Republicans so worried about the debt, yet they cause most of it.

[francoHFW]

Obama didn't attack banks?
Didn't sue banks?
Pile on thousands of additional regulations? LOL!

LOL indeed. Sue the banks? WTF? The banks were brought to court and ended up paying fines that were less than one month of profit those same banks generate. It's not an attack when you don't see any harm. And what additional regulations, specifically, were an attack on the banks who saw their market share grow during Obama? AGain, you're just arguing in vague generalities, expecting others to do your work for you. That's some lazy entitlement ya got there.

Stopping new federal leases, stopping offshore drilling, trying to get cap and trade, trying to end coal, trying, and failing, to stop fracking.

LOL! Fracking proliferated during Obama and there was more fracking during Obama than before him. So he didn't stop fracking, he encouraged it. Secondly, the price per barrel dropped to below $50 with Obama ending federal leases and offshore drilling. So, I'm not sure what you're complaining about because the price per barrel dropped. You seem to think "attacking fossil fuels" is synonymous with "lower price per barrel". Obama's price-per-barrel was lower than Bush's. So how is making fossil fuels cheaper an "attack on fossil fuels"?

Obama said we couldn't drill our way to lower prices. Wrong again.

Exactly! He cut the price of energy in your own words by, "topping new federal leases, stopping offshore drilling, trying to get cap and trade, trying to end coal, trying, and failing, to stop fracking." So all that you accused Obama of doing actually resulted in lower energy prices today. So...what's your point? Obama's attack on"fossil fuels" was really not an attack at all.

Obama simply made fracking safer... And he had little to do with Coal becoming obsolete...

Spanish and Irish markets? Try markets everywhere in the world that's how this was a world depression... Great job. oh those poor Banks and financial institutions, who in League with their crony Pals the bushes and their minions wrecked the world with their greed and Corruption. It appears you missed the whole thing, like most brainwashed dupes... And it cost Obama administration 8 trillion dollars to fix it. Ditto the EU, the third world is still screwed.

Spanish and Irish markets? Try markets everywhere in the world

Exactly, Bush's dumb idea, fully supported by libs, to give mortgages to minorities and the poor caused RE markets across the world to spike. Incredible power!

Democrats wanted to give mortgages to worthy minorities, Bush and his corrupt cronies gave them to anyone breathing, knowing they were toxic... Duh!

And the Dems saying, "Stop giving mortgages to those unworthy people" included..........?
Got a list? Link?

They did not know... Only the corrupt lenders and the corrupt Regulators knew... Duh!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If the choice is between Obama's shitty economic performance and Bush's, I'll go for "what's behind door number 3?"

There is no door number 3. Conservative imagination is door #3, but it's the same door as what's behind Bush's door. Because Conservative policy never works. Ever.

II didn't. The original, here.....

OK, and now maybe post the numbers that aren't just "Production and Non-Supervisory Employees". Use "ALL EMPLOYEES" not just the sectors that make your argument look better.

So you did it again! You posted bullshit lies. You have a nasty habit of not being honest in a debate. Here's the actual total employment including all private sector employees, not just the narrow parameters you've established with your dishonest attempt to stay relevant in this debate.

**** man...you are SO ******* DISHONEST it's embarrassing.

Here is the BLS data for ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS:

Employment, January 2001: 111,871
Employment, January 2009: 111,474

91,875,500 minus 90,976,000 shows a gain of 899,000 just as I said.

That's not total employment of all employees. That's just a segment of the workforce, not the whole workforce. You deliberately misrepresented data in order to force through a false conclusion.

Sophistry.

OK, and now maybe post the numbers that aren't just "Production and Non-Supervisory Employees". Use "ALL EMPLOYEES" not just the sectors that make your argument look better.

Good idea. But you're the one who said "private employment".
That's different than "ALL EMPLOYEES" moron.

So you did it again!

I know! I posted actual numbers to prove your error.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And the Dems saying, "Stop giving mortgages to those unworthy people" included..........?Got a list? Link?

The Democrats weren't in power in 2004; you assholes were. Don't blame those out of power for what you did while you were in power. That's a whiny little ***** move.

The Democrats weren't in power in 2004;

Politicians have to be in power to complain about something? LOL!

 

[Spare_change]

Perhaps you can give me a link to that ridiculously inane statement by the OMB? Though - frankly - having seen their work in the past, it wouldn't surprise me..

The OMB is a non-partisan government agency. If I do post the link to the OMB page explicitly saying that budget surpluses are used to reduce Public Debt, will you admit you're wrong, full of shit, and that all this time you've wasted has been in service of your ego and nothing more?

Maybe ... it depends on the context ... but at least, I'm willing to look at your data. You chose to ignore mine.

Believe me, my ego doesn't need servicing by destroying a little pissant like you. I will survive.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obama wanted yucky oil prices to go higher, for the planet!!!

He did? When did he say that? What Obama did was reduce the cost of renewable energy, and doing so created more jobs in renewable energy than in fossil fuels. In fact, the US solar industry alone now employs more people than oil, coal, and natural gas combined. While renewable energy prices have dropped by more than half since 2009.

I missed the liberal outcry over lax regulation leading to too much lending to minorities and the poor. Link?

It's not lax regulation, it's Bush's regulators not enforcing the regulations and standards that already existed. That's what you don't get.

I've done well, despite Obama's incompetence.

Seems to me you owe a big thank you to Obama.

Just because I've done well doesn't mean Obama didn't hurt many others. Especially minorities and the poor.

Or it means that you're full of shit. That's what's more likely here.

Still not know what "private" means, eh?

LOL! You mean the chart where you cherry picked a segment of the employed workers but left about 20,000,000 of them out? LOL! Try again, shithead.

He did? When did he say that?

Brain tumor? Sad.

In fact, the US solar industry alone now employs more people than oil, coal, and natural gas combined.

Yes, the low productivity of the solar sector is widely known.

Seems to me you owe a big thank you to Obama.

Thank you, Faily McWorseThanCarter

 

[The Derp]

$10s of billions.....no harm? LOL!.

Not to a bank that makes that much in profit in a matter of weeks.

Increased capital requirements, Dodd-Frank, etc.

So again, you can't cite any thing specific. You just vomit stuff up that you've gleaned from elsewhere. You haven't done any work into this to understand what you're saying, have you? It's just you running your mouth and inventing stuff off the top of your head, isn't it? You do a lot of that kind of sloppy, rushed work here that you try to pass off as "thoughtful" when it's really deliberately deceptive. Like when you posted the job numbers from Bush, cherry picking a subset of employees and hoping no one would notice. That's what you did, isn't it? Did you think I wouldn't bother to notice? I think you work from the assumption that because you're a dishonest sophist, it means everyone is. And increased capital requirements are an attack, why/how? It was the elimination of the capital requirements by Bush's Treasury department in 2004 that caused those banks to explode the secondary and tertiary mortgage markets. How do you think those banks managed to securitize so many subprime loans in such a short amount of time!?!?!?!?!?!?! The more you talk about this, the less convinced I am that you know what you're saying.

OMG! You've discovered the reality that adding enough regs harms small and medium sized business more than the largest ones.

But that's not what you said. You didn't make the distinction between small businesses and banks. You merely said "attacks the banks". And we were talking about banks, not small businesses. So nice try with the non-sequitur. Small business lending dropping off wasn't the result of Dodd-Frank, it was the result of banks not lending money and instead pouring it back into themselves. So now you're trying to broaden out your criticism to include small businesses, knowing that small business lending dropped in the aftermath of the financial crisis not because of Dodd-Frank -heck Obama and the Fed were doing all they can to force banks TO LOAN- but because banks realized it's safer for them to not lend and instead to pour that money right back into their own stock, or into derivative markets where they can gamble and get a better return (potentially).

Where the **** did Obama ever encourage fracking? Even once? Link?.

YOU ARE SUCH A LAZY ****, I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW PATHETIC YOUR LIFE MUST ACTUALLY BE.

Obama, 2013 SOTU:

"After years of talking about it, we are finally poised to control our own energy future. We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years. We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas, and the amount of renewable energy we generate from sources like wind and solar – with tens of thousands of good, American jobs to show for it. We produce more natural gas than ever before – and nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it."​

 

[The Derp]

Obama said we couldn't drill our way to lower prices. Wrong again.

And he was right. You say he attacked fossil fuels, and the result were lower fossil fuel costs across the board. Soooooo....what's your point?

All his actions reduced production and exploration. Raised prices.

NO IT DIDN'T RAISE PRICES YOU ******* LIAR. The price per barrel of oil was below $50 by the end of his term. The cost of natural gas is so low now that according to the EIA in 2016:

Natural gas prices in 2016 were the lowest in nearly 20 years

EAT. SHIT. TODDSTER. YOU. ARE. A. FRAUD.

Why is it that nothing you say turns out to be the truth!?!?!?!?!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Things are getting better......so now there is a flood of refugees?

Yes, because now they can actually leave.

Reset buttons. Touring the world telling everyone that America sucks. Obviously.

No, no. You said he could make thing better. I asked "how?" You didn't answer that question, choosing instead to just restate the stupid stuff you said before. You asserted he could make things better, but you don't say how. You just fall back on what you said before. That's why you're a piece of shit.

Wow, one criminal moron in the US, just like millions of cases in Islam.
******* idiot!

LOL! Again with the excuses. When Christians do it here, they're merely "idiots", but when Muslims do it over there, they're terrible. Obviously, your bias is showing. So if Muslims over there did these acts at the same rate Christians over here did them, then it's all good and excusable? So how many FGMs does it take to go from "idiot" to "existential threat to all women everywhere"? What is that magic number? You set this standard, you know...so you're the one responsible for defining it. So what is an acceptable amount of FGM that results in calling an entire religion "idiotic" and not an existential threat? Please, let us know what your standard for FGM is for you to be OK with it or to write it off as "idiots" and not an infection of the religion and belief system as a whole?

Throw that hack in jail. 40 years sounds good.

Huh? I thought you said he was just an "idiot". Now you want to throw him in jail for being "an idiot"? He was only doing what his religion commanded; he was only exercising his religious beliefs. And you want to throw him in jail for exercising his religious beliefs? Why do you hate the 1A so much?

The 2 idiots who did that were Christian?
Were they working for the authorities?
Because it's the Muslim authorities throwing them off buildings..

Yes, they were Christian and yes they were merely exercising the institutional homophobia that exists within our society. Again, you seem keen to make excuses for Christians, but not for Muslims. That's because of your inherent bias and confused position.

Funny. Wrong. **** you, asshole.

You spent the last tow posts making excuses for Christian religious fundamentalism in the US. You want to lock some guy up in jail for merely expressing his religious beliefs with regard to FGM. So why is that expression of religious belief not OK, but other expressions of religious beliefs are?

No, no. You said he could make thing better. I asked "how?"

The things he did didn't make it better? Shocking! With his and Hillary's big brains.....very shocking.

LOL! Again with the excuses.

I didn't make excuses for criminal acts in the US, not once.
Seems like you're excusing Muslims though.

I thought you said he was just an "idiot".

Idiots who commit crimes should be jailed.

but when Muslims do it over there, they're terrible.

Muslims mutilating female children are terrible.
Ditto for those who throw homos off buildings.
Ditto for drunks who beat them to death.

So if Muslims over there did these acts at the same rate Christians over here did them, then it's all good and excusable?

The few Christians who commit such heinous acts are bad.
The many, many more Muslims who do are bad.

Got it? Idiot.

You spent the last tow posts making excuses for Christian religious fundamentalism in the US.

Nope. Not even a little.

Get treatment for that brain issue. It's getting worse.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In about 15 years, benefits will drop by about 30%.

Obama's payroll tax cut didn't cause that long-term issue to appear. It was around before the payroll tax cut. So instead of dropping benefits in 17 years, it drops in 15. So why not just remove the cap on taxable SS income? Wouldn't that extend the solvency?

So simple solution; remove the cap on taxable income.

Problem solved. NEXT!

The first thing you do when you're running out of money, make it run out faster. LOL!

Well, when Conservatives refused to do anything to recover the economy after they crashed it, Obama didn't have many options. But he made the tax cut temporary, not permanent, and he let it expire as it should have.

You said Obama cut taxes to help the recovery. Were you lying again? Was Obama?

NO! I said he temporarily cut payroll taxes. You have this nasty habit of leaving things out of what other people say. The reason is obvious; you're a sophist.

Obama's payroll tax cut didn't cause that long-term issue to appear.

I know, it only made it worse.

So simple solution; remove the cap on taxable income.

That would result in higher payouts to those rich guys.

Problem solved

Not solved.

NO! I said he temporarily cut payroll taxes.

Obama said he did that to help the recovery. Was he lying?

 

[The Derp]

Maybe ... it depends on the context ... but at least, I'm willing to look at your data. You chose to ignore mine.

Apologies, I didn't mean the OMB, I meant the GAO:

How does the budget deficit or surplus relate to federal debt?
When Congress makes budgetary decisions, it is also indirectly making decisions about borrowing and therefore the level of debt held by the public. The yearly change in debt held by the public is approximately equal to the budget surplus. The amount by which the government's revenues exceed its spending in a given period, usually a fiscal year. or deficitThe amount by which the government's spending exceeds its revenues for a given period, usually a fiscal year.. When the budget is in deficit, the government borrows from the public; when the budget is in surplus, the government can reduce the amount of debt held by the public. Thus, debt held by the public generally represents the total of all cash deficits minus all cash surpluses accumulated over time.

Believe me, my ego doesn't need servicing by destroying a little pissant like you. I will survive.

You vastly overestimate your capabilities.

 

[Spare_change]

1) I made the argument - provided the facts - you didn't even read them - and you sure as hell can't refute them. So, instead you chose to ignore them.

NO! Your conventional wisdom is not fact. You saying something doesn't make it so. You have no authority to say it, you have no credibility to say it, you have no qualification to say it. Your personal opinion means as much as my cat's. And he has the good sense to clean his butt after he shits, whereas you....jury's out on that one.

2) You're right -- neither budget "surpluses" or budget "deficits" matter. That's your plan -- though why the **** you would plan to fail (deficit) eludes me ---- it's your performance that matters (or lack of it).

So if deficits don't matter, why do you care so much about the debt?

A deficit doesn't mean failure. What makes you think it does? Who taught you that? Or are you applying what you think is the standard for individuals to that of the government? Why would you do that? INdividuals die, governments don't. The risk in lending to individuals is the risk they will never pay back the loan because they could die and leave the debts uncollected. No such risk exists for the government because it isn't a person that "dies", and we issue bonds every year which means the debt will not, and cannot all be paid off at one time.

So why are you so consumed with federal debt? Tell me what you think will ultimately happen, and I'll be happy to tell you how you're wrong.

Let's be absolutely 100% clear ---- I said that planned BUDGET DEFICITS don't matter ... only real deficits matter. Quite trying to intentionally misinterpret what I said.

Tell me - what is the purpose of a budget? Think hard, now ... it is the documentation of exactly how you intend to spend the money you have. If you can't do the job assigned within the budget you are give, you can only have one of two problems - you have too much job or not enough money. Pretty simple, huh?

Spending more than you have is fiscally irresponsible - particularly given your track record of deficit spending over the past 50 years. Doing less than the job assigned, while exactly what you were hired to do, is politically irresponsible. You choose political irresponsiblity over fiscal responsibility.

Don't make it any more difficult than it is.

You speak of individuals dying, but governments don't. You are, of course, exactly wrong. That is a naive, and uneducated, attempt to justify your erroneous economic fallacy.

When you can't/won't pay your bills, we confiscate what you own and distribute it to your lenders. When the country can't/won't pay their bills, exactly the same thing will happen. When you can't get the job done, we fire you. When the government can't get the job done, they get fired, too. How many revolutions have started because of government incompetence?

Deficit spending is a seldom-used strategy that requires some serious justification. It is not a standard deviation to be used every year. If you use it too often, you create a self-consuming sinkhole that, eventually, you will not be able to recover from.

 

[The Derp]

I know, it only made it worse.

Crying crocodile tears over SS's solvency is hollow bullshit no one buys.

That would result in higher payouts to those rich guys.

Says who? You? But you're a fraud...and the two are not intrinsically linked, nor do they have to be.

Not solved.

No, it is solved. You just don't want to admit it because you don't want to give me the satisfaction.

Obama said he did that to help the recovery. Was he lying?

No. A temporary payroll tax cut is what he could do to help the economy at the time. That's wholly different from your tax cut proposals, which are on income and are permanent.

 

[Spare_change]

Maybe ... it depends on the context ... but at least, I'm willing to look at your data. You chose to ignore mine.

Apologies, I didn't mean the OMB, I meant the GAO:

How does the budget deficit or surplus relate to federal debt?
When Congress makes budgetary decisions, it is also indirectly making decisions about borrowing and therefore the level of debt held by the public. The yearly change in debt held by the public is approximately equal to the budget surplus. The amount by which the government's revenues exceed its spending in a given period, usually a fiscal year. or deficitThe amount by which the government's spending exceeds its revenues for a given period, usually a fiscal year.. When the budget is in deficit, the government borrows from the public; when the budget is in surplus, the government can reduce the amount of debt held by the public. Thus, debt held by the public generally represents the total of all cash deficits minus all cash surpluses accumulated over time.

Believe me, my ego doesn't need servicing by destroying a little pissant like you. I will survive.

You vastly overestimate your capabilities.

Your quote is almost right ----- what it really says is that the budget surplus can be PROJECTED to reduce the amount of debt. A budget is nothing more than numbers on a piece of paper. It is surplus DOLLARS that reduce the amount of debt. Notice the very last sentence of your quote. It doesn't say "budget surpluses" - it says "cash surpluses".

Please tell me that isn't the best you've got to offer.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

$10s of billions.....no harm? LOL!.

Not to a bank that makes that much in profit in a matter of weeks.

Increased capital requirements, Dodd-Frank, etc.

So again, you can't cite any thing specific. You just vomit stuff up that you've gleaned from elsewhere. You haven't done any work into this to understand what you're saying, have you? It's just you running your mouth and inventing stuff off the top of your head, isn't it? You do a lot of that kind of sloppy, rushed work here that you try to pass off as "thoughtful" when it's really deliberately deceptive. Like when you posted the job numbers from Bush, cherry picking a subset of employees and hoping no one would notice. That's what you did, isn't it? Did you think I wouldn't bother to notice? I think you work from the assumption that because you're a dishonest sophist, it means everyone is. And increased capital requirements are an attack, why/how? It was the elimination of the capital requirements by Bush's Treasury department in 2004 that caused those banks to explode the secondary and tertiary mortgage markets. How do you think those banks managed to securitize so many subprime loans in such a short amount of time!?!?!?!?!?!?! The more you talk about this, the less convinced I am that you know what you're saying.

OMG! You've discovered the reality that adding enough regs harms small and medium sized business more than the largest ones.

But that's not what you said. You didn't make the distinction between small businesses and banks. You merely said "attacks the banks". And we were talking about banks, not small businesses. So nice try with the non-sequitur. Small business lending dropping off wasn't the result of Dodd-Frank, it was the result of banks not lending money and instead pouring it back into themselves. So now you're trying to broaden out your criticism to include small businesses, knowing that small business lending dropped in the aftermath of the financial crisis not because of Dodd-Frank -heck Obama and the Fed were doing all they can to force banks TO LOAN- but because banks realized it's safer for them to not lend and instead to pour that money right back into their own stock, or into derivative markets where they can gamble and get a better return (potentially).

Where the **** did Obama ever encourage fracking? Even once? Link?.

YOU ARE SUCH A LAZY ****, I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW PATHETIC YOUR LIFE MUST ACTUALLY BE.

Obama, 2013 SOTU:

"After years of talking about it, we are finally poised to control our own energy future. We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years. We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas, and the amount of renewable energy we generate from sources like wind and solar – with tens of thousands of good, American jobs to show for it. We produce more natural gas than ever before – and nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it."​

Not to a bank that makes that much in profit in a matter of weeks.

I have some proceeds to reinvest, which banks make $10s of billions in a matter of weeks?
Got a list? Maybe in your ass?

So again, you can't cite any thing specific.

Dodd-Frank is more than 20,000 pages of regulations. Pretty specific.

And increased capital requirements are an attack, why/how?

Require banks to carry ever higher levels of capital to back their loan portfolio.
Call bank CEOs on the carpet for not making loans.

How do you think those banks managed to securitize so many subprime loans in such a short amount of time

Banks don't need capital to hold mortgages that they securitize and sell. Moron.

You didn't make the distinction between small businesses and banks.

Dodd-Frank was more expensive for small and medium size banks than for JPMorgan.

Small business lending dropping off wasn't the result of Dodd-Frank, it was the result of banks not lending money and instead pouring it back into themselves.

When you make it harder for banks to make loans....banks make fewer loans.
Hard to believe, I know.

Obama and the Fed were doing all they can to force banks TO LOAN-

I know. Idiotic to add regulations and then whine that lending was reduced.

And how'd that forced lending work out when it involved housing? Not too well as I recall.

We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas,

Obama doubled MPG between 2009 and 2013? Hilarious! Link?

We produce more natural gas than ever before –

If only you had the proof I asked for....show me where Obama encouraged fracking.

 

[The Derp]

Let's be absolutely 100% clear ---- I said that planned BUDGET DEFICITS don't matter ... only real deficits matter. Quite trying to intentionally misinterpret what I said.

So you just go ahead and invent standards on the spot...cool, cool. A planned budget deficit is no big deal? Ummm....that's a new standard you invented just now. Only real deficits matter? Huh? Well, you know the government doesn't collect revenue all at one time, or even over a 12-month period for that 12-month period. So you could very well run a deficit after the end of the FY, but still be taking in revenues from that FY. Of course, you either know this and are being obtuse on purpose, or you don't and are being obtuse by accident. In either case, you are being obtuse.

Tell me - what is the purpose of a budget? Think hard, now ... it is the documentation of exactly how you intend to spend the money you have. If you can't do the job assigned within the budget you are give, you can only have one of two problems - you have too much job or not enough money. Pretty simple, huh?
Spending more than you have is fiscally irresponsible - particularly given your track record of deficit spending over the past 50 years. Doing less than the job assigned, while exactly what you were hired to do, is politically irresponsible. You choose political irresponsiblity over fiscal responsibility.

None of which translates to any economic impact. Businesses don't make business decisions based on what the federal budget is running for the year, so there's no economic argument to make against deficits. Revenues aren't collected all at once so it's impossible to zero sum the balance by the end of the FY, so there's no fiscal argument to make against deficits. The only argument you seem to be making is that deficits = bad, but you don't quite know why they're bad. Only that if you personally run a deficit, you feel the crunch. But the government is not a person and isn't constrained to those rules. Nearly every single western democracy operates in debt, and nearly all of them also operate with budget deficits. What's irresponsible is that you are presuming to make a fiscal and economic argument against deficits without even know what the **** you're saying!

****, you guys are so consumed with this shit that you paid two Harvard economists (Rogoff and Reinhart) to fake conclusions in a paper to support your debt arguments. Only, all that shit turned out to be lies deliberately intended to force a conclusion you wanted, but couldn't reach honestly. So you do like you always do, you ******* lie.

ou speak of individuals dying, but governments don't. You are, of course, exactly wrong. That is a naive, and uneducated, attempt to justify your erroneous economic fallacy.

SO WHEN WILL OUR GOVERNMENT DIE? It won't. We issue bonds every year for varying lengths of maturity. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of our budget to think we don't pay our bills. What do you ******* think the debt ceiling is!? It's what we use to pay for the borrowing. For ****'s sake, do you people know anything!?!?!?!?!?

When you can't/won't pay your bills, we confiscate what you own and distribute it to your lenders. When the country can't/won't pay their bills, exactly the same thing will happen. When you can't get the job done, we fire you. When the government can't get the job done, they get fired, too. How many revolutions have started because of government incompetence?

OMG, so you think bond purchasers are going to storm the government and demand they get their bond paid back ahead of schedule? For God's sake YOU ARE A ******* POSEUR. You call yourself "spare change" and misrepresent yourself here so people will take the shit you say seriously. Do you even realize what the government does when it borrows? Do you think it's like when an individual borrows? Tell me something; when was the last time you issued bonds of yourself?! LOL. What a tool. What a clueless, posturing tool.

Deficit spending is a seldom-used strategy that requires some serious justification. It is not a standard deviation to be used every year. If you use it too often, you create a self-consuming sinkhole that, eventually, you will not be able to recover from.

We have deficit spent nearly every single year since 1840. None of what you have said will come to pass, has come to pass. None of it. Do yourself a favor, and shut up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obama said we couldn't drill our way to lower prices. Wrong again.

And he was right. You say he attacked fossil fuels, and the result were lower fossil fuel costs across the board. Soooooo....what's your point?

All his actions reduced production and exploration. Raised prices.

NO IT DIDN'T RAISE PRICES YOU ******* LIAR. The price per barrel of oil was below $50 by the end of his term. The cost of natural gas is so low now that according to the EIA in 2016:

Natural gas prices in 2016 were the lowest in nearly 20 years

EAT. SHIT. TODDSTER. YOU. ARE. A. FRAUD.

Why is it that nothing you say turns out to be the truth!?!?!?!?!

And he was right

Frackers drilled more. Prices were lower. Obama was wrong. Again.

NO IT DIDN'T RAISE PRICES

Obama attempted to restrict supply. Did you forget the supply/demand curve from the Econ 101 class you failed?

 

[Spare_change]

That's only $845,455 in added debt for each additional job.

Whereas each job Bush lost cost us $10,869,565 in added debt.

($5T of debt / 460,000 jobs lost)

From 2009-2017, we spent $846K per job to create 11,000,000 jobs
From 2001-2009, we spent $10M per job to lose 460,000 jobs

Conservatives suck.

So, $846K to create a job? That means, assuming we don't borrow any money, and the job were to last 100 years, we would need to collect $10,152 per year in order to break even. That means that the salary for that job would have to be minimum $200,000 per year in order to pay that amount in taxes.

You sure all those 11 million jobs were that advanced?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know, it only made it worse.

Crying crocodile tears over SS's solvency is hollow bullshit no one buys.

That would result in higher payouts to those rich guys.

Says who? You? But you're a fraud...and the two are not intrinsically linked, nor do they have to be.

Not solved.

No, it is solved. You just don't want to admit it because you don't want to give me the satisfaction.

Obama said he did that to help the recovery. Was he lying?

No. A temporary payroll tax cut is what he could do to help the economy at the time. That's wholly different from your tax cut proposals, which are on income and are permanent.

Says who? You?

Benefits are based on the money you pay in. There is a formula and everything. Idiot.

No. A temporary payroll tax cut is what he could do to help the economy at the time.

Right. Obama said he cut taxes to help the economy.
You said cutting taxes doesn't help the economy.

Who is the liar, you or Obama?

 

[francoHFW]

I know, it only made it worse.

Crying crocodile tears over SS's solvency is hollow bullshit no one buys.

That would result in higher payouts to those rich guys.

Says who? You? But you're a fraud...and the two are not intrinsically linked, nor do they have to be.

Not solved.

No, it is solved. You just don't want to admit it because you don't want to give me the satisfaction.

Obama said he did that to help the recovery. Was he lying?

No. A temporary payroll tax cut is what he could do to help the economy at the time. That's wholly different from your tax cut proposals, which are on income and are permanent.

Says who? You?

Benefits are based on the money you pay in. There is a formula and everything. Idiot.

No. A temporary payroll tax cut is what he could do to help the economy at the time.

Right. Obama said he cut taxes to help the economy.
You said cutting taxes doesn't help the economy.

Who is the liar, you or Obama?

GOP tax cuts for the rich don't help the economy. Democratic tax cuts on the middle class and the non-rich do help the economy, brainwashed functional moron dupe. Duh.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know, it only made it worse.

Crying crocodile tears over SS's solvency is hollow bullshit no one buys.

That would result in higher payouts to those rich guys.

Says who? You? But you're a fraud...and the two are not intrinsically linked, nor do they have to be.

Not solved.

No, it is solved. You just don't want to admit it because you don't want to give me the satisfaction.

Obama said he did that to help the recovery. Was he lying?

No. A temporary payroll tax cut is what he could do to help the economy at the time. That's wholly different from your tax cut proposals, which are on income and are permanent.

Says who? You?

Benefits are based on the money you pay in. There is a formula and everything. Idiot.

No. A temporary payroll tax cut is what he could do to help the economy at the time.

Right. Obama said he cut taxes to help the economy.
You said cutting taxes doesn't help the economy.

Who is the liar, you or Obama?

GOP tax cuts for the rich don't help the economy. Democratic tax cuts on the middle class and the non-rich do help the economy, brainwashed functional moron dupe. Duh.

GOP tax cuts for the rich don't help the economy.

GOP tax cuts for everybody help the economy.

Democratic tax cuts on the middle class and the non-rich do help the economy,

Excellent! Can you prove it?