Can we cut the bullshit about spending under Obama?

[Billy000]

It is funny to watch all the far left posters speak about independent thinking, yet repeat the far left mantra and are closed off to any alternatives outside the DNC programming.

The bible thumpers are more open minded than anyone on the far left.

What exactly being said is far left in your mind?

Watching all the far left posters repeat the DNC mantra without question. So basically everyone of the far left posters and their posts.

Accurately saying what has driven up the debt is not far left.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What has driven up the debt
1. War
2. Tax cuts
3. Bail outs
4. SSi, medicare, etc

What has been slashed?
infrastructure, science and education.

 

[Billy000]

What has driven up the debt
1. War
2. Tax cuts
3. Bail outs
4. SSi, medicare, etc

What has been slashed?
infrastructure, science and education.

Yes, exactly.

 

[S.J.]

What has driven up the debt
1. War
2. Tax cuts
3. Bail outs
4. SSi, medicare, etc

What has been slashed?
infrastructure, science and education.

Don't forget food stamps, welfare, free healthcare, student loans (that don't get paid back), government grants to political contributors, lobbyists, etc. All those things liberals like to throw money at.

 

[Billy000]

What has driven up the debt
1. War
2. Tax cuts
3. Bail outs
4. SSi, medicare, etc

What has been slashed?
infrastructure, science and education.

Don't forget food stamps, welfare, free healthcare, student loans (that don't get paid back), government grants to political contributors, lobbyists, etc. All those things liberals like to throw money at.

Whatever dude. Food stamps constitute less than a 75 billion a year which is NOTHING in comparison to the amount of money we waste in defense spending and oil subsidies. 16% of the US population is in poverty. Food stamps are a necessary evil

 

[S.J.]

What has driven up the debt
1. War
2. Tax cuts
3. Bail outs
4. SSi, medicare, etc

What has been slashed?
infrastructure, science and education.

Don't forget food stamps, welfare, free healthcare, student loans (that don't get paid back), government grants to political contributors, lobbyists, etc. All those things liberals like to throw money at.

Whatever dude. Food stamps constitute less than a 100 billion a year which is NOTHING in comparison to the amount of money we waste in defense spending.

Defense is the one thing we SHOULD be spending money on. The federal government's job is to provide for the common defense. They're not supposed to be running our lives, dictating how we live and redistributing our wealth. The only people who support that shit are people who are parasites on society and stand to benefit from other people's productivity. People like you.

 

[Billy000]

Don't forget food stamps, welfare, free healthcare, student loans (that don't get paid back), government grants to political contributors, lobbyists, etc. All those things liberals like to throw money at.

Whatever dude. Food stamps constitute less than a 100 billion a year which is NOTHING in comparison to the amount of money we waste in defense spending.

Defense is the one thing we SHOULD be spending money on. The federal government's job is to provide for the common defense. They're not supposed to be running our lives, dictating how we live and redistributing our wealth. The only people who support that shit are people who are parasites on society and stand to benefit from other people's productivity. People like you.

Bullshit. We spend more on spending than all of our allies do COMBINED. Don't be stupid. The military even asked congress to cut funding because they keep receiving a useless amount of tanks.

It just astounds me how you would think anyone on food stamps is a parasite. You are a pile of ignorance.

 

[Bfgrn]

Don't forget food stamps, welfare, free healthcare, student loans (that don't get paid back), government grants to political contributors, lobbyists, etc. All those things liberals like to throw money at.

Whatever dude. Food stamps constitute less than a 100 billion a year which is NOTHING in comparison to the amount of money we waste in defense spending.

Defense is the one thing we SHOULD be spending money on. The federal government's job is to provide for the common defense. They're not supposed to be running our lives, dictating how we live and redistributing our wealth. The only people who support that shit are people who are parasites on society and stand to benefit from other people's productivity. People like you.

If there is a citizenry on this planet that does NOT have an entitlement mentality, it is the American people. American workers take less vacation time than any other people, less paid leave and receive less help during a family crisis. American workers take pride in the quality of their work and their work ethic.

Who are the 47%?

Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percent of the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households. People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits.

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

80 percent of the workforce has seen their wages decline in real terms over the last quarter-century, and the average household has seen 40 percent of its wealth disappear during the Great Recession. Through it all, families never asked for a handout from anyone, especially Washington. They were left to go on their own, working harder, squeezing nickels, and taking care of themselves. But their economic boats have been taking on water for years, and now the crisis has swamped millions of middle class families. ref ref

"Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

[Geaux4it]

It is funny to watch all the far left posters speak about independent thinking, yet repeat the far left mantra and are closed off to any alternatives outside the DNC programming.

The bible thumpers are more open minded than anyone on the far left.

What exactly being said is far left in your mind?

I'll play.. Any moron that thinks Obama is doing a good job. Furthermore, the conga line of Obama apologist who stumble over themselves to deflect criticism of Obama into the court of racism.

There is nothing wrong with one who is ambitious as Obama who strived, and succeeded, in reaching the pool of the one percenters. It is rather ironic that he convinced 51% of the voters, yes, including those in the graveyard, that he was 'with them', and not from the fraternity of the accomplished and wealthy. How he was successful in winning that argument, despite the evidence, it's rather amazing.

Obama is the poster boy of the politician we vision that while kissing they baby, he is also lifting your wallet.

So the sounds rejoice echo in the halls of the left. Sure, there are those who are further down the hall, but for the most part, they are all on the same plain of confusion and destruction of our liberties, and completely absent of fiscal responsibility.

-Geaux

 

[Billy000]

It is funny to watch all the far left posters speak about independent thinking, yet repeat the far left mantra and are closed off to any alternatives outside the DNC programming.

The bible thumpers are more open minded than anyone on the far left.

What exactly being said is far left in your mind?

I'll play.. Any moron that thinks Obama is doing a good job. Furthermore, the conga line of Obama apologist who stumble over themselves to deflect criticism of Obama into the court of racism.

There is nothing wrong with one who is ambitious as Obama who strived, and succeeded, in reaching the pool of the one percenters. It is rather ironic that he convinced 51% of the voters, yes, including those in the graveyard, that he was 'with them', and not from the fraternity of the accomplished and wealthy. How he was successful in winning that argument, despite the evidence, it's rather amazing.

Obama is the poster boy of the politician we vision that while kissing they baby, he is also lifting your wallet.

So the sounds rejoice echo in the halls of the left. Sure, there are those who are further down the hall, but for the most part, they are all on the same plain of confusion and destruction of our liberties, and completely absent of fiscal responsibility.

-Geaux

Obama is a good president. Not great. Of course he deserves critcism.

Obviously there is noting wrong with being wealthy. I don't understand why cons are so convinced lefties hate the rich. That just isn't true.

Obama extended Bush's tax cuts.

Obama has not increased federal spending.

 

[TooTall]

Can we cut the bullshit about spending under Obama?

It would be refreshing to cut all the BS about ‘under Obama.’

I tend to agree, although the spending under Bush should be the same. Congress authorizes spending, the Executive branch spends it so the blame has to be shared.

Running the government on continuing resolutions is the problem as I see it. I blame the deficit spending on the fact that only one budget has been passed by the Senate in five years. And, I suggest that Harry Reid is following orders from Obama.

 

[TooTall]

Straw man = a weak or imaginary argument which is created to defeat when the actual argument can't be refuted.

Suffice it to say, your straw man is useless as I didn"t say debt was added without spending. Perhaps rereading my post a few more times will aid your feeble cognitive abilities understand what I actually wrote?

c'mon, try harder. I have faith you can do it!

Read the statements you made that I colored and explain to me that they do not contradict each other.

Because increasing the debt by $7t is not the same as spending $7t. For example, we could spend $20t and decrease the debt at the same time if we could raise more than that in revenue. While there's a direct correlation between spending and debt, spending is not debt. Debt is revenue minus spending.

Apparently your solution is to raise taxes. Am I right?

 

[Billy000]

Read the statements you made that I colored and explain to me that they do not contradict each other.

Because increasing the debt by $7t is not the same as spending $7t. For example, we could spend $20t and decrease the debt at the same time if we could raise more than that in revenue. While there's a direct correlation between spending and debt, spending is not debt. Debt is revenue minus spending.

Apparently your solution is to raise taxes. Am I right?

Now you're catching on. Actually what we need to do is do away with the Bush tax cuts.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Because increasing the debt by $7t is not the same as spending $7t. For example, we could spend $20t and decrease the debt at the same time if we could raise more than that in revenue. While there's a direct correlation between spending and debt, spending is not debt. Debt is revenue minus spending.

Apparently your solution is to raise taxes. Am I right?

Now you're catching on. Actually what we need to do is do away with the Bush tax cuts.

we did

on January 1 2013 the bush tax cuts expired

 

[LTCArmyRet]

So you don't believe in the freeways, public schools and ssi?

Government does a lot of good. Regulating the private sector is also needed....

[MENTION=22889]Matthew[/MENTION] - like all liberals, you don't comprehend the difference between the federal government and state & local government. It's scary that you people actually believe that the federal government is the only "government". What do you think a mayor is - someone paid to cut ribbons?

Freeways and public schools are powers reserved to the states, cupcake. This has been "Constitution 101" with your professor, Rottweiler.

Rott, Matt is correct, without the funding from the FEDERAL government, the interstate system would neither exist nor be maintained. 90% of funding for the interstate system comes from federal funds. The states do determine what exactly is done with those funds to maintain the highways with fed approval.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Funny how you're so demented, you think you're winning an argument here.

For example, you point out how that $6 trillion surplus figure was only an estimate ... Moron .... I said it was a projected figure in my post. But g'head, keep lying to yourself. All that really matters to you is that you believe your own lies anyway.

Why would you use a projected figure for something that happened over a decade ago? It isnt like the final number isn't known.
But looky here.
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
On Jan 1 we owed over $5.7T.
On Sep 30 of the same year whcih is the end of the federal fiscal year, we owed $5.8T.
So if there was a 6 Trillion dollar surplus it should have wiped off the debt, right? At least it should have made a dent in the debt, right?
But it didnt.
And by the next year teh debt was 6.2T.

So your post is a lie. You keep getting your ass handed to you. You really need to quit while you're in the deep hole.

My post is not a lie, you flaming imbecile. Whether you like it or not, the CBO calculated that we would experience a surplus of $6 trillion over the ten year period between 2001 and 2010.

And hysterically enough, what you call, "getting my ass handed to [me]," is actually me taking the word of the CBO over your feeble attempt at calculating a ten year projection.



Carry on with your idiocy -- it's very entertaining.

So faun, the CBO is estimating that Odumas policies will place us 21 trillion in debt by 2016, so based on your style of argument, Oduma HAS run up more national debt than ALL other Presidents combined!!!

 

[Faun]

Read the statements you made that I colored and explain to me that they do not contradict each other.

Because increasing the debt by $7t is not the same as spending $7t. For example, we could spend $20t and decrease the debt at the same time if we could raise more than that in revenue. While there's a direct correlation between spending and debt, spending is not debt. Debt is revenue minus spending.

Apparently your solution is to raise taxes. Am I right?

That and cutting spending. Both were done this year but more needs to be done.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Article I, section 8.

Wrong.
As pointed out, that does not give license to Congress to do whatever "promotes the general welfare."

Moron, a) I said, "provide," not, "promote;" and b) yes, the Congress can decide on anything they deem as "general welfare." If they vote on it and pass it, it's law. And if such a law becomes contested all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court on grounds of Constitutionality, then those 9 justices decide if it meets their definition of general welfare. If they rule that it does, than it's general welfare provided by the Congress as Constitutionally granted. Best part is ... it does not have to be one of the enumerated provisions.

Wow, you show yourself more and more clueless with every post.

Hisses the imbecile who doesn't even understand how our government functions.

The pot calling the kettle black........

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Why on Earth would I feel stupid because an imbecile thinks he's clever? After all, at the end of the day, you're still nothing but an imbecile who thinks he's clever. But let's look at your exact words before you altered them ...

'And now Obama has surpassed all of them combined.

well, no, he hasn't.

Last 3 Republicans: 8.1t
Obama: 6.6t

And while I noticed even you realize your bullshit was bullshit, leading you to amend your initial statement by limiting it to their first term only, You are now mired in your sickness by comparing insignificant nominal figures as well as attempting to conceal the fact that Bush's first term was aided by the low deficit he inherited while Obama was drowned in the massive deficit and broken economy he inherited.

Carry on with your delusions ... they're all you have.

Aww [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] - needed a new narrative since I had to explain how ignorant you were misinterpreting what was clearly written and which everyone else understood?

Obama is over $7 trillion now chief. He did that in his first term. All presidents in U.S. history combined did not even come close to that.

Furthermore, your ignorant ass is trying to compare 20 years of GOP presidency (8 Reagan, 4 Bush Sr., 8 Bush Jr.) to a mere 4 years of Obama. How sad is that?

Reagan's 3 trillion in 1980's dollars is more than Obama all by himself, nitwit....lol

Uh, you are mistaken Frankie. Go to either Whitehouse.gov or the CBO website, look at the historical reports, there is one that adjusts the deficits/surpluses to todays dollars and Reagans deficits are no where near Odumas.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Your G-d given limitations aside ... of course I can prove my claim ...

SURPLUS ESTIMATE HITS $5.6 TRILLION

A NYT article that gives an ESTIMATE the never happened? You call that proof? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa! You are as misinformed as the dolt that wrote the article.

The U.S. has had only 5 years that we've had a surplus since 1958,.....1969, 1998-2001. The single largest year was 99 at 236 billion. I'm pretty sure that's not going to equate to a 6 trillion dollar surplus.

btw, estimates are not facts. try this site for a little more accurate data.......Historical Tables | The White House

My goodness, you rightards are relentless with your stupidity. That NY Times article is nothing but a vehicle to deliver a report by the CBO. Your misgivings about the NYTimes has nothing to do with it. And while I understand it was just an estimate (I even said it was projected from when I first brought it up) your sad reality is you have absolutely nothing to show their estimate is off. You even point out how the biggest single year budget surplus was 236 billion. That alone, over a ten year period, is 2.4 trillion. So even you [unwittingly] demonstrate half of what the CBO found. And then the part you left out, was the trend of those surpluses at that time indicated they were rising.

1998: $69b
1999: $126b
2000: $236b

Had that upwards trend continued and one can easily see how the CBO estimated a 10 year surplus of $6t. Of course, reality set in, in the form of a dot com bubble burst followed up by 8 years of Bush malfeasance, and that $6 trillion projected surplus turned into an $8 trillion deficit.

So to use your previous argument that 2009 budget deficit was still Bush's fault, not odumas, 2001 was Clinton's fault and resulted in a reduction of surplus to 127 billion. So the downward trend had already begun. The dot.com bubble, the housing bubble, the stock market bubble was already beginning to burst.

Another BS excuse from faun.