 people were left homeless and 82,000 businesses were destroyed or damaged.
Hurricane Katrina ALONE! Year 2005: Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
On August 25, 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast of the U.S. as a strong Category 3 or low Category 4 storm. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.
The Top 10 Financial Events of the Decade

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

That is a total crock of shit, statistics lie and liars use statistics. The national debt when he took office was 10 trillion, it took 43 presidents more than 200 years to run that up, your dear leader is on pace to double that in 8 years, so it is ludicrous to say he's spending less.

The graph is from the Office of Management and Budget ; Congressional Budget Office ...what is your source Einstein ?

The other poster is incorrect. These two posters are exactly right.

If you take the Federal budget in 2010, as the base line, and plot spending increases from then until now, then based on that difference, Obama has increased the Federal Budget less than any president in recent history.

Keep in mind, this involves attributing all the bailouts, that Obama himself voted for, and was in favor of, and continued, as all being Bush, and thus not Obama's fault.

That's one of the keys to this specific argument. If you consider the Bailouts, which Obama supported, voted for, and continued when he got into office, as being part of Obama's budget, then the picture isn't a rosy.

However, none of that matters.

If I am promoted to CEO of GM, and I take over the company budget, and find that GM is losing $5 Million a year.... simply increasing corporate spending by a lower rate, won't solve anything. I'm still going to go bankrupt.

If revenue declines to $4 Million, and I decide "well I'm only going to increase spending from $5 Million, to ONLY $5.1 Million! Yay look at me! I increased spending less than the previous CEO!"

Um... Bankrupt?

You would fire that CEO, or end up bankrupt.

Those on the left, such as the posters quoted in this post, fail to grasp the reason for limiting the Federal budget. We're not doing this for any arbitrary purpose. We don't just magically enjoy small numbers.

The entire purpose of limited, reducing, or cutting the Federal budget, is to stop growing, and hopefully start reducing, the Federal debt.

To the point, when Obama got into office, the national debt was $10 Trillion. Now it's $18 Trillion.

When Bush was in office in 2008, the national deficit was $450 Billion, which was a record high. Now we dream of only having a $450 Billion deficit.

Regardless of the "gov spending has not increased 'as much' as prior presidents", it doesn't matter. What matter is, the deficit. The purpose of holding spending down, to to prevent the run up of debt. This Obama, has failed to do.

They way I read it only the Black guy is responsible the white Presidents are all off the hook LOL

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

That is a total crock of shit, statistics lie and liars use statistics. The national debt when he took office was 10 trillion, it took 43 presidents more than 200 years to run that up, your dear leader is on pace to double that in 8 years, so it is ludicrous to say he's spending less.

The graph is from the Office of Management and Budget ; Congressional Budget Office ...what is your source Einstein ?

The other poster is incorrect. These two posters are exactly right.

If you take the Federal budget in 2010, as the base line, and plot spending increases from then until now, then based on that difference, Obama has increased the Federal Budget less than any president in recent history.

Keep in mind, this involves attributing all the bailouts, that Obama himself voted for, and was in favor of, and continued, as all being Bush, and thus not Obama's fault.

That's one of the keys to this specific argument. If you consider the Bailouts, which Obama supported, voted for, and continued when he got into office, as being part of Obama's budget, then the picture isn't a rosy.

However, none of that matters.

If I am promoted to CEO of GM, and I take over the company budget, and find that GM is losing $5 Million a year.... simply increasing corporate spending by a lower rate, won't solve anything. I'm still going to go bankrupt.

If revenue declines to $4 Million, and I decide "well I'm only going to increase spending from $5 Million, to ONLY $5.1 Million! Yay look at me! I increased spending less than the previous CEO!"

Um... Bankrupt?

You would fire that CEO, or end up bankrupt.

Those on the left, such as the posters quoted in this post, fail to grasp the reason for limiting the Federal budget. We're not doing this for any arbitrary purpose. We don't just magically enjoy small numbers.

The entire purpose of limited, reducing, or cutting the Federal budget, is to stop growing, and hopefully start reducing, the Federal debt.

To the point, when Obama got into office, the national debt was $10 Trillion. Now it's $18 Trillion.

When Bush was in office in 2008, the national deficit was $450 Billion, which was a record high. Now we dream of only having a $450 Billion deficit.

Regardless of the "gov spending has not increased 'as much' as prior presidents", it doesn't matter. What matter is, the deficit. The purpose of holding spending down, to to prevent the run up of debt. This Obama, has failed to do.

good recap, don't expect any of the dem/libs to understand.

Here is a better recap the white TurdBush 43 started two wars off the books [unfunded] ; the same Creep 43 gave an unprecedented War Time TAX CUT; he also created the UNFUNDED Medicare Part D prescription benefit; last but certain ly not least Inferior DNA 43 then simply crashed the economy...but hey BLAME THE BLACK GUY

 

[healthmyths]

That is a total crock of shit, statistics lie and liars use statistics. The national debt when he took office was 10 trillion, it took 43 presidents more than 200 years to run that up, your dear leader is on pace to double that in 8 years, so it is ludicrous to say he's spending less.

The graph is from the Office of Management and Budget ; Congressional Budget Office ...what is your source Einstein ?

The other poster is incorrect. These two posters are exactly right.

If you take the Federal budget in 2010, as the base line, and plot spending increases from then until now, then based on that difference, Obama has increased the Federal Budget less than any president in recent history.

Keep in mind, this involves attributing all the bailouts, that Obama himself voted for, and was in favor of, and continued, as all being Bush, and thus not Obama's fault.

That's one of the keys to this specific argument. If you consider the Bailouts, which Obama supported, voted for, and continued when he got into office, as being part of Obama's budget, then the picture isn't a rosy.

However, none of that matters.

If I am promoted to CEO of GM, and I take over the company budget, and find that GM is losing $5 Million a year.... simply increasing corporate spending by a lower rate, won't solve anything. I'm still going to go bankrupt.

If revenue declines to $4 Million, and I decide "well I'm only going to increase spending from $5 Million, to ONLY $5.1 Million! Yay look at me! I increased spending less than the previous CEO!"

Um... Bankrupt?

You would fire that CEO, or end up bankrupt.

Those on the left, such as the posters quoted in this post, fail to grasp the reason for limiting the Federal budget. We're not doing this for any arbitrary purpose. We don't just magically enjoy small numbers.

The entire purpose of limited, reducing, or cutting the Federal budget, is to stop growing, and hopefully start reducing, the Federal debt.

To the point, when Obama got into office, the national debt was $10 Trillion. Now it's $18 Trillion.

When Bush was in office in 2008, the national deficit was $450 Billion, which was a record high. Now we dream of only having a $450 Billion deficit.

Regardless of the "gov spending has not increased 'as much' as prior presidents", it doesn't matter. What matter is, the deficit. The purpose of holding spending down, to to prevent the run up of debt. This Obama, has failed to do.

They way I read it only the Black guy is responsible the white Presidents are all off the hook LOL

FACTS are facts and the facts are Obama has had the biggest deficits then any President in history!
Please refute these facts!

Federal deficit falling to lowest in Obama presidency

Total deficits Obama will have left DEFICITS totaling $6,356,000,000,000 ($6.3 trillion)

Total Deficits BUSH $3.294 trillion! Obama will have increased DEFICITS by 207%!!!
Obama
FY 2017 - $458 billion
FY 2016 - $531 billion
FY 2015 - $564 billion
FY 2014 - $649 billion
FY 2013 - $680 billion.
FY 2012 - $1.087 trillion.
FY 2011 - $1.299 trillion.
FY 2010 - $1.546 ($1.293 trillion plus $253 billion from the Obama Stimulus Act that was attached to the FY 2009 budget).
President George W. Bush: Total = $3.294 trillion.
FY 2009 - $1.16 trillion. ($1.416 trillion minus $253 billion from Obama's Stimulus Act)
FY 2008 - $458 billion.
FY 2007 - $161 billion.
FY 2006 - $248 billion.
FY 2005 - $318 billion.
FY 2004 - $413 billion.
FY 2003 - $378 billion.
FY 2002 - $158 billion.

 

[healthmyths]

That is a total crock of shit, statistics lie and liars use statistics. The national debt when he took office was 10 trillion, it took 43 presidents more than 200 years to run that up, your dear leader is on pace to double that in 8 years, so it is ludicrous to say he's spending less.

The graph is from the Office of Management and Budget ; Congressional Budget Office ...what is your source Einstein ?

The other poster is incorrect. These two posters are exactly right.

If you take the Federal budget in 2010, as the base line, and plot spending increases from then until now, then based on that difference, Obama has increased the Federal Budget less than any president in recent history.

Keep in mind, this involves attributing all the bailouts, that Obama himself voted for, and was in favor of, and continued, as all being Bush, and thus not Obama's fault.

That's one of the keys to this specific argument. If you consider the Bailouts, which Obama supported, voted for, and continued when he got into office, as being part of Obama's budget, then the picture isn't a rosy.

However, none of that matters.

If I am promoted to CEO of GM, and I take over the company budget, and find that GM is losing $5 Million a year.... simply increasing corporate spending by a lower rate, won't solve anything. I'm still going to go bankrupt.

If revenue declines to $4 Million, and I decide "well I'm only going to increase spending from $5 Million, to ONLY $5.1 Million! Yay look at me! I increased spending less than the previous CEO!"

Um... Bankrupt?

You would fire that CEO, or end up bankrupt.

Those on the left, such as the posters quoted in this post, fail to grasp the reason for limiting the Federal budget. We're not doing this for any arbitrary purpose. We don't just magically enjoy small numbers.

The entire purpose of limited, reducing, or cutting the Federal budget, is to stop growing, and hopefully start reducing, the Federal debt.

To the point, when Obama got into office, the national debt was $10 Trillion. Now it's $18 Trillion.

When Bush was in office in 2008, the national deficit was $450 Billion, which was a record high. Now we dream of only having a $450 Billion deficit.

Regardless of the "gov spending has not increased 'as much' as prior presidents", it doesn't matter. What matter is, the deficit. The purpose of holding spending down, to to prevent the run up of debt. This Obama, has failed to do.

good recap, don't expect any of the dem/libs to understand.

Here is a better recap the white TurdBush 43 started two wars off the books [unfunded] ; the same Creep 43 gave an unprecedented War Time TAX CUT; he also created the UNFUNDED Medicare Part D prescription benefit; last but certain ly not least Inferior DNA 43 then simply crashed the economy...but hey BLAME THE BLACK GUY

Then NONE of these events EVER HAPPENED???

What in the hell is wrong with you biased totally ignorant people that have NO obviously historical perspective?

1) Do YOU agree a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Source: USATODAY.com - It s official 2001 recession only lasted eight months

2) Do YOU agree that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in losses?
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble How to lose 5 trillion 8211 Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs

3) Hard to believe but people forget that 9/11 cost $2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone.
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: The Top 10 Financial Events of the Decade

4) $1 trillion in written off losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. Andrew slammed into South Florida in 1992 as a Category 5. It caused 40 deaths and $30 billion in property damage. More than 250,000 people were left homeless and 82,000 businesses were destroyed or damaged.
Hurricane Katrina ALONE! Year 2005: Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
On August 25, 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast of the U.S. as a strong Category 3 or low Category 4 storm. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.
The Top 10 Financial Events of the Decade

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of
a) 400,000 jobs due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
Government Revenue Details Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

That is a total crock of shit, statistics lie and liars use statistics. The national debt when he took office was 10 trillion, it took 43 presidents more than 200 years to run that up, your dear leader is on pace to double that in 8 years, so it is ludicrous to say he's spending less.

The graph is from the Office of Management and Budget ; Congressional Budget Office ...what is your source Einstein ?

The other poster is incorrect. These two posters are exactly right.

If you take the Federal budget in 2010, as the base line, and plot spending increases from then until now, then based on that difference, Obama has increased the Federal Budget less than any president in recent history.

Keep in mind, this involves attributing all the bailouts, that Obama himself voted for, and was in favor of, and continued, as all being Bush, and thus not Obama's fault.

That's one of the keys to this specific argument. If you consider the Bailouts, which Obama supported, voted for, and continued when he got into office, as being part of Obama's budget, then the picture isn't a rosy.

However, none of that matters.

If I am promoted to CEO of GM, and I take over the company budget, and find that GM is losing $5 Million a year.... simply increasing corporate spending by a lower rate, won't solve anything. I'm still going to go bankrupt.

If revenue declines to $4 Million, and I decide "well I'm only going to increase spending from $5 Million, to ONLY $5.1 Million! Yay look at me! I increased spending less than the previous CEO!"

Um... Bankrupt?

You would fire that CEO, or end up bankrupt.

Those on the left, such as the posters quoted in this post, fail to grasp the reason for limiting the Federal budget. We're not doing this for any arbitrary purpose. We don't just magically enjoy small numbers.

The entire purpose of limited, reducing, or cutting the Federal budget, is to stop growing, and hopefully start reducing, the Federal debt.

To the point, when Obama got into office, the national debt was $10 Trillion. Now it's $18 Trillion.

When Bush was in office in 2008, the national deficit was $450 Billion, which was a record high. Now we dream of only having a $450 Billion deficit.

Regardless of the "gov spending has not increased 'as much' as prior presidents", it doesn't matter. What matter is, the deficit. The purpose of holding spending down, to to prevent the run up of debt. This Obama, has failed to do.

They way I read it only the Black guy is responsible the white Presidents are all off the hook LOL

FACTS are facts and the facts are Obama has had the biggest deficits then any President in history!
Please refute these facts!

Federal deficit falling to lowest in Obama presidency

Total deficits Obama will have left DEFICITS totaling $6,356,000,000,000 ($6.3 trillion)

Total Deficits BUSH $3.294 trillion! Obama will have increased DEFICITS by 207%!!!
Obama
FY 2017 - $458 billion
FY 2016 - $531 billion
FY 2015 - $564 billion
FY 2014 - $649 billion
FY 2013 - $680 billion.
FY 2012 - $1.087 trillion.
FY 2011 - $1.299 trillion.
FY 2010 - $1.546 ($1.293 trillion plus $253 billion from the Obama Stimulus Act that was attached to the FY 2009 budget).
President George W. Bush: Total = $3.294 trillion.
FY 2009 - $1.16 trillion. ($1.416 trillion minus $253 billion from Obama's Stimulus Act)
FY 2008 - $458 billion.
FY 2007 - $161 billion.
FY 2006 - $248 billion.
FY 2005 - $318 billion.
FY 2004 - $413 billion.
FY 2003 - $378 billion.
FY 2002 - $158 billion.

Lets see Bush's tax cuts plus Bush's two wars plus Bush's Medicare benefit and Bush crashed the economy ....but Hey Blame the Black guy

 

[healthmyths]

That is a total crock of shit, statistics lie and liars use statistics. The national debt when he took office was 10 trillion, it took 43 presidents more than 200 years to run that up, your dear leader is on pace to double that in 8 years, so it is ludicrous to say he's spending less.

The graph is from the Office of Management and Budget ; Congressional Budget Office ...what is your source Einstein ?

The other poster is incorrect. These two posters are exactly right.

If you take the Federal budget in 2010, as the base line, and plot spending increases from then until now, then based on that difference, Obama has increased the Federal Budget less than any president in recent history.

Keep in mind, this involves attributing all the bailouts, that Obama himself voted for, and was in favor of, and continued, as all being Bush, and thus not Obama's fault.

That's one of the keys to this specific argument. If you consider the Bailouts, which Obama supported, voted for, and continued when he got into office, as being part of Obama's budget, then the picture isn't a rosy.

However, none of that matters.

If I am promoted to CEO of GM, and I take over the company budget, and find that GM is losing $5 Million a year.... simply increasing corporate spending by a lower rate, won't solve anything. I'm still going to go bankrupt.

If revenue declines to $4 Million, and I decide "well I'm only going to increase spending from $5 Million, to ONLY $5.1 Million! Yay look at me! I increased spending less than the previous CEO!"

Um... Bankrupt?

You would fire that CEO, or end up bankrupt.

Those on the left, such as the posters quoted in this post, fail to grasp the reason for limiting the Federal budget. We're not doing this for any arbitrary purpose. We don't just magically enjoy small numbers.

The entire purpose of limited, reducing, or cutting the Federal budget, is to stop growing, and hopefully start reducing, the Federal debt.

To the point, when Obama got into office, the national debt was $10 Trillion. Now it's $18 Trillion.

When Bush was in office in 2008, the national deficit was $450 Billion, which was a record high. Now we dream of only having a $450 Billion deficit.

Regardless of the "gov spending has not increased 'as much' as prior presidents", it doesn't matter. What matter is, the deficit. The purpose of holding spending down, to to prevent the run up of debt. This Obama, has failed to do.

They way I read it only the Black guy is responsible the white Presidents are all off the hook LOL

FACTS are facts and the facts are Obama has had the biggest deficits then any President in history!
Please refute these facts!

Federal deficit falling to lowest in Obama presidency

Total deficits Obama will have left DEFICITS totaling $6,356,000,000,000 ($6.3 trillion)

Total Deficits BUSH $3.294 trillion! Obama will have increased DEFICITS by 207%!!!
Obama
FY 2017 - $458 billion
FY 2016 - $531 billion
FY 2015 - $564 billion
FY 2014 - $649 billion
FY 2013 - $680 billion.
FY 2012 - $1.087 trillion.
FY 2011 - $1.299 trillion.
FY 2010 - $1.546 ($1.293 trillion plus $253 billion from the Obama Stimulus Act that was attached to the FY 2009 budget).
President George W. Bush: Total = $3.294 trillion.
FY 2009 - $1.16 trillion. ($1.416 trillion minus $253 billion from Obama's Stimulus Act)
FY 2008 - $458 billion.
FY 2007 - $161 billion.
FY 2006 - $248 billion.
FY 2005 - $318 billion.
FY 2004 - $413 billion.
FY 2003 - $378 billion.
FY 2002 - $158 billion.

Lets see Bush's tax cuts plus Bush's two wars plus Bush's Medicare benefit and Bush crashed the economy ....but Hey Blame the Black guy

How about these events:
ONCE again I've got to remind people of the history!
What in the hell is wrong with you biased totally ignorant people that have NO obviously historical perspective?

1) Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Source: USATODAY.com - It s official 2001 recession only lasted eight months

2) Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in losses?
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble How to lose 5 trillion 8211 Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs

3)Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost $2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone.
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: The Top 10 Financial Events of the Decade
Year 2001...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others. According to the FBI, the ensuing investigation became "one of the largest and most complex in the history of law enforcement".[1]

4) $1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage*
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of
a) 400,000 jobs due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
Government Revenue Details Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts

But obviously ALL of you critics/bush bashers .... these events NEVER EVER happened and much less had ANY affect on the economy/tax revenue, people's lives,etc.... NEVER happened right???

 

[Paperman299]

I agree with a lot of the points you've been making, but I don't think it's at all accurate to say that the two parties are equivalent, or that their public scuffles are mere kabuki theater. I hear this a lot from people who dislike politics in general - engineers, often enough, for instance. And yeah, a lot of it is pretty cynical. But if Republicans had had more control over Congress in the last half-decade, we certainly would not have the Affordable Care Act, which is a pretty substantial policy difference.

Sure, those trends you've noted are real, but it's the deficit will continue, because as you noted there is swell of Baby Boomers retiring. That's not exactly something the system could engineer on its own. I'm not saying that there ISN'T a lot of shadow-puppetry going on in politics (it's something opponents of a political party can point out endlessly), but that doesn't mean those parties aren't working toward opposite goals.

@Paperman ,

You mention the ACA, that it wouldn't exist without a Democratic majority.

Let me attempt to respond.

First of all, our system is set up in a way, sort of like the ebb and flow of the tides, that Dems come into power cyclically. They come in and go out with the political tides.

So, Dems come into power and none of them (except Kucinich, briefly) champion single payer or the public option. Obama never gives one of his rousing speeches about single-payer or a public insurance option. The patent excuse is given... "We'd never get the votes for that." Whatever you think about single-payer or a public option, hate that or love it, at least they logistically have a chance to lower the cost of healthcare.

Instead, we get the ACA. The Republican minority sees Gruber's writing on the wall, and they can save face by not voting for it, knowing that it will pass anyway. No harm done to their insurance-lobby backers.

Now, Republicans are beginning to get on board with the ACA (ie Gov Kasich of Ohio), if not in words then in actions. And, we're stuck with a program that does nothing to reduce the cost of healthcare. What it does is work to get everyone on insurance (having insurance is not necessarily having good healthcare). Subsidies are paid from the government, with money created by debt. Where does that money go? Straight to the insurance industry which supports the campaigns of both parties. You see the racket? This is a tennis game between government and an industry that finances elections.

When the FED 'buys' bonds from the Treasury, it receives securities from one of its member banks. In turn, it electronically creates an inflated balance in that member bank, and that new money goes to the Treasury. Now that money can be used to pay for subsidies, errr, be given to the insurance industry. So, the created money really doesn't enter a wide circulation , which would cause massive inflation. It stays in a tight circle of elites.

First of all, when Democrats say the political will for single-payer isn't there, they are absolutely correct. I don't really feel I need to expand on this, but we can go that direction if you want.

Secondly, you're essentially suggesting that the health insurance industry secretly supported the ACA, believing it would increase their profits. While I can't definitively prove what the health insurance industry collectively wanted, I think you'd agree that how they spent their money is a pretty good indicator. Over about 15 months around 2009, the biggest health insurance lobbying group in the country spent over $100 million trying to defeat the ACA. From Exclusive AHIP Gave More Than 100 Million to Chamber s Efforts to Derail Health Care Reform - NationalJournal.com

The nation's leading health insurance industry group gave more than $100 million to help fuel the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's 2009 and 2010 efforts to defeat President Obama's signature health care reform law, National Journal's Influence Alley has learned.

During the final push to kill the bill before its March 2010 passage, America's Health Insurance Plans gave the chamber $16.2 million. With the $86.2 million the insurers funneled to the business lobbying powerhouse in 2009, AHIP sent the chamber a total of $102.4 million during the health care reform debate, a number that has not been reported before now.

The backchannel spending allowed insurers to publicly stake out a pro-reform position while privately funding the leading anti-reform lobbying group in Washington. The chamber spent tens of millions of dollars bankrolling efforts to kill health care reform.

The Chamber of Commerce, I'll add, is group whose aims generally align with (/influence) the aims of the Republican party. The fight over healthcare reform was not playacting.

As an aside, I want to make clear I'm not making an argument that America under a Democratic Congress is not a completely different country than an America under a Republican Congress. Generally, the realistic goals of each party are basically politically moderate (despite rhetoric to the contrary).

Health insurance companies base premiums on claims! That's it!
So how do we reduce the amount of claims?
A) 90% of physicians agree that $850 billion a year is spent on duplicate tests,etc. i.e. defensive medicine!
Proof tort reform works is the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946 because while 90% of non-federal contracted physicians say they practice
defensive medicine less the 48% of Federally contracted physicians said they do! Why? because they are protected by the 1946 ACT!
I always provide the source: SOURCE: http://www.jacksonhealthcare.com/media/8968/defensivemedicine_ebook_final.pdf
B) EMTALA
1986 EMTALA...Enacted by the federal government in 1986, requires that hospital emergency departments treat emergency conditions of all patients regardless of their ability to pay and is considered a critical element in the "safety net" for the uninsured, but established no direct payment mechanism for such care. Indirect payments and reimbursements through federal and state government programs have never fully compensated public and private hospitals for the full cost of care mandated by EMTALA. [/I]Health care in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
As a result we have hospitals recouping their costs as this CEO admits:
A hospital CEO when asked: "How do hospitals deal with the cost of the uninsured?
Like any business, we pass it on to the paying customers.
From PAGE 1 of this document: http://www.ncmedicaljournal.com/wp-content/uploads/NCMJ/mar-apr-05/Yarbrough.pdf
C) Idiocy of the American public bent on skateboarding,rock climbing, etc. any of these sports that have caused injuries that have caused medical services that cause CLAIMS! Billions of dollars paid out by insurance claims for stupid idiotic behavior and as a result higher claims means higher premiums!

Who pays for these idiots? Insurance companies! Who jacks up premiums because of claims filed by these idiots? Insurance companies!
And it's not just skateboarders!
View attachment 36426
Rock climbing!!!
View attachment 36427
Snowmobiles accidents... again this is just stupidity on the part of people that have too much time on their hands!
View attachment 36428

treeshepherd and I were actually talking about whether we see substantial policy differences in government depending on what political party is in power, and using the ACA as an example, not...health insurance rates, I guess is what this is about?

Whatever it is, I actually don't see anything I would really disagree with too much here. I agree healthcare for the uninsured is driving up costs to paying patients, but what's your solution? Repeal EMTALA? Outlaw extreme sports? Or are you making an argument in favor of the individual mandate?

Skateboarding can be a fun way for children and adolescents to get exercise.
However, an estimated 111,000 kids younger than 18 are treated in U.S. hospital emergency departments for skateboard-related injuries each year. Many of these injuries can be prevented.

Skateboarding Injury Facts

• Of those children treated in U.S. emergency departments because of their skateboard-related injuries:
  • The three most commonly injured body regions are the wrist, ankle and face.
  • Broken bones, sprains, scrapes and bruises are the most common injuries.

Injury Research and Policy Skateboarding Research Nationwide Children s Hospital Columbus Ohio
111,000 kids "TREATED" in hospitals and who pays the bills? Mostly insurance companies. What do the companies do? Raise the premiums!

"Faux rock-climbing"... again so much more time available to do stupid risky activities!

As more gyms along American highways offer faux rock-climbing experiences to would-be adventurers, more climbing injuries are turning up in American emergency rooms, researchers say.

The most common injuries are fractures, sprains, and strains that occur in the lower extremities -- particularly the foot and ankle -- according to Dr. Lara McKenzie, of the Center for Research Injury and Policy at Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.

She and colleagues reported their findings online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

Most of the injuries were caused by falls, McKenzie said, indicating that patients, who are typically restrained by a harness or who go bouldering (meaning to climb a little ways without a harness) land feet-first when they miss a climbing hold.

Although rock climbing was once regarded as an extreme sport, that perception is changing.

"There are a lot of people who are participating in rock climbing, and it's evolved from an extreme sport reserved for adrenaline junkies, to people who … are doing it recreationally," she observed.

In fact, indoor climbing facilities are becoming more common, and climbing walls are nearly ubiquitous on college campuses. About 9 million people go rock climbing every year, she said, even though the sport carries an inherent risk of falls and stress-related injuries.

To track changes in the number of injuries from the sport, the researchers conducted a retrospective analysis using data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) for all ages from 1990 through 2007.

They found that 40,282 patients were treated in emergency departments for climbing-related injuries over the 18-year period. That amounts to 2,237 injuries annually – but the total increased by 63 percent over the study period.
Rock Climbing Climbing Wall Injuries Going Up - ABC News

I don't...what? Skateboard injuries? I don't even know what we're talking about anymore. Rock climbing? Is the takeaway from all this that you support the individual mandate, so people who injure themselves in recreational activities have a way to pay for it?

 

[Paperman299]

That is a total crock of shit, statistics lie and liars use statistics. The national debt when he took office was 10 trillion, it took 43 presidents more than 200 years to run that up, your dear leader is on pace to double that in 8 years, so it is ludicrous to say he's spending less.

The graph is from the Office of Management and Budget ; Congressional Budget Office ...what is your source Einstein ?

The other poster is incorrect. These two posters are exactly right.

If you take the Federal budget in 2010, as the base line, and plot spending increases from then until now, then based on that difference, Obama has increased the Federal Budget less than any president in recent history.

Keep in mind, this involves attributing all the bailouts, that Obama himself voted for, and was in favor of, and continued, as all being Bush, and thus not Obama's fault.

That's one of the keys to this specific argument. If you consider the Bailouts, which Obama supported, voted for, and continued when he got into office, as being part of Obama's budget, then the picture isn't a rosy.

However, none of that matters.

If I am promoted to CEO of GM, and I take over the company budget, and find that GM is losing $5 Million a year.... simply increasing corporate spending by a lower rate, won't solve anything. I'm still going to go bankrupt.

If revenue declines to $4 Million, and I decide "well I'm only going to increase spending from $5 Million, to ONLY $5.1 Million! Yay look at me! I increased spending less than the previous CEO!"

Um... Bankrupt?

You would fire that CEO, or end up bankrupt.

Those on the left, such as the posters quoted in this post, fail to grasp the reason for limiting the Federal budget. We're not doing this for any arbitrary purpose. We don't just magically enjoy small numbers.

The entire purpose of limited, reducing, or cutting the Federal budget, is to stop growing, and hopefully start reducing, the Federal debt.

To the point, when Obama got into office, the national debt was $10 Trillion. Now it's $18 Trillion.

When Bush was in office in 2008, the national deficit was $450 Billion, which was a record high. Now we dream of only having a $450 Billion deficit.

Regardless of the "gov spending has not increased 'as much' as prior presidents", it doesn't matter. What matter is, the deficit. The purpose of holding spending down, to to prevent the run up of debt. This Obama, has failed to do.

Again, I have to decry this kind of oversimplistic comparison. America is not a corporation. The government is not out to "create profit." We cannot, for instance, just start rapidly "cutting costs" because it would very likely damage the economy, causing more problems than we solved. This is not the sort of issue most corporations have to think about.

Furthermore, when trying to judge real "fiscal conservatives," remember that trimming spending is far more difficult for a politician than it is for a business leader, and judging them equivalently is useless. Business leaders are recognized right away for reducing overhead, but in politics, cutting spending earns you no favors.

I always felt Dave Berry put it best:

After a while you learn that it is generally a bad idea, as a member of Congress, to vote against spending money on anything. If you do, the taxpayers whose money you're trying to save won't know about it, but whatever interest group you voted against will be on you like army ants. If you vote to cut the Department of Agriculture, farmers will hate you. If you vote to cut the Department of Education, the teachers' unions hate you. If you dared to suggest that maybe we don't need to pay for the prescription drugs of wealthy retirees who own, say, more than three yachts, members of the American Association of Retired People will beat you senseless with handicapped-parking placards.

 

[Paperman299]

That is a total crock of shit, statistics lie and liars use statistics. The national debt when he took office was 10 trillion, it took 43 presidents more than 200 years to run that up, your dear leader is on pace to double that in 8 years, so it is ludicrous to say he's spending less.

The graph is from the Office of Management and Budget ; Congressional Budget Office ...what is your source Einstein ?

The other poster is incorrect. These two posters are exactly right.

If you take the Federal budget in 2010, as the base line, and plot spending increases from then until now, then based on that difference, Obama has increased the Federal Budget less than any president in recent history.

Keep in mind, this involves attributing all the bailouts, that Obama himself voted for, and was in favor of, and continued, as all being Bush, and thus not Obama's fault.

That's one of the keys to this specific argument. If you consider the Bailouts, which Obama supported, voted for, and continued when he got into office, as being part of Obama's budget, then the picture isn't a rosy.

However, none of that matters.

If I am promoted to CEO of GM, and I take over the company budget, and find that GM is losing $5 Million a year.... simply increasing corporate spending by a lower rate, won't solve anything. I'm still going to go bankrupt.

If revenue declines to $4 Million, and I decide "well I'm only going to increase spending from $5 Million, to ONLY $5.1 Million! Yay look at me! I increased spending less than the previous CEO!"

Um... Bankrupt?

You would fire that CEO, or end up bankrupt.

Those on the left, such as the posters quoted in this post, fail to grasp the reason for limiting the Federal budget. We're not doing this for any arbitrary purpose. We don't just magically enjoy small numbers.

The entire purpose of limited, reducing, or cutting the Federal budget, is to stop growing, and hopefully start reducing, the Federal debt.

To the point, when Obama got into office, the national debt was $10 Trillion. Now it's $18 Trillion.

When Bush was in office in 2008, the national deficit was $450 Billion, which was a record high. Now we dream of only having a $450 Billion deficit.

Regardless of the "gov spending has not increased 'as much' as prior presidents", it doesn't matter. What matter is, the deficit. The purpose of holding spending down, to to prevent the run up of debt. This Obama, has failed to do.

They way I read it only the Black guy is responsible the white Presidents are all off the hook LOL

FACTS are facts and the facts are Obama has had the biggest deficits then any President in history!
Please refute these facts!

Federal deficit falling to lowest in Obama presidency

Total deficits Obama will have left DEFICITS totaling $6,356,000,000,000 ($6.3 trillion)

Total Deficits BUSH $3.294 trillion! Obama will have increased DEFICITS by 207%!!!
Obama
FY 2017 - $458 billion
FY 2016 - $531 billion
FY 2015 - $564 billion
FY 2014 - $649 billion
FY 2013 - $680 billion.
FY 2012 - $1.087 trillion.
FY 2011 - $1.299 trillion.
FY 2010 - $1.546 ($1.293 trillion plus $253 billion from the Obama Stimulus Act that was attached to the FY 2009 budget).
President George W. Bush: Total = $3.294 trillion.
FY 2009 - $1.16 trillion. ($1.416 trillion minus $253 billion from Obama's Stimulus Act)
FY 2008 - $458 billion.
FY 2007 - $161 billion.
FY 2006 - $248 billion.
FY 2005 - $318 billion.
FY 2004 - $413 billion.
FY 2003 - $378 billion.
FY 2002 - $158 billion.

Nothing could be more ridiculous than tallying these presidents' deficits year to year as a way of comparing job performance. Bush came into office with nearly a surplus, and increased spending dramatically. Obama came into office with the highest Bush deficit yet, and from there has closed the gap between revenue and spending by half a trillion dollars.

The point is this: if Bush had had a third term, you can bet the deficit would be substantially higher than it is now.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the realistic goals of each party are basically politically moderate (despite rhetoric to the contrary).

dear, whats actually realised in our democracy is a compromise between left and right. What is intellectually realistic to a lefty like Obama, who had three communist parents and voted to left of Bernie Sanders, is communism. To Rand Paul and Ted Cruz what's intellectually realistic is capitalism and freedom.

Do you understand?

 

[zeke]

dear, whats actually realised in our democracy is a compromise between left and right. What is intellectually realistic to a lefty like Obama, who had three communist parents and voted to left of Bernie Sanders, is communism. To Rand Paul and Ted Cruz what's intellectually realistic is capitalism and freedom.

Do you understand?

dear, what I understand is that your ability as a comedy writer sucks.
Or do you really believe the nonsense you wrote? It wasn't intended to be a joke?

 

[Paperman299]

the realistic goals of each party are basically politically moderate (despite rhetoric to the contrary).

dear, whats actually realised in our democracy is a compromise between left and right. What is intellectually realistic to a lefty like Obama, who had three communist parents and voted to left of Bernie Sanders, is communism. To Rand Paul and Ted Cruz what's intellectually realistic is capitalism and freedom.

Do you understand?

Oh my God. You actually believe Ted Cruz's political persuasion is "freedom." Never stop posting, Ed. You're definitely a Gold Member in my book.

 

[mikegriffith1]

LOL and ROFL! Yeah, that's because the GOP took control of the House and forced Obama to agree to budget deals that substantially slowed the growth of federal spending. There was no net reduction, but there was a sizable slowdown in the growth of spending.

Until the Republicans forced those budget deals, Obama was on track to shatter Bush's spending record.