Republicans fall quiet in face of Obama deficit success

[Mertex]

Deficit Success?? hahahaha!!!

Wouldn't that be a SURPLUS?

Not at the rate that Republicans are wasting it on "repealing Obamacare" and chasing a rabbit they can't seem to catch - Benghazi!

 

[ScienceRocks]

So you think the death of 4 Americans is just a joke? Why not investigate???

 

[regent]

Well I doubt if we are paying the House of Representatives a salary at this time. All they seem to do is make speeches and once in a while vote on Obama-Care, as if that has some effect on the nation. What a waste.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Its right there under your nose sucka



Obama's budget really didn't start until October of 2009 that's when fiscal yr 2010 started. I'm beginning to wonder do you know the difference between the national debt and the national deficit? n

Obama signed the FY2009 budget in March of 2009.
FY2009 deficit belings to Him.

You guys just don't know when to quit do you? First, one of you losers did not know that
12 zeros are trillions. Yet, you want to engage in intelligent conversation. Then you come up with this farce saying that Obama signed the FY2009 budget. Where did you go to school, Appalachian High?

Fear not - I deal with impossibly ignorant people such as yourself all the time.

The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution was approved by the House on June 5, 2008.[2] The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began.

2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FY2009 deficit? Obama.

 

[JQPublic1]

Are you planning on explaining your use of a chart that doesn't show what you think it shows?

No. I'm waiting for a genius like you to tell me. Take the chart at face value, silly Rabbi(t) TRIX are for kids! IF you had something of import, I'm sure you would have jumped on it a long tome ago. Baiting me is not going to make you any smarter. In fact,it makes you look dumber!

 

[JQPublic1]

Oh my, the deficit reduced $800 Billion under Obama ... more than predicted.
My comment ^^
Rachel Maddow Show

you're measuring against predictions? HUH?

What about real money?

Hell I could predict it was supposed to be $20 trillion and low and behold it's $19 trillion short.

The new estimate? are you serious....tell me what the ACTUAL deficit is

It sucks that we're heading towards 20 trillion in debt as we fall behind the rest of the first world. Behind in science, technology and infrastructure.

Unless you have been living in a box you know the Republican controlled House is pushing for austerity in the USA...just like the IMF and World Bank does on nations they lend to in the developing nations. Education, necessary for scientific and technological development is discouraged by the GOP with their slash and dash agenda. And with their noteworthy opposition to revenue increases across the board, avoiding bridges and tunnels might be a wise choice. So much for safety and caring about infrastructure!

 

[JQPublic1]

Of course Saddam had WMDs, Reagan helped him with Chemical and biological ones, didn't make a peep when he used them. The problem is all the talk of mushroom clouds when he had NO CHANCE of making a bomb. Total bs in a tidal wave of war mongering we'll be paying for for years- millions of jihadists....

I am in total agreement. In fact, the only WMDs that threatened world peace and tranquility at the time were Bush's Words of Mass Deception. Even the Europeans, using their own intelligence sources, knew that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Subsequently some, if not all, refused to be sucked into George Bush's diabolical games.

Too bad CLinton, Kerry, et al seemed to think it was enough of a threat as to make policy to get rid of him.

Personally, I think the CIA reports were doctored for the express purpose of gaining willful acceptance of Bush's agenda by top Democrats. Note the red highlight!

President George W. Bush asserted peaceful measures could not disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War,[9] despite multiple dissenting opinions[10] and questions of integrity[11][12][13] about the underlying intelligence.[14] Later U.S.-led inspections agreed that Iraq had earlier abandoned its WMD programs, but asserted Iraq had an intention to pursue those programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted.[15] Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was "the intelligence failure" in Iraq,[16] while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq".[17] A key CIA informant in Iraq admitted that he lied about his allegations, "then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war".[18]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

We began with this basic proposition: Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to develop nuclear arms, poison gas, biological weapons, or the means to deliver them. He has used such weapons before against soldiers and civilians, including his own people. We have no doubt that if left unchecked he would do so again... So long as Saddam remains in power he will remain a threat to his people, his region and the world. With our allies, we must pursue a strategy to contain him and to constrain his weapons of mass destruction program, while working toward the day Iraq has a government willing to live at peace with its people and with its neighbors."

President Clinton
The White House
December 19, 1998



Meeting the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and protecting U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf has been a high priority of President Clinton's Administration. The Administration has pursued a policy towards Iraq that rests on three pillars: containment of Saddam Hussein to prevent him from rebuilding his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs or threatening his neighbors; humanitarian relief for the Iraqi people to minimize their suffering at the hands of Saddam Hussein; and supporting regime change to remove Saddam Hussein from power so that Iraq and its neighbors can live in peace. This policy has successfully prevented Saddam Hussein from again attacking his neighbors as he did during the Persian Gulf War and increased pressure on his regime through international isolation. The Clinton Administration remains committed to working with U.S. allies to maintain the United Nations Security Council sanctions on Iraq, while looking to a future with a new Iraqi leadership, where the United States and its allies can support the removal of sanctions and offer assistance to bring Iraq back into the family of nations.

CONTAINING SADDAM HUSSEIN'S IRAQ

Well, I soured on Bill a bit when he signed NAFTA. But in the case of IRAQ, I hope he was just mislead by contrived CIA reports as were, ostensibly, many of the Democrats who supported the war!

 

[thereisnospoon]

Oh my, the deficit reduced $800 Billion under Obama ... more than predicted.
My comment ^^
Rachel Maddow Show

Right....That and 50 cents gets you a Senior coffee at Burger King.
Try 16 trillion over the next ten years. And that is a US federal government number. A conservative number at that.
800 billion.
Ok, WHERE?
There has not been a budget passed. The federal government is operating on a continuing resolution which increased the debt ceiling for the 5th time.
Without a budget, there is no way to display a reduction in deficit.
Rachel Maddow is an Obama cheer leader.

 

[Mertex]

So you think the death of 4 Americans is just a joke? Why not investigate???

Trouble reading? Where did I say it was a joke? The joke is that Republicans are feigning concern over 4 deaths in Benghazi, but don't seem to have a problem with 4000+ killed in Iraq based on a big fat lie - that they had WMDs.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It's time to spend more on infrastructure, to increase growth ... something cons can't grasp.

Government cannot tax and spend the population into prosperity.
Where the notion that wealth comes from government is a mystery.
It just ain't true.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/topics/roads.cfm.
We tax for a lot. Much of the money supposedly for roads and bridges goes to other revenue streams which have nothing to do with transportation.

 

[S.J.]

So you think the death of 4 Americans is just a joke? Why not investigate???

Trouble reading? Where did I say it was a joke? The joke is that Republicans are feigning concern over 4 deaths in Benghazi, but don't seem to have a problem with 4000+ killed in Iraq based on a big fat lie - that they had WMDs.

You don't have to say it's a joke. Your cavalier attitude and flippant remark was enough.

 

[Mertex]

Fear not - I deal with impossibly ignorant people such as yourself all the time.

The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution was approved by the House on June 5, 2008.[2] The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began.

2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FY2009 deficit? Obama.

You may post something that seems to attribute GW's spending to Obama, but you're not understanding what you are posting. I think you are one of the ones mentioned in this article, that doesn't understand how federal budgeting works!

One such tactic they’re using these days is to blame Obama for some of the massive increases in federal spending that occurred during the eight years of Bush’s two terms. A Google search for “federal spending under Obama” and related terms yields a wide variety of articles and media stories (largely from Foxnews) blaming Obama for the massive spending increases that occurred during the 2009 fiscal year.

This is very clever of course, since few people out in the public understand how federal budgeting works, but the fact is that the spending that occurred during the 2009 fiscal year is almost totally the result of appropriations bills signed by George W. Bush during the 2008 calendar year. By shifting Bush’s 2009 spending to Obama, one can then understate the amount of federal spending authorized by Bush while inflating the spending authorized by Obama. This then helps perpetuate the myth that one party is more “responsible” with taxpayer funds than the other party.

The Budget Process and Presidential Terms

The federal fiscal year lasts from October 1 to September 30 (It ended on June 30 prior to 1976). So, the 2009 fiscal year ended in September of 2009, eight months after Bush left office. When Obama was sworn into office, Bush had already submitted his 3.1 trillion dollar 2009 budget almost a year earlier. He then signed the stack of resulting appropriations bills submitted to him by Congress throughout 2008 which authorized the federal spending that would take place once the 2009 FY actually began in October. Then, in the fall of 2008, Bush supported and signed additional spending bills providing for various bailouts and stimulus programs that marked the end of his presidency, and which would show up as spending in 2009. Needless to say, the already-enormous 2009 budget that Bush had submitted in early 2008 was not totally reflective of the full impact of the huge spending increases that would eventually be authorized by Bush. Bush’s original budget was $3.1 trillion, but once one adds in all the bailouts and stimulus spending also supported by Bush, the number is actually much larger, and this is the number that shows up in the spending figures now being attributed to Obama for FY2009.



Bush?s Huge Budget Numbers Blamed on Obama

 

[Mertex]

So you think the death of 4 Americans is just a joke? Why not investigate???

Trouble reading? Where did I say it was a joke? The joke is that Republicans are feigning concern over 4 deaths in Benghazi, but don't seem to have a problem with 4000+ killed in Iraq based on a big fat lie - that they had WMDs.

You don't have to say it's a joke. Your cavalier attitude and flippant remark was enough.

Oh, so you are basing your baseless accusation on your "sensitivity"?

What about you all's cavalier attitude about the 4000+ that died in the Iraq war? Was that a joke?

 

[S.J.]

Trouble reading? Where did I say it was a joke? The joke is that Republicans are feigning concern over 4 deaths in Benghazi, but don't seem to have a problem with 4000+ killed in Iraq based on a big fat lie - that they had WMDs.

You don't have to say it's a joke. Your cavalier attitude and flippant remark was enough.

Oh, so you are basing your baseless accusation on your "sensitivity"?

What about you all's cavalier attitude about the 4000+ that died in the Iraq war? Was that a joke?

No, I'm basing it on your ******* cavalier attitude and flippant remark. Do you have trouble reading?

 

[Mertex]

You don't have to say it's a joke. Your cavalier attitude and flippant remark was enough.

Oh, so you are basing your baseless accusation on your "sensitivity"?

What about you all's cavalier attitude about the 4000+ that died in the Iraq war? Was that a joke?

No, I'm basing it on your ******* cavalier attitude and flippant remark. Do you have trouble reading?

You have comprehension problems, for sure, and maybe anger management could help you?

You still didn't answer my question, so it appears you may trouble with obtuseness, too.

 

[S.J.]

Oh, so you are basing your baseless accusation on your "sensitivity"?

What about you all's cavalier attitude about the 4000+ that died in the Iraq war? Was that a joke?

No, I'm basing it on your ******* cavalier attitude and flippant remark. Do you have trouble reading?

You have comprehension problems, for sure, and maybe anger management could help you?

You still didn't answer my question, so it appears you may trouble with obtuseness, too.

I don't recall making any flippant remarks about 4,000 deaths. If I did, post it, asshole.

 

[Mertex]

No, I'm basing it on your ******* cavalier attitude and flippant remark. Do you have trouble reading?

You have comprehension problems, for sure, and maybe anger management could help you?

You still didn't answer my question, so it appears you may trouble with obtuseness, too.

I don't recall making any flippant remarks about 4,000 deaths. If I did, post it, asshole.

And I don't recall making any flippant remarks about Benghazi, just the freaking Republican party, asshole.

 

[Sallow]

Well no. You did say that Saddam had WMD. That's the part I bolded. Is English not your native language that you cannot understand yourself?

Well actually it is.

Doesn't seem to be yours.

"Had" is past tense.

Wow, are you dishonest. Like there was any doubt.
You wrote that Saddam "had mostly" gotten rid of it. Mostly means not entirely. Which means he still had WMDs, according to you.

Not dishonest at all. I realize that I am dealing with a binary reptile mind here so I was pretty careful with my language.

Saddam was ordered to destroy his chemical and biological weapons cache.

For the most part, he did, but it also seems he missed a few sites. However, when those sites were found, the ordnance was no longer useful. Seems there is a shelf life to these sorts of weapons.

In any case..there was no reason to attack Iraq..even if they had "wmds".

None.

 

[Sallow]

No, I'm basing it on your ******* cavalier attitude and flippant remark. Do you have trouble reading?

You have comprehension problems, for sure, and maybe anger management could help you?

You still didn't answer my question, so it appears you may trouble with obtuseness, too.

I don't recall making any flippant remarks about 4,000 deaths. If I did, post it, asshole.

Your party seems pretty flippant about it.

This is what two close advisors to the Bush administration said:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-CAcdta_8I]Falwell and Robertson on The 700 Club after 9/11 - YouTube[/ame]

Nothing happened to either man.

Additionally..investigations into 9/11 intelligence failures took over a year to get underway. And it seems all they came out with, was recommendations. Which is why we have a Department of Homeland security.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Fear not - I deal with impossibly ignorant people such as yourself all the time.

The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution was approved by the House on June 5, 2008.[2] The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began.

2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FY2009 deficit? Obama.

You may post something that seems to attribute GW's spending to Obama, but you're not understanding what you are posting. I think you are one of the ones mentioned in this article, that doesn't understand how federal budgeting works!

One such tactic they’re using these days is to blame Obama for some of the massive increases in federal spending that occurred during the eight years of Bush’s two terms. A Google search for “federal spending under Obama” and related terms yields a wide variety of articles and media stories (largely from Foxnews) blaming Obama for the massive spending increases that occurred during the 2009 fiscal year.

This is very clever of course, since few people out in the public understand how federal budgeting works, but the fact is that the spending that occurred during the 2009 fiscal year is almost totally the result of appropriations bills signed by George W. Bush during the 2008 calendar year. By shifting Bush’s 2009 spending to Obama, one can then understate the amount of federal spending authorized by Bush while inflating the spending authorized by Obama. This then helps perpetuate the myth that one party is more “responsible” with taxpayer funds than the other party.

The Budget Process and Presidential Terms

The federal fiscal year lasts from October 1 to September 30 (It ended on June 30 prior to 1976). So, the 2009 fiscal year ended in September of 2009, eight months after Bush left office. When Obama was sworn into office, Bush had already submitted his 3.1 trillion dollar 2009 budget almost a year earlier. He then signed the stack of resulting appropriations bills submitted to him by Congress throughout 2008 which authorized the federal spending that would take place once the 2009 FY actually began in October. Then, in the fall of 2008, Bush supported and signed additional spending bills providing for various bailouts and stimulus programs that marked the end of his presidency, and which would show up as spending in 2009. Needless to say, the already-enormous 2009 budget that Bush had submitted in early 2008 was not totally reflective of the full impact of the huge spending increases that would eventually be authorized by Bush. Bush’s original budget was $3.1 trillion, but once one adds in all the bailouts and stimulus spending also supported by Bush, the number is actually much larger, and this is the number that shows up in the spending figures now being attributed to Obama for FY2009.



Bush?s Huge Budget Numbers Blamed on Obama

For the final time....There is NO MORE blaming BUSH...
No one ever said Bush 43 was not a free spender. Any one wiht half a brain knows Bush spent heavily on social programs. Programs which YOU SIDE supports. But because the spending came from a GOP president, your side has it's collective panties in a wad over deficit spending. BULLSHIT.
So now Obama basically quadrupled Bush's deficit. Obama gets heat for it and you like a good little liberal pawn in a attempt to protect your Messiah, roll out Bush 43.
It stops here.
Here's a little newsflash for ya..Obama has been the occupier of the Oval Office for more than 4 years. Although he has spent most of it campaigning and sticking his nose into things where he does not as POTUS does not belong.
You people have bought into Obama's "ok I am in charge now" nonsense.