Why Don't Right Wingers Acknowledge Bush's And The Right's Part In

What IS the point of places like USMB, folks?

It it designed as a place where partisands can score coups on each other?

Or is it to provide a place where we citizens can, though the process of intellecutal debate, arrive at a truer truth than either position originally had though intellectually challenging and testing of our POVs in debate?

Most people on USMB are here, I think, mostly to score points for their team. They see this activity is a team sport rather than a way of learning or possibly teaching their fellow citizens anything woth knowing.

Hence, we have threads that employ the same DISHONEST partisan's formula for evoking equally counter partisan responses.

These intellectually dishonest threads generally start out with an unspoken assumption and demand that people respond whatever follows without challenging the assumptions that are presented as if they were facts we all agree upon.

Now, on this board we tend to see more of that kind of dishonest posting coming from the RIGHT WING.

But that is, I think, mostly true because the right winger partisans here outnumber left wing partisans.

But every time anybody starts a post that PRESUMES, as but one example, that the POTUS has TOTAL responsiblity for the state of the economy TODAY, you know, you absolutely KNOW that that person's unspoken prsupposition is based on a false premise.

THE lie is this: what is happpening today is in no way the result of things that happened BEFORE the POTUS was in office.

Of course, we all KNOW that that is an insane assumption, but we see it implied over and over again on this board.

I'd estimate that about half the threads here START OUT with THAT false presumption -- that what is happening at this VERY MINUTE us entirely the responsibilith of the person in the WHITE HOUSE today.

My point here is that you partisans aren't usually worth the ASCIII you used to craft your TROLLING threads, or my time even considering whatever it is you wrote AFTER your introductary statement which is an OBVIOUS untruth.

Post of the thread.

:clap2: :clap2: :clap2:

Agree PLUS it always costs more to get out of the hole then what it costs to get in especially when the previous Presidents ignored the countries infrastructure & addiction to one energy source- oil. I'll give Bu$h II credit for telling the truth in that regard.
 
The current financial situation?

Why are they so dishonest in their debating as to say that the minute Obama stepped into office the debt increased?

Why do they not admit that it was the 2 unecessary wars that Bush and Co. got us into that STARTED or FINISHED, rather, the financial situation in the country?

Why is this?
I agree. Bush gave us 500 billion in debt and Obama pushed to 1.4 trillion.

Bush gave us two unnecessary wars and Obama gave us a third.

Bush didn't pass Amnesty for illegals, Obama didn't pass Amnesty for illegals.

Uh, wait a minute.

Bush had a CFR,Tri-Lateral Commission, Bilderberg member V.P telling him what to do. Obama has a CFR, Tri-Lateral Commission, Bilderberg member V.P. telling him what to do.

:eek:
Bush gave us $6.1 trillion in debt!!! Obama's first budget was $100 billion LESS than Bush's last budget!!!

Why?
there is no truth in anything you said there
 
Did Marc ever answer my question? He asked my to answer his question and I did immediately, is he still dead silent?


On another note remember this folks, if your credit card balance is ever higher than you'd like, the way to fix it is by going on a shopping spree.
 
I agree. Bush gave us 500 billion in debt and Obama pushed to 1.4 trillion.

Bush gave us two unnecessary wars and Obama gave us a third.

Bush didn't pass Amnesty for illegals, Obama didn't pass Amnesty for illegals.

Uh, wait a minute.

Bush had a CFR,Tri-Lateral Commission, Bilderberg member V.P telling him what to do. Obama has a CFR, Tri-Lateral Commission, Bilderberg member V.P. telling him what to do.

:eek:
Bush gave us $6.1 trillion in debt!!! Obama's first budget was $100 billion LESS than Bush's last budget!!!

Why?
there is no truth in anything you said there

There never is.
 
The current financial situation?

Why are they so dishonest in their debating as to say that the minute Obama stepped into office the debt increased?

Why do they not admit that it was the 2 unecessary wars that Bush and Co. got us into that STARTED or FINISHED, rather, the financial situation in the country?

Why is this?
I agree. Bush gave us 500 billion in debt and Obama pushed to 1.4 trillion.

Bush gave us two unnecessary wars and Obama gave us a third.

Bush didn't pass Amnesty for illegals, Obama didn't pass Amnesty for illegals.

Uh, wait a minute.

Bush had a CFR,Tri-Lateral Commission, Bilderberg member V.P telling him what to do. Obama has a CFR, Tri-Lateral Commission, Bilderberg member V.P. telling him what to do.

:eek:
Bush gave us $6.1 trillion in debt!!! Obama's first budget was $100 billion LESS than Bush's last budget!!!

The final cost of the wars won't be tabulated for years so that figure can only go up.
 
An example of what I just said can be seen in both parties blame game on the defecit and national debt. Some people claim bush made the national debt so big so its his fault and some claim it was obama, however the numbers will show what I just said about it being both parties to be true

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
1/29/2001 national debt was 5.73 trillion
1/28/2009 natoinal debt was 10.63 trillion

Bush added 4.9 trillion over 8 years or 0.63 trillion/year or 34% of the total national debt

1/29/2009 national debt was 10.63 trillion
1/29/2011 natoinal debt was 14.06 trillion

Obama added 3.4 trillion over 2 years or 1.72 trillion/year or 24% of the national debt.


Total national debt 14.06 trillion
Of course, fiscal budgets for each president don't run by calendar years. You have part of Clinton's budget helping Bush and part of Bush's budget hurting Obama. It was no less than Reagan in his first State of the Union speech who said you count each presidents deficit from budget year to budget year PLUS the interest on that debt.

"A trillion dollars would be a stack of thousand-dollar bills 67 miles high. The interest on the public debt this year we know will be over $90 billion, and unless we change the proposed spending for the fiscal year beginning October 1st, we'll add another almost $80 billion to the debt."
Ronald Reagan - February 18, 1981

So at the end of Clinton's last budget the debt was
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010
09/30/2001 - $5,807,463,412,200.06

And Bush"s was

09/30/2009 - $11,909,829,003,511.75

Which puts Bush's debt at

$6,102,365,591,311.69 minus the interest on the $5.8 trillion in debt passed to him or 42% without deducting interest.

The debt we started the day with today is
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
04/18/2011 - $14,309,159,097,877.65

So Obama's debt is

$2,399,330,094,365.90 minus the interest on the $11.9 trillion in debt passed to him or 17% without deducting interest.

Not only should you deduct the interest on the debt passed on to Obama, but you should deduct the cost of the two unfinished wars Bush passed on as well. If you did, Obama would have little or no debt!!!!!!!!

You were making sense until the spin at the end, but other than that I can dig the "not including prior presidents budgets that run into the next president's term" thing.

I'll re-verify the numbers for myself that you put up and report back if I have a discrepency.
 
The camouflage ain't going to work lefties. Barney Frank said he had "ideological blinders" on when he was chairman of the powerful house banking committee and Fannie Mae failed. What do you think that means? It means that democrats allowed or made the financial crisis happen in order to create the biggest "october surprise" in history which paved the way for a socialist president. Democrats were in the majority for the last four years and had a majority in congress with a socialist president for the last two years and what happened? Unemployment rose to more than 10% after democrats authorized the biggest spending bill in history. Cash for clunkers? Don't make me laugh.
 
An example of what I just said can be seen in both parties blame game on the defecit and national debt. Some people claim bush made the national debt so big so its his fault and some claim it was obama, however the numbers will show what I just said about it being both parties to be true

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
1/29/2001 national debt was 5.73 trillion
1/28/2009 natoinal debt was 10.63 trillion

Bush added 4.9 trillion over 8 years or 0.63 trillion/year or 34% of the total national debt

1/29/2009 national debt was 10.63 trillion
1/29/2011 natoinal debt was 14.06 trillion

Obama added 3.4 trillion over 2 years or 1.72 trillion/year or 24% of the national debt.


Total national debt 14.06 trillion
Of course, fiscal budgets for each president don't run by calendar years. You have part of Clinton's budget helping Bush and part of Bush's budget hurting Obama. It was no less than Reagan in his first State of the Union speech who said you count each presidents deficit from budget year to budget year PLUS the interest on that debt.

"A trillion dollars would be a stack of thousand-dollar bills 67 miles high. The interest on the public debt this year we know will be over $90 billion, and unless we change the proposed spending for the fiscal year beginning October 1st, we'll add another almost $80 billion to the debt."
Ronald Reagan - February 18, 1981

So at the end of Clinton's last budget the debt was
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010
09/30/2001 - $5,807,463,412,200.06

And Bush"s was

09/30/2009 - $11,909,829,003,511.75

Which puts Bush's debt at

$6,102,365,591,311.69 minus the interest on the $5.8 trillion in debt passed to him or 42% without deducting interest.

The debt we started the day with today is
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
04/18/2011 - $14,309,159,097,877.65

So Obama's debt is

$2,399,330,094,365.90 minus the interest on the $11.9 trillion in debt passed to him or 17% without deducting interest.

Not only should you deduct the interest on the debt passed on to Obama, but you should deduct the cost of the two unfinished wars Bush passed on as well. If you did, Obama would have little or no debt!!!!!!!!

Bush
9/30/2001 5.8trillion
9/30/2009 11.9 trillion
Total added debt 6.1 trillion or 0.73 trillion/year
Total national debt 14.3 trillion making it 42% of the national debt

Obama:
9/30/2009 11.9 trillion
4/19/2011 14.3 trillion

Total added debt 2.4 trillion or 1.5 trillion/year
Total national debt 14.3 trillion making it 17% of the national debt

Now look at the per year figure....which president's budgets are worse for our debt, obama's is more than 200% of Bush's per year addition.
 
The current financial situation?

Why are they so dishonest in their debating as to say that the minute Obama stepped into office the debt increased?

Why do they not admit that it was the 2 unecessary wars that Bush and Co. got us into that STARTED or FINISHED, rather, the financial situation in the country?

Why is this?

Because the vast majority of them will never admit to being wrong.
 
US Federal Deficit As Percent Of GDP

2001 -1.25
2002 1.48
2003 3.39
2004 3.48
2005 2.52
2006 1.85
2007 1.14
2008 3.18
2009 9.91
2010 10.64

US Federal Deficit as percent of GDP - Charts Tables History

Then there is the efforts the Bush admin made to reform Freddie and Fannie and guess who blocked any reforms?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs]YouTube - Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis[/ame]


 
 
The current financial situation?

Why are they so dishonest in their debating as to say that the minute Obama stepped into office the debt increased?

Why do they not admit that it was the 2 unecessary wars that Bush and Co. got us into that STARTED or FINISHED, rather, the financial situation in the country?

Why is this?

Why don't Democrats admit they were the Party of Slavery?

Why isn't this thread in the History Forum?

Why do you constantly deflect Obama's current incompetence with past incompetence?

Why don't we spell incompetence: I-N-C-O-M-P-E-T-A-N-C-E?:confused:
 
The current financial situation?

Why are they so dishonest in their debating as to say that the minute Obama stepped into office the debt increased?

Why do they not admit that it was the 2 unecessary wars that Bush and Co. got us into that STARTED or FINISHED, rather, the financial situation in the country?

Why is this?

Because the vast majority of them will never admit to being wrong.

You mean, like Clinton?
 
Did Marc ever answer my question? He asked my to answer his question and I did immediately, is he still dead silent?


On another note remember this folks, if your credit card balance is ever higher than you'd like, the way to fix it is by going on a shopping spree.

If you're referring to your question about if I blame Obama, the answer is no.
We have different ideological views on this.
You can't blame someone for taking over the wheel of a car already in crash and getting mad at that person when the car when people get hurt. I'm just glad no lives were lost.
 
Did Marc ever answer my question? He asked my to answer his question and I did immediately, is he still dead silent?


On another note remember this folks, if your credit card balance is ever higher than you'd like, the way to fix it is by going on a shopping spree.

If you're referring to your question about if I blame Obama, the answer is no.
We have different ideological views on this.
You can't blame someone for taking over the wheel of a car already in crash and getting mad at that person when the car when people get hurt. I'm just glad no lives were lost.

Actually Obama didn't "take over the wheel."

He ASKED for it, and was given it....

Because he said he would "Change" the direction of the car, despite having only a learner's permit.

So far, he's received a Nobel Peace Prize, Attacked Libya, and the Car is still in the ditch.
 
I agree. Bush gave us 500 billion in debt and Obama pushed to 1.4 trillion.

Bush gave us two unnecessary wars and Obama gave us a third.

Bush didn't pass Amnesty for illegals, Obama didn't pass Amnesty for illegals.

Uh, wait a minute.

Bush had a CFR,Tri-Lateral Commission, Bilderberg member V.P telling him what to do. Obama has a CFR, Tri-Lateral Commission, Bilderberg member V.P. telling him what to do.

:eek:
Bush gave us $6.1 trillion in debt!!! Obama's first budget was $100 billion LESS than Bush's last budget!!!

Why?
there is no truth in anything you said there
Either that OR there is no truth in anything YOU said there

Fiscal 2010 deficit thins to $1.29 trillion | Reuters

(Reuters) - The budget deficit for fiscal 2010 narrowed to $1.294 trillion from last year's record $1.416 trillion as tax collections started to recover and bailout spending fell sharply.
The Treasury Department said on Friday the deficit came to 8.94 percent of gross domestic product for the year ended September 30, versus 10 percent in fiscal 2009.

Gee, that looks like a drop of $122 billion from Bush's last budget to Obama's first.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010

Date - Dollar Amount

09/30/2009 - $11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 - $10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 - $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 - $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 - $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 - $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 - $5,807,463,412,200.06

And those are all 8 bush budgets, and low and behold there is a $6.1 trillion increase in the national debt which means Bush had $6.1 trillion in deficit spending over his 8 budgets.
 
Did Marc ever answer my question? He asked my to answer his question and I did immediately, is he still dead silent?


On another note remember this folks, if your credit card balance is ever higher than you'd like, the way to fix it is by going on a shopping spree.

If you're referring to your question about if I blame Obama, the answer is no.
We have different ideological views on this.
You can't blame someone for taking over the wheel of a car already in crash and getting mad at that person when the car when people get hurt. I'm just glad no lives were lost.

Actually Obama didn't "take over the wheel."

He ASKED for it, and was given it....

Because he said he would "Change" the direction of the car, despite having only a learner's permit.

So far, he's received a Nobel Peace Prize, Attacked Libya, and the Car is still in the ditch.

You missed the point...the car was CRASHING, there wre no brakes. Its just a matter of how skillful the steerer/driver is to cause the LEAST amount of damage.

Pilot SULLY is a good example. The plane's going down...that's a given...he piloted it down the Manhattan river...doing the impossible.

That was the situation at hand.

Bush caused it to go into free fall and bounced...someone else had to handle the rest.
 
Did Marc ever answer my question? He asked my to answer his question and I did immediately, is he still dead silent?


On another note remember this folks, if your credit card balance is ever higher than you'd like, the way to fix it is by going on a shopping spree.

If you're referring to your question about if I blame Obama, the answer is no.
We have different ideological views on this.
You can't blame someone for taking over the wheel of a car already in crash and getting mad at that person when the car when people get hurt. I'm just glad no lives were lost.

I see you view Obama as helpless on this.

If he's given debt, the only thing he can do is add more debt.

If the guy before him spends wildly out of control, the only thing he can do is spend more.


You're every bit, if not more so, as partisan as the people you're trying to get to say something bipartisan.
 
Someone said it already...it costs more to get OUT of a mess than it does to get IN it.

It's only logical.

Take a car ticket...if/when you don't pay for it, and you get arrested, you have to spend at least 2-3 more than the ticket itself getting yourself out of that mess.

Same concept applies to anything involving a catastrophe and/or disasters.

Snap out of it!
 
Because we do and you completely ignore it for your convenience

And here it is... Can we get a raise of hands from people on the "right" that think Bush and his policies had nothing to do or add to the crash?

Now let’s get a raise of hands that think Obama's policies suck because they follow the old big spender bail out war hungry Bush policies...
 
If you're referring to your question about if I blame Obama, the answer is no.
We have different ideological views on this.
You can't blame someone for taking over the wheel of a car already in crash and getting mad at that person when the car when people get hurt. I'm just glad no lives were lost.

Actually Obama didn't "take over the wheel."

He ASKED for it, and was given it....

Because he said he would "Change" the direction of the car, despite having only a learner's permit.

So far, he's received a Nobel Peace Prize, Attacked Libya, and the Car is still in the ditch.

You missed the point...the car was CRASHING, there wre no brakes. Its just a matter of how skillful the steerer/driver is to cause the LEAST amount of damage.

Pilot SULLY is a good example. The plane's going down...that's a given...he piloted it down the Manhattan river...doing the impossible.

That was the situation at hand.

Bush caused it to go into free fall and bounced...someone else had to handle the rest.

No, I think you miss the point, and changing metaphores won't make any difference.

Obama represented himself as a Leader of Hope and Change, Car Driver, Heroic Airline Pilot

Instead, we got a guy that attacks Libya, just got his driver's permit, and cannot fly a paper airplane.
 

Forum List

Back
Top