Democrats Can't Be Serious.Now They Are Concerned Over The Debt And Deficit? Laughable?

[Campbell]

Two special committees are busy gathering evidence that Putin slanted the election to Trump. The sad thing is that Hillary still got nearly three million more votes than Trump.

So you want to live in a country where a dozen cities determine the election for the whole country?

No, for many, they want the people to determine that.

You realize that is exactly why our brilliant forefathers made the electoral voting system to prevent from happening?

We are a republic of 50 states. That is what our forefathers upheld with the electoral college.

As usual you talk in circles, in the end - you are saying you agree with what I said...but trying not to.

Without an electoral, Hillary Clinton would have won. However she would have won because of a handful of heavily populated cities. Without an electoral system, non urban areas would have no voice.

I'm talking in circles??

I'm stating facts.

Also a fact -- Hillary won the popular vote because a plurality of voters voted for her, not because many of them live in a few big cities.

According to the independent, non-partisan Cook Political Report, Clinton's final tally came in at 65,844,610, compared to Donald Trump's 62,979,636, with a difference of 2,864,974.

 

[RadicalRedneck]

Two special committees are busy gathering evidence that Putin slanted the election to Trump. The sad thing is that Hillary still got nearly three million more votes than Trump.

So you want to live in a country where a dozen cities determine the election for the whole country?

No, for many, they want the people to determine that.

You realize that is exactly why our brilliant forefathers made the electoral voting system to prevent from happening?

We are a republic of 50 states. That is what our forefathers upheld with the electoral college.

As usual you talk in circles, in the end - you are saying you agree with what I said...but trying not to.

Without an electoral, Hillary Clinton would have won. However she would have won because of a handful of heavily populated cities. Without an electoral system, non urban areas would have no voice.

I'm talking in circles??

I'm stating facts.

Also a fact -- Hillary won the popular vote because a plurality of voters voted for her, not because many of them live in a few big cities.

According to the independent, non-partisan Cook Political Report, Clinton's final tally came in at 65,844,610, compared to Donald Trump's 62,979,636, with a difference of 2,864,974.

BUT SHE STILL LOST, Thank God, no matter how you try to spin it!

 

[Oldstyle]

Two special committees are busy gathering evidence that Putin slanted the election to Trump. The sad thing is that Hillary still got nearly three million more votes than Trump.

So you want to live in a country where a dozen cities determine the election for the whole country?

No, for many, they want the people to determine that.

You realize that is exactly why our brilliant forefathers made the electoral voting system to prevent from happening?

We are a republic of 50 states. That is what our forefathers upheld with the electoral college.

As usual you talk in circles, in the end - you are saying you agree with what I said...but trying not to.

Without an electoral, Hillary Clinton would have won. However she would have won because of a handful of heavily populated cities. Without an electoral system, non urban areas would have no voice.

I'm talking in circles??

I'm stating facts.

Also a fact -- Hillary won the popular vote because a plurality of voters voted for her, not because many of them live in a few big cities.

According to the independent, non-partisan Cook Political Report, Clinton's final tally came in at 65,844,610, compared to Donald Trump's 62,979,636, with a difference of 2,864,974.

What does that really mean, Campbell? The Trump campaign didn't spend money in all States because they were intelligent enough to understand that places like California and Massachusetts were going to go Democratic. Conservative voters in heavily liberal States like those might as well stay in bed on election day because they KNOW their vote would mean nothing if cast simply because of the demographics! If I were a Republican in California...I'd make plans to go to the beach that day! My showing up at the polls or not showing up isn't going to affect a thing.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Two special committees are busy gathering evidence that Putin slanted the election to Trump. The sad thing is that Hillary still got nearly three million more votes than Trump.

So you want to live in a country where a dozen cities determine the election for the whole country?

No, for many, they want the people to determine that.

You realize that is exactly why our brilliant forefathers made the electoral voting system to prevent from happening?

We are a republic of 50 states. That is what our forefathers upheld with the electoral college.

As usual you talk in circles, in the end - you are saying you agree with what I said...but trying not to.

Without an electoral, Hillary Clinton would have won. However she would have won because of a handful of heavily populated cities. Without an electoral system, non urban areas would have no voice.

I'm talking in circles??

I'm stating facts.

Also a fact -- Hillary won the popular vote because a plurality of voters voted for her, not because many of them live in a few big cities.

Your head is buried in the sand. What intellect you have, you have masked.
Percentages....I know your kind likes to scoff at the voting county map...but that is because it tells a tale you don't like. Each red/pink area is where the majority voted Trump, Blues - Hillary.
Take out the large cities on east and west coast....and Hillary lost by a country mile. Pun intended.
The electoral college performed it's purpose exactly as intended...avoiding large urban areas from picking the candidate that only they chose in majority

 

[iamwhatiseem]

According to the independent, non-partisan Cook Political Report, Clinton's final tally came in at 65,844,610, compared to Donald Trump's 62,979,636, with a difference of 2,864,974.

Yes, again the electoral college system performed exactly as intended. And we should all be thankful for it.

 

[edthecynic]

The deficit was over an average of $1 trillion for each year of the Obama administration.

LIAR!

Apparently you can't do math.

• FY 2010 - Obama's first budget created a $1.294 trillion deficit.
• FY 2011 - This budget contributed $1.3 trillion to the debt.
• FY 2012 - The deficit was $1.087 trillion.
• FY 2013 - This was the first Obama budget where the deficit, $679 billion, was less than $1 trillion. Thank sequestration, which forced a 10 percent cut in spending.
• FY 2014 - The deficit was $485 billion.
• FY 2015 - The deficit fell further, to $438 billion.
• FY 2016 - The deficit rose to $587 billion
• FY 2017 (Current Budget) - The deficit is projected to be $441 billion.

The debt increased by $10 trillion during Obama's 8 years.

Do the math: $10 trillion/8

Another Right-wing pinhead who doesn't know the difference between FISCAL year and CALENDAR year.

 

[edthecynic]

Why would anyone say the national debt has gone down? It hasn't. It's gone up every year no matter who the President was!

And there you have the hypocritical Right-wing double standard, in order to deny Clinton ever reduced the national debt, the Right properly uses the FISCAL years, but to make Bush's national debt smaller and Obama's higher they dishonestly use the CALENDAR years, as they did throughout this thread.

Clinton's 2000 calendar year national debt:
12/31/1999 $5,776,091,314,225.33
12/29/2000 $5,662,216,013,697.37

Bush's fiscal years national debt:
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75
Bush more than doubled the national debt.

Obama's fiscal years national debt so far:
09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75
04/26/2017 $19,846,044,436,483.65
Obama highly unlikely to double the national debt by the end of his last fiscal year.

Ah, Ed? Clinton never reduced the national debt. That's a liberal myth. To understand why you'd have to understand the concept of "intragovernmental holdings". The following article from CNN explains it rather well.
Bill Clinton Legacy of Myththology and Surplus.

Again we see the hypocritical Right-wing double standard. "Intragovernmental holdings" were ignored when the Right claimed Bush's 2007 deficit was $168 billion when it was 500 billion counting the intragovernmental holdings.
Here is a typical republican lie from a typical Republican liar:
"We went from $160 billion deficit spending in (President George W.) Bush's last year to $1.6 trillion the following year."
- Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, FOX, Oct. 15, 2013.

 

[edthecynic]

It is true that the deficit (not debt) began to decrease after that, thanks to sequester. How do you spell sequester?...R-e-p-u-b-l-i-c-a-n c-o-n-t-r-o-l-l-e-d H-o-u-s-e.

But that is not how the worthless lying scum Republicans spelled it!!!

When the GOP thought the sequester would cripple the economy they linked it to Obama, but now that it worked out very well they are trying to steal the credit for it!.

 

[Faun]

So you want to live in a country where a dozen cities determine the election for the whole country?

No, for many, they want the people to determine that.

You realize that is exactly why our brilliant forefathers made the electoral voting system to prevent from happening?

We are a republic of 50 states. That is what our forefathers upheld with the electoral college.

As usual you talk in circles, in the end - you are saying you agree with what I said...but trying not to.

Without an electoral, Hillary Clinton would have won. However she would have won because of a handful of heavily populated cities. Without an electoral system, non urban areas would have no voice.

I'm talking in circles??

I'm stating facts.

Also a fact -- Hillary won the popular vote because a plurality of voters voted for her, not because many of them live in a few big cities.

According to the independent, non-partisan Cook Political Report, Clinton's final tally came in at 65,844,610, compared to Donald Trump's 62,979,636, with a difference of 2,864,974.

What does that really mean, Campbell? The Trump campaign didn't spend money in all States because they were intelligent enough to understand that places like California and Massachusetts were going to go Democratic. Conservative voters in heavily liberal States like those might as well stay in bed on election day because they KNOW their vote would mean nothing if cast simply because of the demographics! If I were a Republican in California...I'd make plans to go to the beach that day! My showing up at the polls or not showing up isn't going to affect a thing.

All meaningless If the popular vote won the election, Trump isn't the only candidate who would have campaigned differently... so would have Hillary. And while many Republicans in California don't bother to vote because they know they're going to lose the state anyway, there are many Democrats in Texas who feel the same. Hell, there are many Democrats even who won't bother to vote because they know their vote isn't needed.

So there's absolutely no way to argue Trump would have gotten more votes than Hillary had the popular vote won the election.

 

[bripat9643]

The deficit was over an average of $1 trillion for each year of the Obama administration.

LIAR!

Apparently you can't do math.

• FY 2010 - Obama's first budget created a $1.294 trillion deficit.
• FY 2011 - This budget contributed $1.3 trillion to the debt.
• FY 2012 - The deficit was $1.087 trillion.
• FY 2013 - This was the first Obama budget where the deficit, $679 billion, was less than $1 trillion. Thank sequestration, which forced a 10 percent cut in spending.
• FY 2014 - The deficit was $485 billion.
• FY 2015 - The deficit fell further, to $438 billion.
• FY 2016 - The deficit rose to $587 billion
• FY 2017 (Current Budget) - The deficit is projected to be $441 billion.

The debt increased by $10 trillion during Obama's 8 years.

Do the math: $10 trillion/8

Another Right-wing pinhead who doesn't know the difference between FISCAL year and CALENDAR year.

How would that change Barry's total debt increase or the math?

 

[Markle]

Assholes like you would have complained that she had no respect for her role as First Lady if she went without it.

Whoever said that the Obama's had any respect for the office?

 

[bripat9643]

It is true that the deficit (not debt) began to decrease after that, thanks to sequester. How do you spell sequester?...R-e-p-u-b-l-i-c-a-n c-o-n-t-r-o-l-l-e-d H-o-u-s-e.

But that is not how the worthless lying scum Republicans spelled it!!!

When the GOP thought the sequester would cripple the economy they linked it to Obama, but now that it worked out very well they are trying to steal the credit for it!.

When did Republicans ever claim the sequester would cripple the economy? Dumbass Dims were the ones making that claim, asshole.

 

[Campbell]

Assholes like you would have complained that she had no respect for her role as First Lady if she went without it.

Whoever said that the Obama's had any respect for the office?

By god they were in there for eight years. After four years of the orange lemon everybody will wish Obama was back!

 

[bripat9643]

Assholes like you would have complained that she had no respect for her role as First Lady if she went without it.

Whoever said that the Obama's had any respect for the office?

By god they were in there for eight years. After four years of the orange lemon everybody will wish Obama was back!

Only worthless parasites like you will wish for that.

 

[Markle]

Gee, Ed...want to take a crack at explaining why the GOP was unable to stop ObamaCare if they really had the power that you seem to think they did? Did THAT go unnoticed by you?

It is a massive amount of pork. Which you already know but choose to ignore or pretend to have forgotten.

Let’s take a look at the list itself, which goes far beyond Nelson and Landrieu, the pair that IBD Editorials calls “the Louisiana Purchase and Omaha Stakes”:

The bill contains unfunded mandates to states through the expansion of Medicaid but this time with new special treatment for the states of Nebraska, Vermont, and Massachusetts. These states will receive Federal Matching Assistance Percentages (FMAP) bonuses such that:

1. Nebraska will receive 100% FMAP for newly eligibles indefinitely, making it the only state where the federal government will pay for all new enrollees. CBO estimated the cost to the federal government (additional funds to Nebraska) would be $100 million, which may look small compared to the other deals negotiated, yet over the long-term will cost far more, since funding continues indefinitely.

2. Vermont will receive a 2.2% FMAP increase for 6 years for their entire program, thus receiving an additional $600 million over ten years.

3. Massachusetts will receive a 0.5% FMAP increase for three years for the entire program, thus receiving an additional $500 million over ten years.

§ Despite $120 billion in Medicare Advantage cuts, the Manager’s Amendment found a way for Florida residents, as well as some individuals in Pennsylvania and New York, and potentially Oregon, to be grandfathered out of receiving the cuts.

§ Dorgan and Conrad’s “protections for frontier states” provision would, starting in 2011, establish a 1.0 hospital wage index and geographic practice expense floors for hospitals and physicians located in states where at least 50% of the counties in the state are “frontier”. Not surprisingly, states that qualify and benefit from the provision are Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

Of the many problems with these “sweetheart” deals, is the door it leaves wide open for more federal involvement and financing of state-based entitlement programs. Sen. Harkin said it best when he stated “In 2017, as you know, when we have to start phasing back from 100%, and going down to 98%, they are going to say, ’Wait, there is one state that stays at 100?’ And every governor in the country is going to say, ‘Why doesn’t our state stay there?’…When you look at it, I thought well, god, good, it is going to be the impetus for all the states to stay at 100%. So he [Nelson] might have done all of us a favor.”

Changes for Sen. Ben Nelson (Nebraska)

§ Nelson secured more than just 100% federal funding for Nebraska’s Medicaid expansion, the list of “sweeteners” (also called the “Cornhusker kickback” by Senate Republicans) includes:

§ An exemption from the insurance tax for Nebraska non-profit insurers, with language written in a way that only applies to Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company and Blue Cross Blue Shield Plans (BCBS) of Nebraska (and Michigan). According to news reports, Nelson’s office states that BCBS “would pay between $15 million and $20 million less in fees under the Senate bill than it would have without a change.”

§ An exemption from taxes for Medicare supplemental (“Medigap”) insurance providers. Specifically, Mutual of Omaha, will not have to pay taxes on Medigap insurance, while reports also indicate that this tax break will be extended to other companies.

§ Some changes requested by Nelson would benefit people across the country, such as the inflation adjustment to the $2,500 cap on tax-exempt contributions to Flexible Savings Accounts (FSAs) and exemptions for nearly 55 physician-owned hospitals that have a provider agreement to participate in Medicare by August 1, 2010 (pushed back from February 1, 2010).

Changes for Sen. Levin (Michigan)

§ According to reports, Like Nelson, Levin sought an exemption from the $6 billion annual fee for non-profits, as non-profit insurers make up 76% of industry profits, but drew opposition from liberals. Ultimately, Levin got an exemption from the insurance tax for Michigan non-profit insurers, with language written in a way that applies to Blue Cross Blue Shield Plans (BCBS) of Michigan (and Nebraska).

§ Furthermore, the amendment changes the extension of section 508 hospital provisions so that hospitals in Michigan (as well as Connecticut) have the option to benefit under them if it means higher payments.

Changes for Sen. Landrieu (Louisiana):

§ Landrieu was one of the first Senators to secure a sweetheart deal, aptly nicknamed the “Louisiana Purchase”; she traded her support for bringing the bill to the floor for a $300 million increase in Medicaid funding for Louisiana. The underlying bill was cryptically written to increase federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster” during the past 7 years that have been declared a “major disaster area” — and is meant to replenish the decrease in federal money resulting from an “abnormally inflated” per capita income in Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina. This was due to an influx of insurance dollars, federal grants and increased labor wages.

Changes for Sen. Sanders (Vermont):

§ In addition the Vermont FMAP increase, the amendment includes a provision pushed by Sanders to provide an additional $10 billion in funding for community health centers and the National Health Services Corps which he argues would provide primary care to 25 million more people.

Changes for Sen. Bill Nelson (Florida)

Ø As noted above, Nelson was able to secure a deal to keep Medicare Advantage plans enrollees in Florida grandfathered in. Notably, when McCain tried to offer an amendment to allow all enrollees to be grandfathered in, 57 Democrats voted against it.

Changes for Hawaii: The Manager’s Amendment singles out Hawaii as the only state to receive a Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) extension.

Changes for Sen. Lieberman (Connecticut): It amends the extension of section 508 hospital provisions so that hospitals in Connecticut (as well as Michigan) have the option to benefit under them if it means higher payments.

Changes for Sen. Dodd (Connecticut): It was a mystery until just revealed that Chris Dodd’s state will benefit from a cryptically awarded $100 million for a “Health Care Facility” at a public research university that contains a state’s sole public academic medical and dental school—criteria designed to apply to the University of Connecticut.

Changes for Sen. Baucus (Montana):

Ø Baucus secured a pilot program in the amendment to “provide innovative approaches to furnishing comprehensive, coordinated, and cost-effective care” to certain qualified individuals. A qualified individual “is an environmental exposure affected individual…who resides in or around the geographic area subject to an emergency declaration made as of June 17, 2009.” And who might these select few individuals be? Well, according to EPA, “On June 17, 2009, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson issued a Public Health Emergency (PHE) finding at the Libby Asbestos Superfund site in northwest Montana.” This provision would help residents of Libby by allowing them to sign up for Medicare benefits.

It seems to me that if ObamaCare really reformed the process, we wouldn’t need all of these exceptions to its rules. After all, it’s supposed to “bend the cost curve downward” for everyone. If it does that, then why does Hawaii need a DSH extension? Why does Connecticut need exemptions for its hospitals and a $100 million grant, if we’re leveling the playing field?

This list shows why Congress wants to pass this overhaul. They want the ability to demand these favors not just now, but forever. When government controls the system, then the politicians control the spoils. This list is just the appetizers. They’ll be chowing down on pork banquets for decades if this passes into law, and doing it just as dishonestly as this process has been handled all along.

The list of payoffs that got Reid his cloture vote - Hot Air

 

[iamwhatiseem]

No, for many, they want the people to determine that.

We are a republic of 50 states. That is what our forefathers upheld with the electoral college.

As usual you talk in circles, in the end - you are saying you agree with what I said...but trying not to.

Without an electoral, Hillary Clinton would have won. However she would have won because of a handful of heavily populated cities. Without an electoral system, non urban areas would have no voice.

I'm talking in circles??

I'm stating facts.

Also a fact -- Hillary won the popular vote because a plurality of voters voted for her, not because many of them live in a few big cities.

According to the independent, non-partisan Cook Political Report, Clinton's final tally came in at 65,844,610, compared to Donald Trump's 62,979,636, with a difference of 2,864,974.

What does that really mean, Campbell? The Trump campaign didn't spend money in all States because they were intelligent enough to understand that places like California and Massachusetts were going to go Democratic. Conservative voters in heavily liberal States like those might as well stay in bed on election day because they KNOW their vote would mean nothing if cast simply because of the demographics! If I were a Republican in California...I'd make plans to go to the beach that day! My showing up at the polls or not showing up isn't going to affect a thing.

All meaningless If the popular vote won the election, Trump isn't the only candidate who would have campaigned differently... so would have Hillary. And while many Republicans in California don't bother to vote because they know they're going to lose the state anyway, there are many Democrats in Texas who feel the same. Hell, there are many Democrats even who won't bother to vote because they know their vote isn't needed.

So there's absolutely no way to argue Trump would have gotten more votes than Hillary had the popular vote won the election.

Again the circles.
Hillary lost because she gleefully ignored middle America. She wrongly assumed that America was leaning to the progressive left because that is what the MSM pounds into your brain everyday.
Hillary lost large swaths of counties that Obama won...twice...handily. People are tired of being ignored by the elitist puppets that sold their souls to fill their pockets....speaking of which...I see Obama accepted $400,000 to speak at Wall Street. Predictable.

 

[g5000]

Trump's ego is so YUGE that his trillion dollar deficits will look really tiny.

A bigly $30 trillion debt is okay if Trump does it!

 

[Faun]

As usual you talk in circles, in the end - you are saying you agree with what I said...but trying not to.

Without an electoral, Hillary Clinton would have won. However she would have won because of a handful of heavily populated cities. Without an electoral system, non urban areas would have no voice.

I'm talking in circles??

I'm stating facts.

Also a fact -- Hillary won the popular vote because a plurality of voters voted for her, not because many of them live in a few big cities.

According to the independent, non-partisan Cook Political Report, Clinton's final tally came in at 65,844,610, compared to Donald Trump's 62,979,636, with a difference of 2,864,974.

What does that really mean, Campbell? The Trump campaign didn't spend money in all States because they were intelligent enough to understand that places like California and Massachusetts were going to go Democratic. Conservative voters in heavily liberal States like those might as well stay in bed on election day because they KNOW their vote would mean nothing if cast simply because of the demographics! If I were a Republican in California...I'd make plans to go to the beach that day! My showing up at the polls or not showing up isn't going to affect a thing.

All meaningless If the popular vote won the election, Trump isn't the only candidate who would have campaigned differently... so would have Hillary. And while many Republicans in California don't bother to vote because they know they're going to lose the state anyway, there are many Democrats in Texas who feel the same. Hell, there are many Democrats even who won't bother to vote because they know their vote isn't needed.

So there's absolutely no way to argue Trump would have gotten more votes than Hillary had the popular vote won the election.

Again the circles.
Hillary lost because she gleefully ignored middle America. She wrongly assumed that America was leaning to the progressive left because that is what the MSM pounds into your brain everyday.
Hillary lost large swaths of counties that Obama won...twice...handily. People are tired of being ignored by the elitist puppets that sold their souls to fill their pockets....speaking of which...I see Obama accepted $400,000 to speak at Wall Street. Predictable.

And again, what you call, "circles," is in fact, fact. Which is why you couldn't refute any of it.

 

[Markle]

Notice the Right will not say the national debt went down one year under Clinton!

As you know, there is a perfectly good reason. The DEBT NEVER DECREASED UNDER former President Bill Clinton. The DEFICIT decreased due to the fact that Social Security and Medicare payments are included in those figures.

Please note:

End of Fiscal Year Debt (9/30, in billions)
1993 . . . . . . . . . . .$4,411
1994 . . . . . . . . . . .$4,693
1995 . . . . . . . . . . .$4,974
1996 . . . . . . . . . . .$5,225
1997 . . . . . . . . . . .$5,413
1998 . . . . . . . . . . .$5,526
1999 . . . . . . . . . . .$5,656
2000 . . . . . . . . . . .$5,674

See How the U.S. Debt Tripled Since 9/11

 

[Campbell]

Assholes like you would have complained that she had no respect for her role as First Lady if she went without it.

Whoever said that the Obama's had any respect for the office?

By god they were in there for eight years. After four years of the orange lemon everybody will wish Obama was back!

Only worthless parasites like you will wish for that.

I worked 41 years at the K-25 Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant(ORGDP) where the uranium for all the U S nuclear weapons was processed. I retired 22 years ago with a $4,000 a month pension, ($500 a month more than my wife who worked there 43 years.) I live on a 1 1/2 acre lot in a 4 BR brick house with 220 ft. frontage on the lake. Basically......Go Fuck Your Parasite! Your equipment will be a perfect fit.