Obama on Pace to Borrow $6.2T in One Term

[drsmith1072]

Uh due to the fact that repubs have controlled the house and the purse strings for the last year why is it that you hold only obama and the left accountable for continued growth of the debt?

You must be joking. Every time the Repubs try to make cuts in the budget the Democrats throw a major temper tantrum and call any cut "extreme." The Dems have been demanding more spending, not less.

OK so how come that argument doesn't work when it's pointed out how the republicans block everything that obama and the dems want to do?? Thanks for the hypocrisy.

BTW nice avoidance of the fact that republicans have controlled the purse strings for the last year even as spending has increased but your avoidance doesn't change the facts.

 

[drsmith1072]

ROFL! The economy was already recovering when Clinton took office.

I don't remember saying otherwise. I mentioned Clinton years as a right time to reduce the deficit -- you can do that at any moment when the FED rate is well above zero.

You gave Clinton credit for the recovery, and that was a total lie. He also deserves no credit for reducing the deficit. The Republicans did that.

WOW you are just full of hypocrisy tonight.

So let's get this straight, if a democrat is president and something good happens he gets no credit for it but if something bad happens he is the CiC and it's his watch so he deserves all the blame??

WOW! How can people be so blatantly hypocritical?

 

[Care4all]

Remember which party held the Legislative branch until 2011, which included government programs like Obamacare, the Stimulus bill, Cash for Clunkers, Cash for Appliances, Home Forclosure bail-out spending (to name a few) and there was nothing the Republicans could do about it.

There was nothing republicans could do about it? Uh did you happen to forget that the super majority was lost when scott Brown was sworn in on Feb 4, 2010 and how the filibuster started getting overused by republicans intent on halting any movement in a positive direction so they could watch this country crumble in the hopes that they could use the dire situation to accomplish their primary goal of defeating obama in 2012?

Furthermore did you know that the dems didn't even gain the super majority until Arlen spector switched parties on April 28, 2009?

So for all of this talk about dems and 2 years the fact is that they only had the super majority for roughly 9 months and the rest of the time they had to deal with with filibuster and republicans who would rather see obama get the blame than get this country out of this economic mess.

Seems to me that you need to get your fact straight. Kind of like your bogus claim about the airlines not taking a bailout after 9/11 when they did

ONLY 10 months...yes, only.....

we are well aware and you are aware that having that supra majority for 10 months gave you ala obama care the power to what you wished....like create a yearly budget ( which doesn't require a supra majority btw) , but that got passed by for 2 years....why is that btw?


oh and please list the bills, votes ala these filibusters the republicans have engaged in since that cloture proof majority was lost...thank you in advance.

uhhhhhh, no trajan.

the Democrats DID NOT have a super majority when they passed Obama Care. Senator Kennedy had died before the Health Care Bill was passed and Scott Brown, Republican, had taken his spot....and Senator Kennedy was out sick for months before he died....so the senate did not have a super majority during that period.

 

[bripat9643]

OK so how come that argument doesn't work when it's pointed out how the republicans block everything that obama and the dems want to do?? Thanks for the hypocrisy.

That argument doesn't work because the only thing the Dims try to pass is more spending and more taxes.

BTW nice avoidance of the fact that republicans have controlled the purse strings for the last year even as spending has increased but your avoidance doesn't change the facts.

The Republicans have only controlled the House. The last time I checked, that wasn't sufficient to get legislation passed.

 

[Care4all]

ROFL! The economy was already recovering when Clinton took office.

I don't remember saying otherwise. I mentioned Clinton years as a right time to reduce the deficit -- you can do that at any moment when the FED rate is well above zero.

You gave Clinton credit for the recovery, and that was a total lie. He also deserves no credit for reducing the deficit. The Republicans did that.

clinton did come out with his Reduction spending and Deficit Act of 1993...It was this plan that DID MOST OF THE WORK in reducing the government's deficit.....yes, congress came in a few years later with some other measures, but this 1993 Act of Clintons, of which many Dems and Repubs disagreed with, IS WHAT STARTED the ball rolling in the right direction on Deficit Reduction....fyi not one republican voted for it....

The success of the 1993 budget reconciliation bill at reducing the federal budget deficit. | Goliath Business News

 

[bripat9643]

I don't remember saying otherwise. I mentioned Clinton years as a right time to reduce the deficit -- you can do that at any moment when the FED rate is well above zero.

You gave Clinton credit for the recovery, and that was a total lie. He also deserves no credit for reducing the deficit. The Republicans did that.

clinton did come out with his Reduction spending and Deficit Act of 1993...It was this plan that DID MOST OF THE WORK in reducing the government's deficit.....yes, congress came in a few years later with some other measures, but this 1993 Act of Clintons, of which many Dems and Repubs disagreed with, IS WHAT STARTED the ball rolling in the right direction on Deficit Reduction....fyi not one republican voted for it....

The success of the 1993 budget reconciliation bill at reducing the federal budget deficit. | Goliath Business News

His plan called for more spending and more taxes. Clinton's own budget projections predicted deficits as far as the eye could see.

The real reason the deficit decreased was the decrease in the defense budget allowed by the peace dividend, that Reagan deserves credit for, and the additional revenue produced by the tech boom. It had nothing to do with with Clinton's so-called "deficit reduction plan."

 

[Care4all]

You gave Clinton credit for the recovery, and that was a total lie. He also deserves no credit for reducing the deficit. The Republicans did that.

clinton did come out with his Reduction spending and Deficit Act of 1993...It was this plan that DID MOST OF THE WORK in reducing the government's deficit.....yes, congress came in a few years later with some other measures, but this 1993 Act of Clintons, of which many Dems and Repubs disagreed with, IS WHAT STARTED the ball rolling in the right direction on Deficit Reduction....fyi not one republican voted for it....

The success of the 1993 budget reconciliation bill at reducing the federal budget deficit. | Goliath Business News

His plan called for more spending and more taxes. Clinton's own budget projections predicted deficits as far as the eye could see.

The real reason the deficit decreased was the decrease in the defense budget allowed by the peace dividend, that Reagan deserves credit for, and the additional revenue produced by the tech boom. It had nothing to do with with Clinton's so-called "deficit reduction plan."

so ginrich and the republican congress had nothing to do with it either?

Oh, but it did have a lot to do with the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993....

it gave consumers and businesses hope, and gave them a positive outlook....due to seeing the light at the end of the tunnel on the end to deficit spending by our government.....which is the majority of what drives business...positive.consumer outlook.

and due to clintons Deficit Reduction Plan, we collected more in taxes to pay for what was spent....about 500 billion more in tax revenues for his first term with about 250 billion in spending, which gave us the 250 billion left to reduce the deficit and yes,tax rates went up for some....but the positive outlook and tech boom made up for it and the wealthy got even richer, even with the hike in taxes.....and so did the middle class.

the Republican Congress continued on the road that Clinton paved and helped with reducing the deficit even more....is how I view it.

 

[Trajan]

There was nothing republicans could do about it? Uh did you happen to forget that the super majority was lost when scott Brown was sworn in on Feb 4, 2010 and how the filibuster started getting overused by republicans intent on halting any movement in a positive direction so they could watch this country crumble in the hopes that they could use the dire situation to accomplish their primary goal of defeating obama in 2012?

Furthermore did you know that the dems didn't even gain the super majority until Arlen spector switched parties on April 28, 2009?

So for all of this talk about dems and 2 years the fact is that they only had the super majority for roughly 9 months and the rest of the time they had to deal with with filibuster and republicans who would rather see obama get the blame than get this country out of this economic mess.

Seems to me that you need to get your fact straight. Kind of like your bogus claim about the airlines not taking a bailout after 9/11 when they did

ONLY 10 months...yes, only.....

we are well aware and you are aware that having that supra majority for 10 months gave you ala obama care the power to what you wished....like create a yearly budget ( which doesn't require a supra majority btw) , but that got passed by for 2 years....why is that btw?


oh and please list the bills, votes ala these filibusters the republicans have engaged in since that cloture proof majority was lost...thank you in advance.

WOW! the republicans mantra of "they had congress for two years and there was nothing republicans could do about it" is shot to shite and you act like admitting that the right is full of dishonest hacks is a good thing. LOL

what are u babbling about? I never said that , speak to ME dude, thats who you quoted, get it?

April 29, 2009 to Feb 4, 2010 is not 10 months unless you do some hell of a round up.

oh gee pardon me, 2 months 3 weeks., I apologize, I missed the 3 weeks... .........................Now, you want to address what I said ala the budget and other bills and biz. that got neglected etc etc? . And a budget only requires 50 votes, so let me know how that works out.

Majority Does Not Rule in Filibuster-Filled 111th Congress - Josh Smith - NationalJournal.com

Filibusters skyrocket under Republican minority in 110th Congress. | ThinkProgress



If you want more proof go find it yourself. I am not doing your homework for you only to have you ignore it and pretend that it doesn't exist as is my experience with rightwingers on this board. If you want to know more then find it yourself.
Furthermore, I can't be the only person who has made these statements so my guess is that you have seen this evidence and others in the past and discarded them then as well.

your proof is not proof, at all really.You have a problem with reading comprehension, you don't want to go dig up the congressional record ala the bill, who filibustered when and for how long they held the floor etc etc. its becasue you don't want to, because....well, you know why, don't you?

First your window between feb 09 and april 10 is off limits, that leaves may 2010 till now. have at it. Second, there were no filibusters, McConnell would call Reid and say hey if you bring it up for a cloture vote I will filibuster, Reids say darn, ok then thx and hangs up. ..thats it...end of story.....Get it?

and that Nat Journal article is one slanted piece, I am very surprised frankly that they would print something so poorly crafted and researched and frankly only pejoratively 'informative'.

In essence they never even mention what may be one pof the biggest drivers of flili over the last decades , the a fore mentioned 'threats' equaling action and , how about the bills were in Democrats voted against the motion too? You do know that Reid doesn't make McConnell make good on his threat to actually filibuster becasue he has members of his caucus that don't want to vote or have to be made to vote and expose themselves and/or be put in a position were a 50 vote up or down vote is held post cloture and they have to vote against their own party........but you know that, right?

Because the nat. journal just ignores that in its piece and you apparently don't know it nor do you know how many bona fide filibusters there have been in the senate , say in the last 4 years, I asked you but you flipped me off with this....no thx.

 

[drsmith1072]

OK so how come that argument doesn't work when it's pointed out how the republicans block everything that obama and the dems want to do?? Thanks for the hypocrisy.

That argument doesn't work because the only thing the Dims try to pass is more spending and more taxes.

LOL Thanks for the hypocrisy. It's ok for repubs to "obstruct" but not for dems. Got it.

BTW nice avoidance of the fact that republicans have controlled the purse strings for the last year even as spending has increased but your avoidance doesn't change the facts.

The Republicans have only controlled the House. The last time I checked, that wasn't sufficient to get legislation passed.

If no legislation has been passed then where is all of this new spending that you rightwingers are whining about coming from?

 

[Care4all]

Senator Kennedy in august of 2009, sent a letter to the governor of Mass asking him to appoint a replacement for him...prior to that point, he had spent very little to no time in Washington....due to his brain tumor....in January of 09 he collapsed and had a seizure at an Obama luncheon...and spent little to no time in the Senate after that....

In September, with a Dem Senator in his spot, the Dems had a super majority in the Senate....if memory serves...until the election of Scott Brown???

 

[drsmith1072]

ONLY 10 months...yes, only.....

we are well aware and you are aware that having that supra majority for 10 months gave you ala obama care the power to what you wished....like create a yearly budget ( which doesn't require a supra majority btw) , but that got passed by for 2 years....why is that btw?


oh and please list the bills, votes ala these filibusters the republicans have engaged in since that cloture proof majority was lost...thank you in advance.

what are u babbling about? I never said that , speak to ME dude, thats who you quoted, get it?

OK moron. I was responding to shackles and then you chimed in trying to add your 2 cents that you obviously don't have to spare. If you can't follow the conversation and don't know what is being discussed then please refrain from wasting my time.

oh gee pardon me, 2 months 3 weeks., I apologize, I missed the 3 weeks... .........................Now, you want to address what I said ala the budget and other bills and biz. that got neglected etc etc? . And a budget only requires 50 votes, so let me know how that works out.

Yeah it really doesn't matter when the argument that was presented by shackles claiming that there was nothing republcians could do about was countered by the fact that they had the filibuster for over a year of obamas first two years as president and have had the house for the last year. What is a few days when showing republcians to be dishonest hacks is so much fun. LOL
What is there to address?? you mentioned obamacare and a budget but said nothing of value after that. So what am i supposed to address??

Furthermore I find it hilarious that you would demand that I respond to your every word of your posts when you fail to offer that same courtesy to others.

Majority Does Not Rule in Filibuster-Filled 111th Congress - Josh Smith - NationalJournal.com

Filibusters skyrocket under Republican minority in 110th Congress. | ThinkProgress



If you want more proof go find it yourself. I am not doing your homework for you only to have you ignore it and pretend that it doesn't exist as is my experience with rightwingers on this board. If you want to know more then find it yourself.
Furthermore, I can't be the only person who has made these statements so my guess is that you have seen this evidence and others in the past and discarded them then as well.

your proof is not proof, at all really.You have a problem with reading comprehension, you don't want to go dig up the congressional record ala the bill, who filibustered when and for how long they held the floor etc etc. its becasue you don't want to, because....well, you know why, don't you?

You caliming it is not proof is not proof that it isn't LOL were is your substance?? for all of your demands that others provide substance and links you have offered nothing of the kind to support your claims and your best counter aregument is to stick your fingers in your ears and scream "i am not listenting."

First your window between feb 09 and april 10 is off limits, that leaves may 2010 till now. have at it. Second, there were no filibusters, McConnell would call Reid and say hey if you bring it up for a cloture vote I will filibuster, Reids say darn, ok then thx and hangs up. ..thats it...end of story.....Get it?

and that Nat Journal article is one slanted piece, I am very surprised frankly that they would print something so poorly crafted and researched and frankly only pejoratively 'informative'.

In essence they never even mention what may be one pof the biggest drivers of flili over the last decades , the a fore mentioned 'threats' equaling action and , how about the bills were in Democrats voted against the motion too? You do know that Reid doesn't make McConnell make good on his threat to actually filibuster becasue he has members of his caucus that don't want to vote or have to be made to vote and expose themselves and/or be put in a position were a 50 vote up or down vote is held post cloture and they have to vote against their own party........but you know that, right?

Because the nat. journal just ignores that in its piece and you apparently don't know it nor do you know how many bona fide filibusters there have been in the senate , say in the last 4 years, I asked you but you flipped me off with this....no thx.

You offer opinion based assumptions as a counter argument?? Big surprise there I provide a source and you still provide NOTHING of substance to support your claims. Where is your proof that there were NO filibusters?? LOL Let me know when you can actually provide a link to support your OPINIONS and then you will have some ground to stand on in criticizing the sources of others. Until then you are just a waste of time.

 

[amrchaos]

I am pretty sure we can find a president that can borrow even more!!