The left wakes up: Obama is not ‘sort of God’

[Full-Auto]

Those were only the names I could think of off the top of my head... If you are going make an accusation, Make it. Name names... but...before you do... make sure you aren't talking out of your ass and past administrations haven't done the same thing.

I personally don't give a shit... it's not a partisan thing and you are trying to make it one. yeah.. part of the problem IS government. But it's not the way you think. They are LETTING these people financially rape this country... because THEY pay for their elections. It's a corrupt system... period.

Just one of the many stories available. You wont ***** because it leans left will ya?

Robert Scheer: Obama Hires a Hustler

 

[highway234]

[
You can't read your own source? When you adjust for inflation, three of the largest dollar deficits ever were under FDR. Reagan doesn't even make the list.

from the text accompanying the graph....

I was somewhat surprised to notice that the 1930's, the era of the New Deal, were a period of fairly small deficits relative to the cost of living; not until the U.S. joined World War II did the deficits explode. On the other hand, these "fairly small deficits" followed a decade of budget surpluses in the roaring 1920's.

i don't know what you mean by "reagan didn't even make the list." he's on there, and he's the biggest deficit since FDR until bush II comes along and blows the lid off everyone. where FDR is concerned, i may have misspoken. he did NOT run up large deficits for the new deal. he ran up large deficits during wwii, but they were largely paid back under truman, because of the post-war boom, so they don't really count.

The point is, even with his leeway to raise taxes which he used extensively, he ran very large deficits. He did that from pretty much the beginning of his presidency and the point was to stimulate the economy.

sorry, that's just not right. he didn't run terribly large deficits during the new deal. he DID run large deficits during world war II, but the point of those deficits wasn't to stimulate the economy, it was to keep us all from having to learn german.

His largest deficits were as a result of the war, but that doesn't change the fact that he was the president that started using fiscal policy to moderate the economy.

that's true, and subsequent presidents from truman to LBJ wisely chose to follow his fine example. since then we've strayed, and now we have a situation where fiscal policy is NOT being used to moderate the economy, and instead we're trusting the economy to moderate itself.

like the results so far?

You said Reagan was the "inventor" of modern day deficits. That's inaccurate no matter how you spin it.

again, i just think this is wrong. reagan was the first president to log deficits on the scale of wwii, and unlike FDR, those deficits are not being paid off. they're just getting bigger and bigger. so reagan is the first president to create structural deficits -- that is, deficits that stay on the books year after year, that are a result of settled fiscal policy rather than dealing with a transient crisis.

 

[Steelplate]

Those were only the names I could think of off the top of my head... If you are going make an accusation, Make it. Name names... but...before you do... make sure you aren't talking out of your ass and past administrations haven't done the same thing.

I personally don't give a shit... it's not a partisan thing and you are trying to make it one. yeah.. part of the problem IS government. But it's not the way you think. They are LETTING these people financially rape this country... because THEY pay for their elections. It's a corrupt system... period.

Just one of the many stories available. You wont ***** because it leans left will ya?

Robert Scheer: Obama Hires a Hustler

You see, you're under the assumption that I think of Obama as something more than a politician... you're wrong. The thing is.... You think previous administrations were better or different... you're wrong again. This is a systematic problem, NOT a partisan one.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

No, Sir! Low tax rates for all most certainly did not fail to do precisely what was predicted, roughly, from 1981 to 2001. The economy grew faster and bigger during that period than in any other period of growth in U.S. history, and revenue went through the roof!

the 1981-2001 period was a bubble period. that's why the economy grew. it was smoke and mirrors, and that's why in conjunction with that growth we've also had crash after crash. that creates capital flight, people don't want to participate in an economy that's constantly crashing so they either dick around in the stock market or go offshore.

What happened after that?

the bush tax cuts, mainly. oh! also, 9/11, katrina, two unfunded wars and medicare part d, all either terrifically expensive disasters or unfunded mandates.


i dunno, not much. gay marriage and a few good speeches, but his economic policy isn't any different from bush's. heck, he kept on most of bush's financial guys!

Why won't cash-fat businesses invest or hire?

because bubble economies are inherently unstable, and that discourages long-term investment.

Leftists don't understand what's going on at all.

so you keep saying, but not proving.

In short, you don't know what's going on.

 

[highway234]

You see, you're under the assumption that I think of Obama as something more than a politician... you're wrong. The thing is.... You think previous administrations were better or different... you're wrong again. This is a systematic problem, NOT a partisan one.

THANK YOU.

In short, you don't know what's going on.

yeah, i think i do. steelplate seems to get it too. but as long as you keep up this partisan, sandbox nonsense, promoting the same policy when republicans do it that you condemn when democrats do it, things are just going to keep getting worse. or, in the wise and beautiful words of aimee mann,

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrlGprdBRyc]Magnolia - Wise Up (Aimee Mann) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Full-Auto]

Those were only the names I could think of off the top of my head... If you are going make an accusation, Make it. Name names... but...before you do... make sure you aren't talking out of your ass and past administrations haven't done the same thing.

I personally don't give a shit... it's not a partisan thing and you are trying to make it one. yeah.. part of the problem IS government. But it's not the way you think. They are LETTING these people financially rape this country... because THEY pay for their elections. It's a corrupt system... period.

Just one of the many stories available. You wont ***** because it leans left will ya?

Robert Scheer: Obama Hires a Hustler

You see, you're under the assumption that I think of Obama as something more than a politician... you're wrong. The thing is.... You think previous administrations were better or different... you're wrong again. This is a systematic problem, NOT a partisan one.

LOL I guess you thought they only polled democrats for GW's numbers.

 

[Steelplate]

Just one of the many stories available. You wont ***** because it leans left will ya?

Robert Scheer: Obama Hires a Hustler

You see, you're under the assumption that I think of Obama as something more than a politician... you're wrong. The thing is.... You think previous administrations were better or different... you're wrong again. This is a systematic problem, NOT a partisan one.

LOL I guess you thought they only polled democrats for GW's numbers.

WTF??? you really can't help yourself can you? Put down the "don't tread on me" flag for one ******* second...

 

[NYcarbineer]

by Jennifer Ruben
Right Turn
The Washington Post
08/09/2011

Poor Evan Thomas will never live down his ludicrous comment that President Obama was “sort of God.” What seemed like slobbering now seems outright dumb, given the president’s performance. And don’t take my word for it.

Left-wing pundits have discovered he’s sort of like Jimmy Carter. Others now comprehend he’s remote and cold. Still others recognize he is weak and ineffectual (“strangely powerless, and irresolute, as larger forces bring down the country and his presidency”).



LINK

The left never thought Obama was sort of God.

The only people on this board I ever saw call Obama "messiah" or "the chosen one" were Righties.

They're always in their fantasy world where they make up things for the left to do and say and believe in,

then they attack those imaginary creatures.

 

[McDowell's]

[
You can't read your own source? When you adjust for inflation, three of the largest dollar deficits ever were under FDR. Reagan doesn't even make the list.

from the text accompanying the graph....

I was somewhat surprised to notice that the 1930's, the era of the New Deal, were a period of fairly small deficits relative to the cost of living; not until the U.S. joined World War II did the deficits explode. On the other hand, these "fairly small deficits" followed a decade of budget surpluses in the roaring 1920's.

i don't know what you mean by "reagan didn't even make the list." he's on there, and he's the biggest deficit since FDR until bush II comes along and blows the lid off everyone. where FDR is concerned, i may have misspoken. he did NOT run up large deficits for the new deal. he ran up large deficits during wwii, but they were largely paid back under truman, because of the post-war boom, so they don't really count.

sorry, that's just not right. he didn't run terribly large deficits during the new deal. he DID run large deficits during world war II, but the point of those deficits wasn't to stimulate the economy, it was to keep us all from having to learn german.

His largest deficits were as a result of the war, but that doesn't change the fact that he was the president that started using fiscal policy to moderate the economy.

that's true, and subsequent presidents from truman to LBJ wisely chose to follow his fine example. since then we've strayed, and now we have a situation where fiscal policy is NOT being used to moderate the economy, and instead we're trusting the economy to moderate itself.

like the results so far?

You said Reagan was the "inventor" of modern day deficits. That's inaccurate no matter how you spin it.

again, i just think this is wrong. reagan was the first president to log deficits on the scale of wwii, and unlike FDR, those deficits are not being paid off. they're just getting bigger and bigger. so reagan is the first president to create structural deficits -- that is, deficits that stay on the books year after year, that are a result of settled fiscal policy rather than dealing with a transient crisis.

Here's the list I'm talking about from your source:

Table 2: The Top Ten Years
I have in my hand a copy of tonight's Top Ten list....

•2008-2009, at $879 billion (transition from G. W. Bush to B. H. Obama)
•2009-2010, at $758 billion (B. H. Obama)
•2010-2011 (extrapolated), at $634 billion (B. H. Obama)
•2007-2008, at $472 billion (G. W. Bush)
•1942-1943, at $372 billion (F. D. Roosevelt)
•1943-1944, at $365 billion (F. D. Roosevelt)
•1944-1945, at $320 billion (transition from F. D. Roosevelt to H. S. Truman)
•1990-1991, at $317 billion (G. H. W. Bush)
•2003-2004, at $315 billion (G. W. Bush)
•2002-2003, at $302 billion (G. W. Bush)
All of those figures are inflation-adjusted, of course.

Reagan is not on that list.

And as far as everything else you said about FDR not having large deficits until the war; again, from a historical perspective, you are wrong. The recent craziness does nothing to diminish the fact that FDR was the first president to run exceptionally large deficits for the stimulous effect.

Look at the graph of the deficit as a percentage of gdp. FDR ran historically giant deficits well before the US entered the war. So everything you're saying about blah blah the new deal didn't run significant deficits IS FACTUALLY WRONG. Just because the subsequent deficits for the war were even larger does not diminish the fact that FDR was the first president to consistently run very significant deficits. Go look at the graph, before the war he ran deficits on the scale of Reagan and Bush I and most of Bush II's terms.

I can't believe you actually think FDR didn't run large deficits to stimulate the economy. That should almost be historical commen sense.

Reagan did not have deficits on the scale of WWII. Again, go look at the graph, you're way off base. And FDR's deficits were NEVER paid off. The country ran a surplus after the war but it didn't come anywhere near paying off the accrued debt on FDR's war deficits - much less the VERY REAL AND SIGNIFICANT new deal deficits. If you think that you're delusional. Of course, based upon everthing else you've said and tried to spin, you are delusional. So good luck with living in fantasy land. You definitely deserve this one: .

 

[Ravi]

I never thought he was sort of God.

I only knew he wasn't sort of Sarah Palin.

 

[highway234]

[
You can't read your own source? When you adjust for inflation, three of the largest dollar deficits ever were under FDR. Reagan doesn't even make the list.

from the text accompanying the graph....



i don't know what you mean by "reagan didn't even make the list." he's on there, and he's the biggest deficit since FDR until bush II comes along and blows the lid off everyone. where FDR is concerned, i may have misspoken. he did NOT run up large deficits for the new deal. he ran up large deficits during wwii, but they were largely paid back under truman, because of the post-war boom, so they don't really count.

sorry, that's just not right. he didn't run terribly large deficits during the new deal. he DID run large deficits during world war II, but the point of those deficits wasn't to stimulate the economy, it was to keep us all from having to learn german.

that's true, and subsequent presidents from truman to LBJ wisely chose to follow his fine example. since then we've strayed, and now we have a situation where fiscal policy is NOT being used to moderate the economy, and instead we're trusting the economy to moderate itself.

like the results so far?

You said Reagan was the "inventor" of modern day deficits. That's inaccurate no matter how you spin it.

again, i just think this is wrong. reagan was the first president to log deficits on the scale of wwii, and unlike FDR, those deficits are not being paid off. they're just getting bigger and bigger. so reagan is the first president to create structural deficits -- that is, deficits that stay on the books year after year, that are a result of settled fiscal policy rather than dealing with a transient crisis.

Here's the list I'm talking about from your source:

Table 2: The Top Ten Years
I have in my hand a copy of tonight's Top Ten list....

•2008-2009, at $879 billion (transition from G. W. Bush to B. H. Obama)
•2009-2010, at $758 billion (B. H. Obama)
•2010-2011 (extrapolated), at $634 billion (B. H. Obama)
•2007-2008, at $472 billion (G. W. Bush)
•1942-1943, at $372 billion (F. D. Roosevelt)
•1943-1944, at $365 billion (F. D. Roosevelt)
•1944-1945, at $320 billion (transition from F. D. Roosevelt to H. S. Truman)
•1990-1991, at $317 billion (G. H. W. Bush)
•2003-2004, at $315 billion (G. W. Bush)
•2002-2003, at $302 billion (G. W. Bush)
All of those figures are inflation-adjusted, of course.

Reagan is not on that list.

And as far as everything else you said about FDR not having large deficits until the war; again, from a historical perspective, you are wrong. The recent craziness does nothing to diminish the fact that FDR was the first president to run exceptionally large deficits for the stimulous effect.

Look at the graph of the deficit as a percentage of gdp. FDR ran historically giant deficits well before the US entered the war. So everything you're saying about blah blah the new deal didn't run significant deficits IS FACTUALLY WRONG. Just because the subsequent deficits for the war were even larger does not diminish the fact that FDR was the first president to consistently run very significant deficits. Go look at the graph, before the war he ran deficits on the scale of Reagan and Bush I and most of Bush II's terms.

I can't believe you actually think FDR didn't run large deficits to stimulate the economy. That should almost be historical commen sense.

Reagan did not have deficits on the scale of WWII. Again, go look at the graph, you're way off base. And FDR's deficits were NEVER paid off. The country ran a surplus after the war but it didn't come anywhere near paying off the accrued debt on FDR's war deficits - much less the VERY REAL AND SIGNIFICANT new deal deficits. If you think that you're delusional. Of course, based upon everthing else you've said and tried to spin, you are delusional. So good luck with living in fantasy land. You definitely deserve this one: .

it's somewhat a matter of how you spin it. FDR's new deal deficits were large compared to the deficit levels that preceded them (except world war i, you see a brief uptick in deficits there that seem to have dwarfed new deal debt) but not compared to what followed world war ii. your writer chooses to express that this way.

Then came the Great Depression, and President Roosevelt decided to spend his way out of trouble, boosting federal debt to 40 percent of GDP. So did the local governments, with state debt peaking at over 5 percent of GDP in 1933 and local debt peaking at over 28 percent in 1933. Government debt, including federal and state and local debt rose to 70 percent of GDP. But it was World War II that really entered new territory. After the end of the war in 1946 federal debt stood at almost 122 percent of GDP

the great depression deficit is much larger than the wwi deficit as a percentage of GDP, but that's just because we were in a depression. after that the deficit got paid down and the debt leveled off. but you're right, the debt was not paid down. if i said that, i misspoke. however, it stabilized, which is a good start. (we're talking about debt in adjusted dollars, not debt to GDP. debt to GDP actually DID go down. and that's YOUR source, i don't even think my source got into GDP-related figures.)

that's not something you can say about the reagan years and the years following. there, and your source corroborates this, debt as a percentage of GDP just starts growing and growing. look at the 1980 line and what happens to the green plot after that. (and frankly, i'm not as big on debt-to-GDP as i am on debt in adjusted dollars, because by comparing to GDP you add a lot of unpredictable factors that confuse matters.) THAT's what reagan cooked up for us, that deficit that doesn't level off and the debt that just grows and grows. FDR and the post-war presidents didn't do that, and both your source and mine show that.

that's what i mean when i say reagan invented structural deficits. we no longer have a deficit that sometimes grows, sometimes levels off based on conditions at the time. we have a deficit and debt that grow and grow and will keep on growing apparently until the cows come home. and it started happening right when we adopted reagan's trickle-down
policies. coincidence? i rather think not.

the insults seem extraneous. i think they're beneath you, frankly. but you can keep them up if you like.

 

[McDowell's]

from the text accompanying the graph....



i don't know what you mean by "reagan didn't even make the list." he's on there, and he's the biggest deficit since FDR until bush II comes along and blows the lid off everyone. where FDR is concerned, i may have misspoken. he did NOT run up large deficits for the new deal. he ran up large deficits during wwii, but they were largely paid back under truman, because of the post-war boom, so they don't really count.

sorry, that's just not right. he didn't run terribly large deficits during the new deal. he DID run large deficits during world war II, but the point of those deficits wasn't to stimulate the economy, it was to keep us all from having to learn german.

that's true, and subsequent presidents from truman to LBJ wisely chose to follow his fine example. since then we've strayed, and now we have a situation where fiscal policy is NOT being used to moderate the economy, and instead we're trusting the economy to moderate itself.

like the results so far?

again, i just think this is wrong. reagan was the first president to log deficits on the scale of wwii, and unlike FDR, those deficits are not being paid off. they're just getting bigger and bigger. so reagan is the first president to create structural deficits -- that is, deficits that stay on the books year after year, that are a result of settled fiscal policy rather than dealing with a transient crisis.

Here's the list I'm talking about from your source:

Table 2: The Top Ten Years
I have in my hand a copy of tonight's Top Ten list....

•2008-2009, at $879 billion (transition from G. W. Bush to B. H. Obama)
•2009-2010, at $758 billion (B. H. Obama)
•2010-2011 (extrapolated), at $634 billion (B. H. Obama)
•2007-2008, at $472 billion (G. W. Bush)
•1942-1943, at $372 billion (F. D. Roosevelt)
•1943-1944, at $365 billion (F. D. Roosevelt)
•1944-1945, at $320 billion (transition from F. D. Roosevelt to H. S. Truman)
•1990-1991, at $317 billion (G. H. W. Bush)
•2003-2004, at $315 billion (G. W. Bush)
•2002-2003, at $302 billion (G. W. Bush)
All of those figures are inflation-adjusted, of course.

Reagan is not on that list.

And as far as everything else you said about FDR not having large deficits until the war; again, from a historical perspective, you are wrong. The recent craziness does nothing to diminish the fact that FDR was the first president to run exceptionally large deficits for the stimulous effect.

Look at the graph of the deficit as a percentage of gdp. FDR ran historically giant deficits well before the US entered the war. So everything you're saying about blah blah the new deal didn't run significant deficits IS FACTUALLY WRONG. Just because the subsequent deficits for the war were even larger does not diminish the fact that FDR was the first president to consistently run very significant deficits. Go look at the graph, before the war he ran deficits on the scale of Reagan and Bush I and most of Bush II's terms.

I can't believe you actually think FDR didn't run large deficits to stimulate the economy. That should almost be historical commen sense.

Reagan did not have deficits on the scale of WWII. Again, go look at the graph, you're way off base. And FDR's deficits were NEVER paid off. The country ran a surplus after the war but it didn't come anywhere near paying off the accrued debt on FDR's war deficits - much less the VERY REAL AND SIGNIFICANT new deal deficits. If you think that you're delusional. Of course, based upon everthing else you've said and tried to spin, you are delusional. So good luck with living in fantasy land. You definitely deserve this one: .

it's somewhat a matter of how you spin it. FDR's new deal deficits were large compared to the deficit levels that preceded them (except world war i, you see a brief uptick in deficits there that seem to have dwarfed new deal debt) but not compared to what followed world war ii. your writer chooses to express that this way.

Then came the Great Depression, and President Roosevelt decided to spend his way out of trouble, boosting federal debt to 40 percent of GDP. So did the local governments, with state debt peaking at over 5 percent of GDP in 1933 and local debt peaking at over 28 percent in 1933. Government debt, including federal and state and local debt rose to 70 percent of GDP. But it was World War II that really entered new territory. After the end of the war in 1946 federal debt stood at almost 122 percent of GDP

the great depression deficit is much larger than the wwi deficit as a percentage of GDP, but that's just because we were in a depression. after that the deficit got paid down and the debt leveled off. but you're right, the debt was not paid down. if i said that, i misspoke. however, it stabilized, which is a good start. (we're talking about debt in adjusted dollars, not debt to GDP. debt to GDP actually DID go down. and that's YOUR source, i don't even think my source got into GDP-related figures.)

that's not something you can say about the reagan years and the years following. there, and your source corroborates this, debt as a percentage of GDP just starts growing and growing. look at the 1980 line and what happens to the green plot after that. (and frankly, i'm not as big on debt-to-GDP as i am on debt in adjusted dollars, because by comparing to GDP you add a lot of unpredictable factors that confuse matters.) THAT's what reagan cooked up for us, that deficit that doesn't level off and the debt that just grows and grows. FDR and the post-war presidents didn't do that, and both your source and mine show that.

that's what i mean when i say reagan invented structural deficits. we no longer have a deficit that sometimes grows, sometimes levels off based on conditions at the time. we have a deficit and debt that grow and grow and will keep on growing apparently until the cows come home. and it started happening right when we adopted reagan's trickle-down
policies. coincidence? i rather think not.

the insults just make you look like you don't know what you're doing. i think they're beneath you, frankly. but you can keep them up if you like.

Our whole debate has been about who was the first to use deficit spending as a policy. You just admitted that it was FDR. I said he did so as a stimulus, you said he did not. Again, you just admitted I was right. He ran the deficits in an attempt to stimulate the economy out of the depression. That's a historical fact. Earlier, you said Reagan invented deficit spending. You want to come back and try to reframe the discussion by qualifying your statement to mean "structural" deficits? Fine, you're still wrong. If Reagan saddled us with "structural" deficits, how did the government during the Clinton presidency not only significantly reduce the deficit, but actually run a surplus? By your own definition, that was an impossibility. Again you're wrong. Saying you're delusional is not calling names. It's properly identifying your state of mind. You still probably won't admit that you were wrong to begin with, have been mischaracterizing the nature and intent of FDR's deficits, and are still wrong with regard to Reagan on "structural" deficits. You have some mindless obsession with blaming Reagan for the horrible choices that have been made over the past decade and a half. That is delusional. Again, an apt description of your demonstrated state of mind. Reagan is responsible for his own stupidity, not that of the morons who followed.

 

[highway234]

Our whole debate has been about who was the first to use deficit spending as a policy. You just admitted that it was FDR. I said he did so as a stimulus, you said he did not. Again, you just admitted I was right. He ran the deficits in an attempt to stimulate the economy out of the depression. That's a historical fact. Earlier, you said Reagan invented deficit spending. You want to come back and try to reframe the discussion by qualifying your statement to mean "structural" deficits? Fine, you're still wrong. If Reagan saddled us with "structural" deficits, how did the government during the Clinton presidency not only significantly reduce the deficit, but actually run a surplus? By your own definition, that was an impossibility.

i believe clinton ran a projected surplus. what i've said all along, if you'll remember, is that WAR, not domestic spending, is the prime driver escalating the debt. remember the "peace dividend"? that happened under clinton if you'll recall, and he used that to cut defense spending. i think that's probably the prime driver behind clinton's declining deficit numbers, but obviously the dot-com bubble had a lot to do with it too. i was all for clinton's defense budget cuts, but where the bubble economy is concerned, he didn't do much to change the fundamentals. and then of course, when bush took office, the peace dividend idea was shelved and instead we started the war on terror, which put us back into similar defense spending levels to what we had during the cold war.

You still probably won't admit that you were wrong to begin with, have been mischaracterizing the nature and intent of FDR's deficits, and are still wrong with regard to Reagan on "structural" deficits. You have some mindless obsession with blaming Reagan for the horrible choices that have been made over the past decade and a half. That is delusional. Again, an apt description of your demonstrated state of mind. Reagan is responsible for his own stupidity, not that of the morons who followed.

maybe i haven't been clear. i don't care about reagan as a person. when he took office, we started running deficits that have not been paid down and instead have just escalated and taken the debt along with them. that's new, and that's a structural deficit by definition. i do believe that that is a result of trickle-down economics as a policy, and every president since reagan has practiced trickle-down economics. trickle-down, not reagan, is the problem. i don't give a shit about reagan as a person, maybe he was a great guy. but trickle-down is going to be the death of this country if we don't move away from it.

 

[Full-Auto]

You see, you're under the assumption that I think of Obama as something more than a politician... you're wrong. The thing is.... You think previous administrations were better or different... you're wrong again. This is a systematic problem, NOT a partisan one.

LOL I guess you thought they only polled democrats for GW's numbers.

WTF??? you really can't help yourself can you? Put down the "don't tread on me" flag for one ******* second...

I read your words, however other posts indicate something opposite of those words.

When I see something worthy, I respond like I did earlier with you. Your welcome.

 

[Steelplate]

Herbert Hoover ran deficits too... I don't have the inflation adjusted numbers...

Herbert Hoover was no deficit-cutter - CSMonitor.com

 

[Steelplate]

LOL I guess you thought they only polled democrats for GW's numbers.

WTF??? you really can't help yourself can you? Put down the "don't tread on me" flag for one ******* second...

I read your words, however other posts indicate something opposite of those words.

When I see something worthy, I respond like I did earlier with you. Your welcome.

So what, because I believe in taking care of our working and Middle Class, you think my posts are unworthy? Who the hell do you think you are?

 

[Cecilie1200]

are you aware of how graphs work? deficit spending before ford was negligible, at least compared to reagan levels, so they started the graph with ford. if they'd drawn a flat line going all the way back to the washington administration, the graph would have been as unreadable as the one gunboy just linked to.

anyway, we were just talking about carter and reagan, and the graph includes both, so it suffices to make my point. you guys sure do like to win a lot of arguments by using the cuckoo emoticon rathar than actually making an argument, though. nicely done. must be great for things to be so easy.

You've never heard of the Great Depression or Franklin D. Roosevelt then. Just wanted to make sure, you dumbass. A simpleton could have looked at what I posted and concluded I was implying you should go back a little bit further in history than what was evident in the graph. That was quite clearly lost on you.

fair point, that slipped my mind. FDR kinda gets a pass on his deficit, though, we sorta needed to win world war ii.

Insofar as FDR started his crazed spending well before we "needed to win" anything, he gets no pass at all, but your pathetically desperate attempt at making excuses makes me laugh.

 

[Cecilie1200]

WTF??? you really can't help yourself can you? Put down the "don't tread on me" flag for one ******* second...

I read your words, however other posts indicate something opposite of those words.

When I see something worthy, I respond like I did earlier with you. Your welcome.

So what, because I believe in taking care of our working and Middle Class, you think my posts are unworthy? Who the hell do you think you are?

Perhaps it's the fact that you believe capable adults NEED to be "taken care of" that makes your posts unworthy.

 

[Steelplate]

If all things were equal, I wouldn't feel that way... but as you and I obviously know... they aren't. Furthermore, there is a contingent in this country who want to give the most powerful people in America even more power to extract even more money away from the country and into their offshore bank accounts. but... hey, they're Capitalists... so that makes it OK, right?