Obama spending binge never happened

[Conservative]

Here in lies the issue... you guys hate wealthy people.

jealousy is ugly.

Nice reach around. The moron claimed that asking our wealthiest to pay their share at the level set by Clinton amounted to our society stealing their TVs and microwaves. You know that's a bullshit analogy, but decided to suck him off. It shows what a low-life you are.

all I said was you're a jealous fuck. sorry if the truth hurts, bitch.

 

[Conservative]

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.

Please... link to ANY post where I personally blamed Obama for all the debt.

Putz.

still waiting...

 

[Conservative]

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?

why won't you answer this post, you little lying bitch?

 

[Dot Com]

jealousy is ugly.

Nice reach around. The moron claimed that asking our wealthiest to pay their share at the level set by Clinton amounted to our society stealing their TVs and microwaves. You know that's a bullshit analogy, but decided to suck him off. It shows what a low-life you are.

all I said was you're a jealous fuck. sorry if the truth hurts, bitch.

flame out. you lose

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Here's the irony. The fact remains true that under Obama, we've had the lowest growth in Federal spending since the 1950s. Our problem remains that we had eight years of spending, like drunk sailors, under Bush.

What's really fucked up about the right, is Romney is selling himself at doing the same idiotic things, and the wingnuts are buying it.

Again you forget it was the democrats with a junior senator obama who were in control of congress when Bush was president.

Lying skank. Obama wasn't in the Senate when Bush passed a law to cut taxes for the top 1%, and finance it with debt. Why the lies?

obama was a senator when Bush started with the stimulus that obama endorsed.

CIA lawyer: Obama ‘endorsed’ nearly all Bush-era programs | Raw Replay

 

[Conservative]

Kind of like the holocaust huh?

Yes. It's another big right wing lie that you've succeeded to make into conventional wisdom.

Oh holy crap... you're a 'Holocaust Denier'?

Any shred of credibility you EVER hoped for just died.

 

[Vast LWC]

"And even that wouldn't be the end of it. If the Obama budget is adopted in full, federal borrowing will top $18 trillion by 2020. Over the period 2011 to 2020, the president's plan is to run deficits totaling an astounding $8.5 trillion.

The problem is quite plainly runaway government spending. The administration employs all kinds of smoke and mirrors in an attempt to dress up massive governmental excess as necessary and restrained investments. But their own bottom-line numbers betray the real story. In 2008, total spending stood at nearly $3.0 trillion — not exactly government on a strict diet. But Obama wants to take the juggernaut he inherited and supersize it. By 2020, governmental spending would reach $5.7 trillion, driven heavily by mounting entitlement costs. Spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid alone would nearly double over a decade, going from $1.4 trillion in 2009 to $2.6 trillion in 2020."

National Review: Out Of Control Spending

No question that the problem is spending and not revenue. No sane person questions this.

LOL, there's an argument.

"You're wrong! And obviously anyone who's opinion differs from mine is insane!"

 

[Steelplate]

'Idiots'-
Where WE go wrong is by being divisive, left, right, liberals, conservatives...

What WE need to do, as citizens of this great country, is put aside the petty partisan bickering and blaming in order to find real solutions!

Right WryCatcher, DickTuck, Lah(fuck you)kota?

as long as the solutions are conservative ones that you approve of....right?

 

[PredFan]

"And even that wouldn't be the end of it. If the Obama budget is adopted in full, federal borrowing will top $18 trillion by 2020. Over the period 2011 to 2020, the president's plan is to run deficits totaling an astounding $8.5 trillion.

The problem is quite plainly runaway government spending. The administration employs all kinds of smoke and mirrors in an attempt to dress up massive governmental excess as necessary and restrained investments. But their own bottom-line numbers betray the real story. In 2008, total spending stood at nearly $3.0 trillion — not exactly government on a strict diet. But Obama wants to take the juggernaut he inherited and supersize it. By 2020, governmental spending would reach $5.7 trillion, driven heavily by mounting entitlement costs. Spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid alone would nearly double over a decade, going from $1.4 trillion in 2009 to $2.6 trillion in 2020."

National Review: Out Of Control Spending

No question that the problem is spending and not revenue. No sane person questions this.

LOL, there's an argument.

"You're wrong! And obviously anyone who's opinion differs from mine is insane!"

Yup.

 

[The Infidel]

No question that the problem is spending and not revenue. No sane person questions this.

LOL, there's an argument.

"You're wrong! And obviously anyone who's opinion differs from mine is insane!"

Yup.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Thanks, your graph just proved what has been stated. Your hockey stick starts in 2011 and is based on a projection that includes massive increases in SS and Medicare spending that is currently out of Obama's control. What it does show though, is that Obama has hardly increased spending at all since he took office.

I can send you the name of a good optometrist. Of course that won't help much if you don't take the partisan blinders off...

What the graph shows is that massive increases coincide exactly with Obama stumbling into office.

Use a protractor and mark January 20, 2009 with the label "Incompetent boob starts here" then measure the angle of the graph going up, on either side of the point.

Get the picture?

Look, I know you're in a panic, your guy is a colossal fuckup. But do you really think telling the American people that the $5 trillion in increased debt incurred by Obama is someone else's fault will get your Messiah® reelected?

Really?

 

[Vast LWC]

LOL, there's an argument.

"You're wrong! And obviously anyone who's opinion differs from mine is insane!"

Yup.

Classic partisan hackery, at it's finest.

 

[The Infidel]

LOL, there's an argument.

"You're wrong! And obviously anyone who's opinion differs from mine is insane!"

Yup.

Classic partisan hackery, at it's finest.

What??

 

[Uncensored2008]

Mikey Mann...is that you?

I was going to ask if Auditor was in fact Truthmatters....

 

[Uncensored2008]

I am just curious how someone can know that revenue is down over 30% and say that it is not a problem.

So sparky, do you figure the most sound policy would be to raise taxes commensurate with unemployment? Say Obama achieves a 6% unemployment rate, add 6% to the tax burden. Then upon the next report, if he achieves a 10% unemployment, celebrate by heaping another 10% on top?

You figure that eventually you can tax the nation into prosperity?

Now you can argue that we also have a spending problem, and you have a point, because it is not all a revenue problem. Down the road that will become even a bigger problem,

ROFL

Down the road, huh?

You mean, the day a Republican takes office and you can spew hatred at the opposition.

but currently, the bulk of our problem is a revenue problem,

After 3 fucking years of that moron in the Whitehouse? How could that be? Oh, that's right, the economy remains tanked under the fools incompetence.

and while you know this to be true, you just blatantly deny it. It's laughable, and it's the reason people like you cannot be taken seriously.

What anyone with even a hint of economic knowledge realizes is that revenue is dependent on GDP growth, not punitive tax rates. But not you idiot democrats, you can't grasp even simple concepts.

 

[Avorysuds]

Let me get this strait... Dems/Liberals attack Bush for the massive amount of spending he did as President but they praise Obama for spending vastly more than Bush but just not growing spending as fast as Bush did?

Bush was a Progressive liberal by the very definition of the word, hell, most of the graphs posted here by liberals prove that. Bush spent heavily on social programs and welfare, he even got his hands in the mix on HC with Medicare part D. Education, Science, foreign aid and so on all grew under Bush. So why should I give Obama props for not spending MORE money we don’t have as fast as Bush did when the overall levels of spending per year have risen dramatically under Obama.


It's retarded watching Republicans blame everything on Obama and it's just as retarded watching Democrats blme everything on Bush. Obama ran for the job, if it's too hard, quit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

show me the data that proves increasing taxes by 3% on 'the wealthy' will eliminate the debt.

Or even the deficit.

 

[Avorysuds]

show me the data that proves increasing taxes by 3% on 'the wealthy' will eliminate the debt.

Or even the deficit.

That's the issue. I ask people that claim we just need higher taxes all the time to show how much taxes need to be raise, on who and how much revenue it will bring in... Then where does all of that money go, paying down the deficit for things we currently borrow money for or do we start new programs that cost more than the new revenues the tax increases brought in.


You will never ever ever ever get an answer. The main reason why you can’t get an answer is because these people know that once they do the homework and see the maybe few billion in new tax revenues they get from the tax increases on the rich, they will realize how impossible it would ever be to even scratch the surface of paying down our GROWING deficit by just taxing more.

They are also aware that the higher the tax rate goes (unavoidable tax rate) on the rich the less the rich will spend/invest… Meaning the economy will take a hit for the long run. SO if you dump a 12% tax increase on the rich it’s more likely that you end up in a depression or very deep recession as investing in business’s slows and jobs go away, raising UE. It’s just a simple fact of life. If this was not true then we could run 75% (or higher, 98%!) unavoidable tax rates on everyone with no side effects.

 

[Conservative]

looks like Dickless ran away again... TFF

 

[Caroljo]

IT'S THE ECONOMY...STUPID! (lol)
If Obama had just worked on the economy like he did his stupid stimulus that didn't work & the healthcare that's going to make things worse, and did something to bring jobs back to the US, put things in place so companies needed to start hiring people again.......get people OFF Unemployment....Ya know what? There would be a whole hell of a lot more taxes paid! When people are working, they're paying taxes!

Of course the left think all we should do is raise taxes on everyone, especially the rich. Why put people to work & pay taxes themselves if they don't want to? All the rest of us that are already paying taxes, just make us pay more! Easy solution huh?