Why I am voting for Obama again

[expatriate]

From your own link and chart:

6/30/2012 OBAMA $15,856,367,214,324 4.8% $15,595,000,000,000 101.7% <1st time: Exceeds 100% of GDP

Lastly, the chart is incomplete.. It only goes through June.. The deficit is now over 16 TRILLION.. Obama and his magical printing machine!

so...you admit that westwall's statement, that you enthusiastically applauded, was a lie?

You admit that when you start out at 11 trillion and increase it to 16, that is NOT increasing it by more than all the other presidents combined?

thank you.

I said nothing of the sort.. Quite the opposite. West is correct. Your chart is incomplete, not accounting for over a year in deficit spending on some of the charts. NONE of the charts go through Sept 2012, the current state of the economy and even leaving those months off, Obama fails MISERABLY still adding more debt to the deficit with record consumption of Debt to GDP than all President combined.. that's not even accounting for his 2013 projected budget of 1.3 TRILLION dollars more in deficit spending.

By Mary Bruce
@marykbruce

Ann Compton
@AnnCompton

Jake Tapper
@jaketapper
Feb 10, 2012 7:39pm

Obama’s Budget Forecasts $1.3 Trillion Deficit - ABC News

so... if westwall is indeed correct, since Bush left Obama with an $11T debt, you are saying that Obama has already increased the debt to over $22T? That is the only way that the statement is accurate. You DO understand basic arithmetic, don't you?

 

[Shelzin]

Once more, I'd ask you to dispute and back it up with FACTS any of the numbers and statements in my posts.

Oh your facts are true so far as I can see. However how you are applying them seems silly to me. I mean you are knocking Obama for something that both parties have neglected for... Well... For as long as either of us have been capable of voting.

That's not the case. I hold George W Bush responsible for running up a massive debt also. I didn't vote for him nor would I EVER vote for any Bush. It's called intellectual integrity. Barack Obama has almost doubled Booosh's out of control spending in half the time.. Any objective person who looks at the FACTS KNOWS that BOTH men were and are not the solution to this Nation's financial crisis and eventual economic collapse and yet Liberals will vote party over country.

Ahh... Ok then... Well met.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

so...you admit that westwall's statement, that you enthusiastically applauded, was a lie?

You admit that when you start out at 11 trillion and increase it to 16, that is NOT increasing it by more than all the other presidents combined?

thank you.

I said nothing of the sort.. Quite the opposite. West is correct. Your chart is incomplete, not accounting for over a year in deficit spending on some of the charts. NONE of the charts go through Sept 2012, the current state of the economy and even leaving those months off, Obama fails MISERABLY still adding more debt to the deficit with record consumption of Debt to GDP than all President combined.. that's not even accounting for his 2013 projected budget of 1.3 TRILLION dollars more in deficit spending.

By Mary Bruce
@marykbruce

Ann Compton
@AnnCompton

Jake Tapper
@jaketapper
Feb 10, 2012 7:39pm

Obama’s Budget Forecasts $1.3 Trillion Deficit - ABC News

so... if westwall is indeed correct, since Bush left Obama with an $11T debt, you are saying that Obama has already increased the debt to over $22T? That is the only way that the statement is accurate. You DO understand basic arithmetic, don't you?

Articles: Spend It Like Bush

Read it and weep.

 

[expatriate]

you avoided my question. Why IS that?

Westwall said that Obama has created more debt than all the rest of the presidents combined. You say that is accurate. Bush left with an $11T debt. For Westwall to be accurate, Obama would have to now have a debt of over $22T and we know that the debt clock just rolled over $16T and is nowhere near $22T yet.

So... do the fucking math, moron, and then admit that he AND you were wrong.

 

[expatriate]

::crickets chirping::

why am I not surprised? when air-headed bimbos try to act like political pundits, they usually get their asses handed to them. why should this one be any exception?

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

::crickets chirping::

why am I not surprised? when air-headed bimbos try to act like political pundits, they usually get their asses handed to them. why should this one be any exception?

What makes me an air-headed bimbo? That I countered your BULLSHIT propaganda with facts?? Bill Clinton did not leave a surplus behind thus your entire premise is WRONG. George W walked in to a recession himself.

Bloomberg.com: News

and this:

As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almosteliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus

The Clinton Surplus Myth - Craig Steiner - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary

The chart from the US TREASURY itself.

Liberals use propaganda, lies, distortions, Smoke-N-Mirrors.. it all washes out dirty with the same filth as always.

 

[expatriate]

::crickets chirping::

why am I not surprised? when air-headed bimbos try to act like political pundits, they usually get their asses handed to them. why should this one be any exception?

What makes me an air-headed bimbo? That I countered your BULLSHIT propaganda with facts?? Bill Clinton did not leave a surplus behind thus your entire premise is WRONG. George W walked in to a recession himself.

Bloomberg.com: News

and this:

As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almosteliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus

The Clinton Surplus Myth - Craig Steiner - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary

The chart from the US TREASURY itself.

Liberals use propaganda, lies, distortions, Smoke-N-Mirrors.. it all washes out dirty with the same filth as always.

Do the math sweetheart. We aren't talking about Clinton... we are talking about the LIE that you have continued to refuse to retract, that Obama has increased the debt more than all the other presidents combined. He started with $11T and it certainly has not reached $22T so you were wrong and you don't have the intestinal fortitude to simply admit that.

When you find some, and admit your error, then we'll talk some more. Until then you're an air-headed bimbo who is devoid of character in my book.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

::crickets chirping::

why am I not surprised? when air-headed bimbos try to act like political pundits, they usually get their asses handed to them. why should this one be any exception?

What makes me an air-headed bimbo? That I countered your BULLSHIT propaganda with facts?? Bill Clinton did not leave a surplus behind thus your entire premise is WRONG. George W walked in to a recession himself.

Bloomberg.com: News

and this:

As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almosteliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus

The Clinton Surplus Myth - Craig Steiner - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary

The chart from the US TREASURY itself.

Liberals use propaganda, lies, distortions, Smoke-N-Mirrors.. it all washes out dirty with the same filth as always.

Do the math sweetheart. We aren't talking about Clinton... we are talking about the LIE that you have continued to refuse to retract, that Obama has increased the debt more than all the other presidents combined. He started with $11T and it certainly has not reached $22T so you were wrong and you don't have the intestinal fortitude to simply admit that.

When you find some, and admit your error, then we'll talk some more. Until then you're an air-headed bimbo who is devoid of character in my book.

LOL!!!! Do you think you've actually said anything that makes a damn to me in regard to my intellect?!! Booooooooosh was left a deficit and recessiion...

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projected the 2009 deficit as $1.2 trillion on January 7, 2009. This was the last estimate they did while Bush was president. These estimates depend on many variables of course, so they are really rough estimates, but clearly the current year deficit was running somewhere above $1trillion when Obama took office.



Read more: What was the total deficit when Obama took office

In his State of the Union address tonight, President Obama will reportedly issue a call for "responsible" efforts to reduce deficits (while simultaneously calling for new federal spending). In light of the President's expected rhetorical nod to fiscal responsibility, it's worth keeping in mind his record on deficits to date. When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).

To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama's presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.

The Weekly Standard: Obama Vs. Bush On Debt : NPR

Boooosh came in with a 5 trillion dollar deficit.. Did you hear him screaming, whining, blaming Clinton?????????????????????? All of your BULLSHIT and LIES can't change NUMERICAL history and fact..

 

[Newby]

::crickets chirping::

why am I not surprised? when air-headed bimbos try to act like political pundits, they usually get their asses handed to them. why should this one be any exception?

Still shadow boxing with one post made several pages back and ignoring everything else in between, I see. What an idiot you are. You have no intellectual integrity, you're a blowhard full of insults, and a waste of everyone's time.

 

[Newby]

::crickets chirping::

why am I not surprised? when air-headed bimbos try to act like political pundits, they usually get their asses handed to them. why should this one be any exception?

What makes me an air-headed bimbo? That I countered your BULLSHIT propaganda with facts?? Bill Clinton did not leave a surplus behind thus your entire premise is WRONG. George W walked in to a recession himself.

Bloomberg.com: News

and this:

As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almosteliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus

The Clinton Surplus Myth - Craig Steiner - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary

The chart from the US TREASURY itself.

Liberals use propaganda, lies, distortions, Smoke-N-Mirrors.. it all washes out dirty with the same filth as always.

Do the math sweetheart. We aren't talking about Clinton... we are talking about the LIE that you have continued to refuse to retract, that Obama has increased the debt more than all the other presidents combined. He started with $11T and it certainly has not reached $22T so you were wrong and you don't have the intestinal fortitude to simply admit that.

When you find some, and admit your error, then we'll talk some more. Until then you're an air-headed bimbo who is devoid of character in my book.

Bullshit, you'll continue to ignore the rest of the facts posted here, just as you've done all the way thru this thread, it's your standard MO. You're selective responses are quite amusing.

 

[Newby]

I see you removed your video now... how ironic.

 

[Full-Auto]

I guess math really IS too hard for you. Who knew???


PresidentialDebt.org - U.S. National Deby by Presidential Term

was it your intention to look very stupid........

Just curious....................Considering Congress controls the purse strings.......

 

[expatriate]

::crickets chirping::

why am I not surprised? when air-headed bimbos try to act like political pundits, they usually get their asses handed to them. why should this one be any exception?

Still shadow boxing with one post made several pages back and ignoring everything else in between, I see. What an idiot you are. You have no intellectual integrity, you're a blowhard full of insults, and a waste of everyone's time.

why does everybody applaud liars around here? I fail to understand that. Somebody posts something that is total bullshit... others agree wholeheartedly and when I toss up the bullshit flag and ask people to show a little integrity and speak truthfully, and now I am the one without intellectual integrity? Now THAT is funny. THe "everything else in between" has been nothing but smoke blown to avoid answering the very simple question I asked.

 

[expatriate]

I see you removed your video now... how ironic.

I didn't post that video to entertain you. I am sorry if you thought I did. I posted the video at the suggestion of bigrebnc1775 as a means of proving my military pay grade in answer to a specific wager made by another poster. When it became clear that the discussions about the wager had reached their conclusion, I removed the video. Why would you find that "ironic", I wonder?

 

[expatriate]

I guess math really IS too hard for you. Who knew???


PresidentialDebt.org - U.S. National Deby by Presidential Term

was it your intention to look very stupid........

Just curious....................Considering Congress controls the purse strings.......

oh...so it is your assertion that the debt crisis we are currently facing has nothing to do with President Obama but falls squarely on Senator Reid and Speaker Boehner? Why all this whining by the republicans about the debt this presidential election season when Obama's got nothing to do with it? Just curious.

 

[Newby]

I see you removed your video now... how ironic.

I didn't post that video to entertain you. I am sorry if you thought I did. I posted the video at the suggestion of bigrebnc1775 as a means of proving my military pay grade in answer to a specific wager made by another poster. When it became clear that the discussions about the wager had reached their conclusion, I removed the video. Why would you find that "ironic", I wonder?

Seems more like you wouldn't want it viewed by certain people, but that's understandable.

 

[expatriate]

I see you removed your video now... how ironic.

I didn't post that video to entertain you. I am sorry if you thought I did. I posted the video at the suggestion of bigrebnc1775 as a means of proving my military pay grade in answer to a specific wager made by another poster. When it became clear that the discussions about the wager had reached their conclusion, I removed the video. Why would you find that "ironic", I wonder?

Seems more like you wouldn't want it viewed by certain people, but that's understandable.

I posted it here with a link for one specific poster to see... and about thirty other folks also took the opportunity to watch it. I had no problem with that. What other people would I be at all concerned about if they watched it or not?

 

[westwall]

the fact remains... Reagan increased the debt at 14%/year and NO republican ever had a problem with that. Obama does it at 15% and, now, republicans think that is the primary reason to condemn HIS presidency as the worst ever. Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y???

and you're right... I do get to vote, and so do all the expats down here... and in my neck of Mexico, I don't know a single US expat who is voting for Romney.

The fact remains that Obama has generated more debt than the previous 43 presidents combined. In other words, for the historically impaired (such as you), in 4 years Obama has generated more debt than was generated in the previous 232 YEARS!

You sir, are a moron.

so your fact is a fact and my fact is NOT a fact? Is that what you're trying to say?
And no... I am most certainly not a moron. I am a very smart guy and a very successful guy and I have forgotten more about politics in my life than you have ever known... but, regardless... moron? really? that's funny. I am laughing all the way to the bank. really. I am.

You whine and snivel about billions that were added when the country could afford to do so. Now your god is running up TRILLION's when we can't, and you still wish to blather on about a president who is long dead, and who enacted policies that increased the amount of money government took in.

Yes he increased the debt.....but it is a pittance compared to your precious little godling.
Were you honest you would see the difference. However, as we all know liberals are very loose with their ethics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

OK. I think I have it. If you are a republican president and you grow the debt at 14% a year, you are a demigod and we name airports after you and folks actually talk about adding your face to Mount Rushmore. If you are a democrat, and you grow the debt at 15% a year, you are the worst president ever. DId I get that right?

Reagan inherited a far worse economy than Obama and had a nuclear USSR to defeat without firing a shot. Why not compare Bush and Obama and see that Obama has more than doubled down on Bush's overspending.


GW Bush had a compounded Annual Growth Rate: 8.03%

Obama had a compounded Annual Growth Rate of 15.21%

National Debt by President: LBJ to Obama - TheStreet

what? Reagan inherited a far worse economy than Obama? what planet were you living on in 2008? Better yet, were you even alive in 1980?

I think using your own data to compare presidents is completely reasonable. Reagan at 14%... a demigod. Obama at 15%... worst president ever?

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Reagan added $1.5 trillion over 8 years and won the Cold War.
Obama added $5.3 trillion over 3.5 years and we still have fewer jobs than the day he took office.
Reagan's addition to the debt was less than 20% of GDP over 8 years and won the Cold War.
Obama's addition to the debt is over 35% of GDP in 4 years and we still have fewer jobs than the day he took office.

Yeah, I wonder why the comparison makes Obama look bad? LOL!

 

[ecinicola]

why i am voting for obama again: I think the reason that most obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: Foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are thrilled with the performance of obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the gop's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing romney will certainly stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the gop wants them to advance.

It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.

how do you figure he shares the democrats views, when he is a muslim and shares the views of his heritage and how he was brought up. I believe the democrats have been fooled bigtime by this muslim. Remember obama's remark, "if push comes to shove i will stand with the muslims" didn't that tell you anything?
Democrats are gullible and prone to be fooled by the power of words obama is using on them. Obama is causing you the same hardships he is everyone, and his beliefs stand with the muslims, not the democrats.