Hannity may be seeing the "writing on the wall"

[Synthaholic]

Solyndra was less than $300 million.

Solyndra was $535 million, stupid. Any other misinformation you'd like to post that I can humiliate you on?

Google-Owned Solar Company Requests $540 Million Bailout To Help Pay $1.6 Billion Loan

Obama administration mulled Solyndra bailout days before company's demise

Solyndra: Obama’s First Green Bail-Out | Fox Business

*Making Synthaholic my personal bitch since July 21, 2010

That's a half of a billion dollars. You know that, right?

Do you know that 1,000 x $1 billion = $1 trillion?

I don't think so, because I keep asking you to list the $9 trillion Obama has supposedly spent, and all you can come up with are examples in the millions, and sometimes thousands of dollars.

Just to refresh, it goes:

• hundreds
• thousands
• millions
• billions
• trillions

Got it?

 

[Slade3200]

God you are simple... Our economy is a little more complex than that old man.... Two factors affect our debt spending and revenue. If you can't admit that then you have no place in any kind of economic discussion. This is really basic Stuff

What does it say about you that you can't even grasp simple?

There is only one way that debt can be accumulated - spending. If you don't spend beyond what you bring in, then it is literally impossible to accumulate debt. If you know you've cut taxes, then you cut spending to account for that. Only a libtard can't grasp this.

Very good, you've outlined one of many economic strategies. Now see if you can expand beyond singular thinking.

 

[Synthaholic]

If you spent $0.00 - would that add to your debt? Would it??? Well???

The debt would go up, if you already have debt.

Do I need to teach you about interest, also?

 

[initforme]

Hannity is a wimpy wimp. Blame the voters.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'll start you off: $725 billion for the stimulus (although 1/3 of it was tax cuts).

You can't increase debt by less revenue genius.

You can only increase debt by spending. If the federal government cut all taxes to 0% and had no money coming in at all (not even a single penny) but they didn't write a single check for anything (not even payroll for government employees) - guess what their debt would be? $0.

It's fall down hilarious how liberals don't have a single clue about basic economics and basic finance.

So show me where Obama spent $8.75 trillion.

You can't - you're a fraud.

I already did you illiterate tool. Post #236. It exposed how ignorant you are about what is really happening. Now back to my victory dance....



Hey - I know...why don't you tell us again how tax cuts create "debt"

*Making Synthaholic my personal bitch since July 21, 2010

You fucking moron - all that added together doesn't even make $1 billion, never mind $1 trillion, never mind $8.75 trillion.

And as Jake pointed out, it's all from Bush's spending.

You really are a jackass.

Omnibus alone surpassed $1 billion you moron. Do you read it all or do you just glance and respond? Obamacare alone is around $1 trillion. How dumb are you? Read.

Back to my victory dance after humiliating you for the third time today...



*Making Synthaholic my personal bitch since July 21, 2010

You are the pitcher on the mound who tosses a home run ball, underhanded, to Synthaholic, who hits out of the park. And you start your happy dance screaming, "I struck him out."

 

[P@triot]

Let's say the debt is 5 trillion and in one year the gov spends 1Trillion and makes 2 Trillion in revenue... What is the debt after that year?

You can do this, I got faith!!!

In typical libtard fashion - you failed to provide enough information. Why am I not shocked that you lack the attention to detail to even make your argument?

In your pitiful example - the government has $1 trillion more than they spent. But you failed to mention whether or not they are applying any of that money towards the debt.

Now - I asked you a simple question three times which you continue to run from because you're not mature enough to admit when you're wrong or mature enough to admit that you can't be critical of your previous (and failed) liberal ideology. Can you add debt if you spend $0.00? Yes or No?

 

[P@triot]

Obamacare alone is around $1 trillion.

Oh, really? Care to back that up?

You first - back up your claim that Solyndra was less than $300 million.

 

[P@triot]

If you spent $0.00 - would that add to your debt? Would it??? Well???

The debt would go up, if you already have debt.

Do I need to teach you about interest, also?

Interest is already accounted for junior. The bonds have interest accounted for at the time they are sold. Oops...

 

[Slade3200]

Let's say the debt is 5 trillion and in one year the gov spends 1Trillion and makes 2 Trillion in revenue... What is the debt after that year?

You can do this, I got faith!!!

In typical libtard fashion - you failed to provide enough information. Why am I not shocked that you lack the attention to detail to even make your argument?

In your pitiful example - the government has $1 trillion more than they spent. But you failed to mention whether or not they are applying any of that money towards the debt.

Now - I asked you a simple question three times which you continue to run from because you're not mature enough to admit when you're wrong or mature enough to admit that you can't be critical of your previous (and failed) liberal ideology. Can you add debt if you spend $0.00? Yes or No?

Yes, if you have debt and you spend 0 then the debt increases by whatever intrest is accumulating. What's your point?

Just say you misspoke and give this one up. You are looking like a fool with your happy dances and scrabbling attempts to salvage a valid point

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Obamacare alone is around $1 trillion.

Oh, really? Care to back that up?

The overhead cost equals a whopping 22.5 percent of the total estimated $2.76 trillion in all federal government spending for the Affordable Care Act programs during that time, according to the authors of the online report on the Health Affairs blog.

Obamacare's big overhead bill? Try $273.6 billion

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You're flailing and grasping. You didn't even look up the deficit before they took control, did you?

Yep, have it right here:

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I say let Afghanistan be their own police.

No American life is worth losing in order to drag these people into the 20th century, never mind the 21st.

Are you including the 3,000 from the WTC attack?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

1964.

There you go......thank you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Correction: Obama wanted to pay our debts and Republicans wanted to default on them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you mean Hannity is whining and so are you, sure. But I am not liberal and you are not a patriot.

Of course you're not. You're a conservative that bashes Republicans all the time, that's not a liberal in any sense of the word.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you mean Hannity is whining and so are you, sure. But I am not liberal and you are not a patriot.

Of course you're not. You're a conservative that bashes Republicans all the time, that's not a liberal in any sense of the word.

I am a Republican who bases crazy far cons and socons all the time, not good Republicans.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I've heard Liberals say we have a strong economy that is trending in the right direction but there is still much more work to do. I think that is more accurate than the Rights, "we are a sinking ship", analysis. Unemployment has gotten MUCH better over the past 7 years and food stamp recipients are trending down after peaking in 2012. The major challenge at this time is wage growth. The major complaint from the Right isn't about a major economic crash or massive unemployment/poverty, or a crushing depression, or a weak dollar... it is about "Slow Growth"

The only reason food stamps are going down is because the Republicans are slowly cutting funds to it. Then there are state Republicans such as those in Maine who put qualifications to apply or stay on the program which scared many off of it.

The unemployment isn't MUCH better, only the numbers are because if people say they are not working nor looking for work, they don't count as unemployed. And since we still have a record number of working age Americans not working (over 1/3 of our working population) then of course the numbers drop considerably.

Republicans cutting funds don't make up the driving force affecting food stamps. When people get jobs they get off food stamps, more people are now employed so less are on food stamps. It's pretty simple. Do you remember 2008? Stats aside, you know the economy and iobs are much better today as it was then.

From one of your very own, Mother Fn Jones:

Republicans won the food stamp war

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I am a Republican who bases crazy far cons and socons all the time, not good Republicans.

Not good ones (in your opinion?) You mean both of them????????

 

[rightwinger]

My favorite Hannity interview was of Ted Cruz at CPAC

Why do you love America so much?

 

[Slade3200]

I've heard Liberals say we have a strong economy that is trending in the right direction but there is still much more work to do. I think that is more accurate than the Rights, "we are a sinking ship", analysis. Unemployment has gotten MUCH better over the past 7 years and food stamp recipients are trending down after peaking in 2012. The major challenge at this time is wage growth. The major complaint from the Right isn't about a major economic crash or massive unemployment/poverty, or a crushing depression, or a weak dollar... it is about "Slow Growth"

The only reason food stamps are going down is because the Republicans are slowly cutting funds to it. Then there are state Republicans such as those in Maine who put qualifications to apply or stay on the program which scared many off of it.

The unemployment isn't MUCH better, only the numbers are because if people say they are not working nor looking for work, they don't count as unemployed. And since we still have a record number of working age Americans not working (over 1/3 of our working population) then of course the numbers drop considerably.

Republicans cutting funds don't make up the driving force affecting food stamps. When people get jobs they get off food stamps, more people are now employed so less are on food stamps. It's pretty simple. Do you remember 2008? Stats aside, you know the economy and iobs are much better today as it was then.

From one of your very own, Mother Fn Jones:

Republicans won the food stamp war

Don't know if this was a win loss thing