Can we cut the bullshit about spending under Obama?

[LTCArmyRet]

Great. Yet another right wing imbecile who doesn't understand the difference between debt and spending.

That is your argument?
It's not the debt created by your messiah?

No, that was not my argument. Does this mean I should categorize you with those other morons who don't know the difference between spending and debt?

Is there like a private school for the retarded where y'all graduate from?

With honors.

Resorting once again to the grammar lessons = weak ass argument.

 

[Faun]

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!!!

Perhaps at some point in the past, it was projected to be $21t by 2016, but the latest forecast ...

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44172-Baseline2.pdf

... projects a shortfall of $1.4t over the next 3 years. If that holds true, that would put the debt somewhere around $18.2t by 2016.

So it would appear that Obama has shaved off some 3 trillion dollars off of the CBO estimate. As opposed to Bush, who turned a $6t surplus into an $8t deficit. Go GOP!

And if that holds true, not only would he not have added more debt than all other presidents combined; but he would have increased the debt by 72%. Compared to 86% by Bush, 50% by GHW Bush (in four years), and 180% by Reagan.

 

[Faun]

That is your argument?
It's not the debt created by your messiah?

No, that was not my argument. Does this mean I should categorize you with those other morons who don't know the difference between spending and debt?

Is there like a private school for the retarded where y'all graduate from?

With honors.

Resorting once again to the grammar lessons = weak ass argument.

WTF are you whining about now? I corrected no one's grammar in that post. But it does appear you were at the top of your class in that school.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

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.

We also have a GDP larger than all of our allies combined. You have to look at spending as a percentage of GDP for an accurate comparison. Otherwise, you're comparing apples to oranges. 4% our GDP. UAE, Georgia, Saudi Arabia, Russian Federation, Oman, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Algeria, and Eitrea all spend more as a % of their GDP than we do.

 

[Faun]

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.

Of course most of FY2001 spending was attributable to Clinton. We were still operating under his budget. And while I agree with you about the dot com bubble, you appear insane postulating that the housing bubble had already begun to burst in 2001. Here, on planet reality, that bubble didn't begin its decline until somewhere around the end of 2005 or early 2006.

 

[P@triot]

My, my, you're ******* ignorant. First of all, my Constitution does not limit general welfare to the enumerated items, so sayeth the U.S. Supreme Court ... the body deemed responsible for interpreting the Constitution so that even buffoons like you can understand it. Secondly, everyone in the country (the 52% and the 48%) benefits from roads and education.

Watching you have a melt down because I own you like your party owned slaves in the 1800's is priceless.

Please tell me where in the U.S. Constitution it states that the Supreme Court has the power to "interpret" the U.S. Constitution?

Oops! Can't do it [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION]?

That's because that power does not exist and never has. The Supreme Court is empowered to interpret laws as they apply to the Constitution (ie their Constitutionality) - not the Constitution itself.

Tell me, what does it feel like being my personal ***** on USMB?

I wouldn't know since I'm not actually a member of your delusions. Those delusions including the belief that the Constitution doesn't grant the U.S.S.C. the final arbitrator of determining the Constitutionality of our laws -- such determination, of course, requiring the ability to interpret the Constitution. Without such ability, would render them incapable of rendering any decision based on the Constitution.

Once again we see [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] lying and creating a new narrative after I humiliated him. I never said the Supreme Court doesn't decide the Constitutionality of our laws. In fact, I explicitly stated that they do - as seen bolded in blue above.

However, you being the ignorant liberal that you are stated that the Supreme Court "sayeth" that the "Constitution does not limit general welfare to the enumerated items" (as seen bolded in red above). Well, the Supreme Court does not get to "decide", "interpret", or otherwise "rule" on the U.S. Constitution itself. But since you've never read the Constitution - choosing to live willfully ignorant - you don't know that. So I ask again fauny - what section of the U.S. Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitution itself (and thus arbitrarily altering said Constitution)?

Tell me, what does it feel like being my personal ***** on USMB?

 

[Billy000]

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.

We need to cut defense spending.

 

[P@triot]

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?

You mean other than the fact that you keep denying Obama took office with the national debt at $10 trillion and has since run that up to $17 trillion [MENTION=33739]Billy000[/MENTION]?

 

[P@triot]

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.

We need to cut defense spending.

Defense serves a purpose and is a Constitutional responsibility. Entitlements are neither. Furthermore, defense is a tiny pittance (19% of the federal budget) compared to the idiot Dumbocrat entitlements (62% - more than triple). Time to cut the socialism chief.

 

[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?

You mean other than the fact that you keep denying Obama took office with the national debt at $10 trillion and has since run that up to $17 trillion [MENTION=33739]Billy000[/MENTION]?

How are you not getting this? No one is denying federal spending is too high. The point of my thread is that Obama did not increase the rate of spending like the right wants to believe.

 

[Edgetho]

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?

You mean other than the fact that you keep denying Obama took office with the national debt at $10 trillion and has since run that up to $17 trillion [MENTION=33739]Billy000[/MENTION]?

What's worse is that the '09 budget, all that spending is layed at the feet of GW Bush because the '09 fiscal year started under his watch (Oct, '08)

So all the porkulus give-aways, all the bailouts, all the corruption BY OBAMA was layed at the feet of Bush.

Now, to make matters worse and even MORE skewed, all the money loaned to Banks, Auto Companies, etc under TARP?

Most of that was paid back. The overwhelming majority of it was paid back..... Under obama

It was loaned out under Bush, it actually was his idea, and it got paid back under the scumbag-in-chief.

Where is it?

That extra $7 Trillion debt that the scumbag-in-chief has racked up? It ain't even close to the real number.

And our resident dimocrap scum are too stupid to know it. Or too dishonest. Or both. I'm going with both

If anybody else has pointed this out, I apologize.

I didn't bother with the thread until now because I knew it would be nothing but another dimocrap lie-fest reach-around...

But I got bored. Not too many dimocrap lies to knock down this morning.

 

[Billy000]

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

We need to cut defense spending.

Defense serves a purpose and is a Constitutional responsibility. Entitlements are neither. Furthermore, defense is a tiny pittance (19% of the federal budget) compared to the idiot Dumbocrat entitlements (62% - more than triple). Time to cut the socialism chief.

You are way off. Welfare only consists of 10% of our spending. Defense is 22%. Not only that but that 10% covers ALL welfare spending. Food stamps for instance is 1% of that 10.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2014_US_fed

 

[LTCArmyRet]

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!!!

Perhaps at some point in the past, it was projected to be $21t by 2016, but the latest forecast ...

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44172-Baseline2.pdf

... projects a shortfall of $1.4t over the next 3 years. If that holds true, that would put the debt somewhere around $18.2t by 2016.

So it would appear that Obama has shaved off some 3 trillion dollars off of the CBO estimate. As opposed to Bush, who turned a $6t surplus into an $8t deficit. Go GOP!

And if that holds true, not only would he not have added more debt than all other presidents combined; but he would have increased the debt by 72%. Compared to 86% by Bush, 50% by GHW Bush (in four years), and 180% by Reagan.

You really like changing your references to what ever supports your twisted arguments. First you reference a NYT article that projected a 6 trillion surplus, and ignore government reports that never stated that. Then using your methodology to project a bad image on your boy, you revert back to government reports that still portray a bleak picture, but are more palatable.

You are as wishy washy and deceitful as the clown in chief.

When the dems lose the senate next year and don't gain any ground in the house, we'll see things turn around. One simple fact you dumbocrats like to omit when blaming Bush. Yes we as a nation were on a path to surpluses in 2001 and beyond. NO ONE could have predicted what happened that year, 9/11!!! They attacked the World Trade Center, arguably the heart of our stock markets. Those that attacked us achieved, to a degree their intent of affecting our economic system. And, the deficits that Bush ran up are in direct correlation to the increase in defense spending to wage battle with those that attacked us. How and against who that was waged is an entirely different argument and neither your nor I can say we would have done anything differently than Bush at the time. If you do, your are lying to yourself.

You can keep spouting what the MSM feeds you with their statistics, numbers that can be easily manipulated to look better or worse than what is actually occurring. But you can't ignore nor minimalize the simple fact that Oduma has increased our national debt by 7 Trillion and shows no intent on reducing that spending rate. He will come close and may even surpass doubling our national debt in 8 years! NO PRESIDENT EVEN COMES CLOSE TO THE WILLFUL IRRESPONSIBLE SPENDING THAT THIS ONE HAS.

 

[P@triot]

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.

We need to cut defense spending.

Please cite for me which section of the U.S. Constitution authorizes the federal government to set up and control retirement funds for U.S. citizens?

 

[P@triot]

What exactly being said is far left in your mind?

You mean other than the fact that you keep denying Obama took office with the national debt at $10 trillion and has since run that up to $17 trillion [MENTION=33739]Billy000[/MENTION]?

How are you not getting this? No one is denying federal spending is too high. The point of my thread is that Obama did not increase the rate of spending like the right wants to believe.

How are you not getting this [MENTION=33739]Billy000[/MENTION]? The federal debt was $10 trillion when Obama took office. He has added $7 trillion since then.

Stop being a partisan hack. You're killing your own credibility by desperately trying to deny what simply cannot be denied. We are not discussing "federal spending is too high". You're the one who created this thread and now you're trying to change the thread when cornered with facts.

The federal debt was $10 trillion when Obama took office. It now stands at $17 trillion. That is an undeniable facts. Game. Set. Match.

 

[Redfish]

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.

We need to cut defense spending.

Where do you think the money spent on defense goes? Do you have any idea?

It provides millions of american blue collar jobs with good pay and good benefits--and those defense employees pay taxes and buy things in the economy.

Now, if you want to cut foreign aid, I am with you 100%.

you do know the difference between defense and foreign aid don't you?

 

[Billy000]

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!!!

Perhaps at some point in the past, it was projected to be $21t by 2016, but the latest forecast ...

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44172-Baseline2.pdf

... projects a shortfall of $1.4t over the next 3 years. If that holds true, that would put the debt somewhere around $18.2t by 2016.

So it would appear that Obama has shaved off some 3 trillion dollars off of the CBO estimate. As opposed to Bush, who turned a $6t surplus into an $8t deficit. Go GOP!

And if that holds true, not only would he not have added more debt than all other presidents combined; but he would have increased the debt by 72%. Compared to 86% by Bush, 50% by GHW Bush (in four years), and 180% by Reagan.

You really like changing your references to what ever supports your twisted arguments. First you reference a NYT article that projected a 6 trillion surplus, and ignore government reports that never stated that. Then using your methodology to project a bad image on your boy, you revert back to government reports that still portray a bleak picture, but are more palatable.

You are as wishy washy and deceitful as the clown in chief.

When the dems lose the senate next year and don't gain any ground in the house, we'll see things turn around. One simple fact you dumbocrats like to omit when blaming Bush. Yes we as a nation were on a path to surpluses in 2001 and beyond. NO ONE could have predicted what happened that year, 9/11!!! They attacked the World Trade Center, arguably the heart of our stock markets. Those that attacked us achieved, to a degree their intent of affecting our economic system. And, the deficits that Bush ran up are in direct correlation to the increase in defense spending to wage battle with those that attacked us. How and against who that was waged is an entirely different argument and neither your nor I can say we would have done anything differently than Bush at the time. If you do, your are lying to yourself.

You can keep spouting what the MSM feeds you with their statistics, numbers that can be easily manipulated to look better or worse than what is actually occurring. But you can't ignore nor minimalize the simple fact that Oduma has increased our national debt by 7 Trillion and shows no intent on reducing that spending rate. He will come close and may even surpass doubling our national debt in 8 years! NO PRESIDENT EVEN COMES CLOSE TO THE WILLFUL IRRESPONSIBLE SPENDING THAT THIS ONE HAS.

You are in serious denial.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Perhaps at some point in the past, it was projected to be $21t by 2016, but the latest forecast ...

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44172-Baseline2.pdf

... projects a shortfall of $1.4t over the next 3 years. If that holds true, that would put the debt somewhere around $18.2t by 2016.

So it would appear that Obama has shaved off some 3 trillion dollars off of the CBO estimate. As opposed to Bush, who turned a $6t surplus into an $8t deficit. Go GOP!

And if that holds true, not only would he not have added more debt than all other presidents combined; but he would have increased the debt by 72%. Compared to 86% by Bush, 50% by GHW Bush (in four years), and 180% by Reagan.

You really like changing your references to what ever supports your twisted arguments. First you reference a NYT article that projected a 6 trillion surplus, and ignore government reports that never stated that. Then using your methodology to project a bad image on your boy, you revert back to government reports that still portray a bleak picture, but are more palatable.

You are as wishy washy and deceitful as the clown in chief.

When the dems lose the senate next year and don't gain any ground in the house, we'll see things turn around. One simple fact you dumbocrats like to omit when blaming Bush. Yes we as a nation were on a path to surpluses in 2001 and beyond. NO ONE could have predicted what happened that year, 9/11!!! They attacked the World Trade Center, arguably the heart of our stock markets. Those that attacked us achieved, to a degree their intent of affecting our economic system. And, the deficits that Bush ran up are in direct correlation to the increase in defense spending to wage battle with those that attacked us. How and against who that was waged is an entirely different argument and neither your nor I can say we would have done anything differently than Bush at the time. If you do, your are lying to yourself.

You can keep spouting what the MSM feeds you with their statistics, numbers that can be easily manipulated to look better or worse than what is actually occurring. But you can't ignore nor minimalize the simple fact that Oduma has increased our national debt by 7 Trillion and shows no intent on reducing that spending rate. He will come close and may even surpass doubling our national debt in 8 years! NO PRESIDENT EVEN COMES CLOSE TO THE WILLFUL IRRESPONSIBLE SPENDING THAT THIS ONE HAS.

You are in serious denial.

And you seriously are a moron. Please feel free to try and dispute anything that I stated in that post that is not fact!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Name the last president who didn't increase the debt?

Is this the new barometer for measuring failure? Someone else did it so I can do it too?

Not at all, but it sure seems to be the standard for rightards who call it failure when every president before Obama also increased the debt. I don't recall y'all calling it a failure when Reagan or either of the Bush's did it.

Seems your meter is broken -- it only works when the president is a Democrat.

How the **** would you know what any of us said about Bush or Reagan when you nor most of us knew each other then?
I've bitched plenty about GOP spending so how bout you stop deflecting and fess up to your own bullshit and stop worrying about others.

 

[Redfish]

You really like changing your references to what ever supports your twisted arguments. First you reference a NYT article that projected a 6 trillion surplus, and ignore government reports that never stated that. Then using your methodology to project a bad image on your boy, you revert back to government reports that still portray a bleak picture, but are more palatable.

You are as wishy washy and deceitful as the clown in chief.

When the dems lose the senate next year and don't gain any ground in the house, we'll see things turn around. One simple fact you dumbocrats like to omit when blaming Bush. Yes we as a nation were on a path to surpluses in 2001 and beyond. NO ONE could have predicted what happened that year, 9/11!!! They attacked the World Trade Center, arguably the heart of our stock markets. Those that attacked us achieved, to a degree their intent of affecting our economic system. And, the deficits that Bush ran up are in direct correlation to the increase in defense spending to wage battle with those that attacked us. How and against who that was waged is an entirely different argument and neither your nor I can say we would have done anything differently than Bush at the time. If you do, your are lying to yourself.

You can keep spouting what the MSM feeds you with their statistics, numbers that can be easily manipulated to look better or worse than what is actually occurring. But you can't ignore nor minimalize the simple fact that Oduma has increased our national debt by 7 Trillion and shows no intent on reducing that spending rate. He will come close and may even surpass doubling our national debt in 8 years! NO PRESIDENT EVEN COMES CLOSE TO THE WILLFUL IRRESPONSIBLE SPENDING THAT THIS ONE HAS.

You are in serious denial.

And you seriously are a moron. Please feel free to try and dispute anything that I stated in that post that is not fact!

good luck with that, facts are kryptonite to liberals, facts make their tiny brains implode.