Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Another liar who's too dumb to know the difference between discretionary and nondiscretionary spending. Keep living the lie.
Fact: Obama has added more debt than any administration in history.
Partisan lies will not alter this fact.
Only to hyperpartisan liars like yourself. The debt was accumulated under Bush. It became due under Obama. The fact remains that Obama grew the Federal government at its slowest rate since the 1950s.
When you go to Vegas and max out your credit cards on whores and gambling, you take on debt at that time. You don't take it on when you receive your bill.
Dead wrong. we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
Obviously, you have no understanding of basic math. In 2001, Clinton's final budget, revenues were 20.5% of GDP. The last couple of years, revenues have been under 15% of GDP. That is a net loss in revenue of nearly 30%, and that loss in revenue of 30% accounts for over 65% of the yearly deficits. That is a revenue problem, and anyone that denies it is a moron, plain and simple. In the last 60 plus years, we have never run the federal government on 14% of GDP. This is the problem with cons; you can't figure out basic math.
Again.. wrong
US Government Spending As Percent Of GDP United States 1903-2010 - Federal State Local Data
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP
We have a HUGE spending problem
Fact: Obama has added more debt than any administration in history.
Partisan lies will not alter this fact.
Only to hyperpartisan liars like yourself. The debt was accumulated under Bush. It became due under Obama. The fact remains that Obama grew the Federal government at its slowest rate since the 1950s.
When you go to Vegas and max out your credit cards on whores and gambling, you take on debt at that time. You don't take it on when you receive your bill.
I think that is the most ironic and amusing thing you have ever posted. If you were not such a hyper-partisan bitch yourself, I'd pos rep you just for the laugh!
Oh, so the $5 trillion in new debt is just a figment of everyone's imagination.
I'm so relieved.
Dead wrong. we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
Obviously, you have no understanding of basic math. In 2001, Clinton's final budget, revenues were 20.5% of GDP. The last couple of years, revenues have been under 15% of GDP. That is a net loss in revenue of nearly 30%, and that loss in revenue of 30% accounts for over 65% of the yearly deficits. That is a revenue problem, and anyone that denies it is a moron, plain and simple. In the last 60 plus years, we have never run the federal government on 14% of GDP. This is the problem with cons; you can't figure out basic math.
So if a guy loses his job (revenue problem) but yet he continues to spend the same amount every month (spending problem).
He comes up with a scheme to go to his neighbors home and take the TV and microwave to supplement his lifestyle.
His neighbor is not going to take to kindly to his scheme to continue life as normal.
Oh, and dont dare complain... you will be called all sorts of nasty names.
Only to hyperpartisan liars like yourself. The debt was accumulated under Bush. It became due under Obama. The fact remains that Obama grew the Federal government at its slowest rate since the 1950s.
When you go to Vegas and max out your credit cards on whores and gambling, you take on debt at that time. You don't take it on when you receive your bill.
I think that is the most ironic and amusing thing you have ever posted. If you were not such a hyper-partisan bitch yourself, I'd pos rep you just for the laugh!
You're just a pathetic pissant liar. You know that it's true. Obama didn't accumulate the debt, and now that it's coming due, scumbags like yourself want to blame him for the cause. It's amazing the hyperpartisan lengths you'll go to so you can create this BIG LIE.
Oh, so the $5 trillion in new debt is just a figment of everyone's imagination.
I'm so relieved.
Let him dream a little long soon he will wake up in about 6 months. And then begin too blame Romney for the bush economy.
Obama didn't accumulate the debt.
Obviously, you have no understanding of basic math. In 2001, Clinton's final budget, revenues were 20.5% of GDP. The last couple of years, revenues have been under 15% of GDP. That is a net loss in revenue of nearly 30%, and that loss in revenue of 30% accounts for over 65% of the yearly deficits. That is a revenue problem, and anyone that denies it is a moron, plain and simple. In the last 60 plus years, we have never run the federal government on 14% of GDP. This is the problem with cons; you can't figure out basic math.
Again.. wrong
US Government Spending As Percent Of GDP United States 1903-2010 - Federal State Local Data
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP
We have a HUGE spending problem
Yes we do. Were you stupid enough to believe that the bills being run up by the prior administration would never become due? This is the high point of intellectual dishonesty. You want to blame Obama for the fact that he's required under law, to pay debt when it's due.
Obviously, you have no understanding of basic math. In 2001, Clinton's final budget, revenues were 20.5% of GDP. The last couple of years, revenues have been under 15% of GDP. That is a net loss in revenue of nearly 30%, and that loss in revenue of 30% accounts for over 65% of the yearly deficits. That is a revenue problem, and anyone that denies it is a moron, plain and simple. In the last 60 plus years, we have never run the federal government on 14% of GDP. This is the problem with cons; you can't figure out basic math.
So if a guy loses his job (revenue problem) but yet he continues to spend the same amount every month (spending problem).
He comes up with a scheme to go to his neighbors home and take the TV and microwave to supplement his lifestyle.
His neighbor is not going to take to kindly to his scheme to continue life as normal.
Oh, and dont dare complain... you will be called all sorts of nasty names.
Bullshit analogy. Letting the Bush debt financed tax cuts die, will add 3% to tax payed by the top 1%. They'll still have plenty for country club membership, personal chefs, and custom home entertainment systems.
Unless of course, you think it's a good idea to keep those tax cuts, and let us go further into the hole.
Again.. wrong
US Government Spending As Percent Of GDP United States 1903-2010 - Federal State Local Data
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP
We have a HUGE spending problem
Yes we do. Were you stupid enough to believe that the bills being run up by the prior administration would never become due? This is the high point of intellectual dishonesty. You want to blame Obama for the fact that he's required under law, to pay debt when it's due.
Have there been ANY bills 'run up' by the CURRENT administration?
So if a guy loses his job (revenue problem) but yet he continues to spend the same amount every month (spending problem).
He comes up with a scheme to go to his neighbors home and take the TV and microwave to supplement his lifestyle.
His neighbor is not going to take to kindly to his scheme to continue life as normal.
Oh, and dont dare complain... you will be called all sorts of nasty names.
Bullshit analogy. Letting the Bush debt financed tax cuts die, will add 3% to tax payed by the top 1%. They'll still have plenty for country club membership, personal chefs, and custom home entertainment systems.
Unless of course, you think it's a good idea to keep those tax cuts, and let us go further into the hole.
Here in lies the issue... you guys hate wealthy people.
Obama didn't accumulate the debt.
Debt, rightly or wrongly, is attributed to the POTUS who signs the spending bills.
Now, that 90% or so of such soverign debt has been handed to us by Democrat-led Congresses is another argument, but that is for another thread.
Obviously, you have no understanding of basic math. In 2001, Clinton's final budget, revenues were 20.5% of GDP. The last couple of years, revenues have been under 15% of GDP. That is a net loss in revenue of nearly 30%, and that loss in revenue of 30% accounts for over 65% of the yearly deficits. That is a revenue problem, and anyone that denies it is a moron, plain and simple. In the last 60 plus years, we have never run the federal government on 14% of GDP. This is the problem with cons; you can't figure out basic math.
Again.. wrong
US Government Spending As Percent Of GDP United States 1903-2010 - Federal State Local Data
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP
We have a HUGE spending problem
Yes we do. Were you stupid enough to believe that the bills being run up by the prior administration would never become due? This is the high point of intellectual dishonesty. You want to blame Obama for the fact that he's required under law, to pay debt when it's due.
So if a guy loses his job (revenue problem) but yet he continues to spend the same amount every month (spending problem).
He comes up with a scheme to go to his neighbors home and take the TV and microwave to supplement his lifestyle.
His neighbor is not going to take to kindly to his scheme to continue life as normal.
Oh, and dont dare complain... you will be called all sorts of nasty names.
Bullshit analogy. Letting the Bush debt financed tax cuts die, will add 3% to tax payed by the top 1%. They'll still have plenty for country club membership, personal chefs, and custom home entertainment systems.
Unless of course, you think it's a good idea to keep those tax cuts, and let us go further into the hole.
Here in lies the issue... you guys hate wealthy people.
Oh, so the $5 trillion in new debt is just a figment of everyone's imagination.
I'm so relieved.
Let him dream a little long soon he will wake up in about 6 months. And then begin too blame Romney for the bush economy.
What dream? It's not the first time that the scumbag right wing won elections by blowing smoke up peoples asses.
And yes, the facts are that it wasn't Obama who accrued the debt, the major factor was Bush's tax cuts, using debt to finance them. Romney will have a real case to blame Bush as well. I doubt he will, since he's so spineless.
Again.. wrong
US Government Spending As Percent Of GDP United States 1903-2010 - Federal State Local Data
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP
We have a HUGE spending problem
Yes we do. Were you stupid enough to believe that the bills being run up by the prior administration would never become due? This is the high point of intellectual dishonesty. You want to blame Obama for the fact that he's required under law, to pay debt when it's due.
And the bills from administrations even further back since 1957 (the last time there was a surplus)? All presidents since then have had the exact same issue
Obama increased spending and debt more than any president to date.. just as Bush II did before him, albeit to slightly lower levels.. and nobody, and I do mean NOBODY on the conservative side, defends Bush II's fiscal policy
So if a guy loses his job (revenue problem) but yet he continues to spend the same amount every month (spending problem).
He comes up with a scheme to go to his neighbors home and take the TV and microwave to supplement his lifestyle.
His neighbor is not going to take to kindly to his scheme to continue life as normal.
Oh, and dont dare complain... you will be called all sorts of nasty names.
Bullshit analogy. Letting the Bush debt financed tax cuts die, will add 3% to tax payed by the top 1%. They'll still have plenty for country club membership, personal chefs, and custom home entertainment systems.
Unless of course, you think it's a good idea to keep those tax cuts, and let us go further into the hole.
Here in lies the issue... you guys hate wealthy people.
Obama didn't accumulate the debt.
Debt, rightly or wrongly, is attributed to the POTUS who signs the spending bills.
Now, that 90% or so of such soverign debt has been handed to us by Democrat-led Congresses is another argument, but that is for another thread.
OK, who signed the spending bill that financed a tax cut to the top 1%, and used debt to pay for it?
Bullshit analogy. Letting the Bush debt financed tax cuts die, will add 3% to tax payed by the top 1%. They'll still have plenty for country club membership, personal chefs, and custom home entertainment systems.
Unless of course, you think it's a good idea to keep those tax cuts, and let us go further into the hole.
Here in lies the issue... you guys hate wealthy people.
What a moron you are. We've got a debt problem, and assholes like you think it's too much to ask our wealthiest people to pony up an additional 3%. You'd prefer to let everyone accumulate the debt.
Why do you hate working Americans so much?
