Worst President in U.S. History

[Billy000]

Bush said he was giving us a tax rebate upon entering office because there was a surplus. Are you saying he was lying? Should he not have given us that rebate?

Any asshole politician who claims the federal government is running a surplus is a liar, you don't run a surplus until you've paid all outstanding obligations and have money left over.

Meanwhile, that's exactly what Bush did. Did you vote for him anyway?

Your dear leader swore no one with an income less than $250K would see a single dime tax increase, he lied, did you vote for him anyway? Most times we just have to go with who we think is the lesser evil.

I take it this means you did vote for Bush even though he lied to you? Oh, and Obama did not lie to me. I am in the same 28 percent bracket I was in when he became president. He did raise taxes on those earning $450K+ though.

He did lie, I'm not in your 28% bracket, mine is lower and he did raise my taxes along with 23% of other Americans, mostly in the lower income brackets.

Do you defend the GOP regardless of what they actually do? Is there ANY GOP policy you dislike?

 

[OKTexas]

Any asshole politician who claims the federal government is running a surplus is a liar, you don't run a surplus until you've paid all outstanding obligations and have money left over.

Meanwhile, that's exactly what Bush did. Did you vote for him anyway?

Your dear leader swore no one with an income less than $250K would see a single dime tax increase, he lied, did you vote for him anyway? Most times we just have to go with who we think is the lesser evil.

I take it this means you did vote for Bush even though he lied to you? Oh, and Obama did not lie to me. I am in the same 28 percent bracket I was in when he became president. He did raise taxes on those earning $450K+ though.

He did lie, I'm not in your 28% bracket, mine is lower and he did raise my taxes along with 23% of other Americans, mostly in the lower income brackets.

Do you defend the GOP regardless of what they actually do? Is there ANY GOP policy you dislike?

Yep, the patriot act, TSA, EPA, DOE (which Reagan promised to kill and didn't) and most of all current leadership digging fighting positions and then doing nothing but shitting in them. I could name more but you get the point. The GOP has a new meaning for me, Gutless, Opportunist, Politicians.

 

[Faun]

Bush said he was giving us a tax rebate upon entering office because there was a surplus. Are you saying he was lying? Should he not have given us that rebate?

Any asshole politician who claims the federal government is running a surplus is a liar, you don't run a surplus until you've paid all outstanding obligations and have money left over.

Meanwhile, that's exactly what Bush did. Did you vote for him anyway?

Your dear leader swore no one with an income less than $250K would see a single dime tax increase, he lied, did you vote for him anyway? Most times we just have to go with who we think is the lesser evil.

I take it this means you did vote for Bush even though he lied to you? Oh, and Obama did not lie to me. I am in the same 28 percent bracket I was in when he became president. He did raise taxes on those earning $450K+ though.

He did lie, I'm not in your 28% bracket, mine is lower and he did raise my taxes along with 23% of other Americans, mostly in the lower income brackets.

Again ... he didn't lie to me. I also have my same doctor, though my insurance has changed. Meanwhile, Bush lied to you and you didn't care. You voted for him anyway.

And you didn't answer my question about the debt....

FDR increased the debt by an average of 15 billion per year. Reagan increased an average of 212 billion per year. Those are nominal figures which you insist tell the "truth." How much better was FDR at managing the debt than Reagan? More than ten fold? That's what the nominal numbers reveal, isn't it?

 

[Flash]

The rightwing denial in this thread would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.

Of course the leftwing denial is worse.

The Democrats passed the CRA when that idiot Carter was President and years later it comes back and bites this country in the ass big time almost collapsing our economy. Who would have ever thunk that using government pressure to give credit (for social justice reasons) to people that neither had the means or the inclination to pay back the money would tank our economy? Answer: not the Liberals. They never think about the consequences of their failed policies.

The CRA was enhanced during the Clinton administration but when Barney Queerboy, Obama, Peloski and Reid took over Congress after the 2006 election it really was able to do its damage.

After that it was just poor management by the Democrats. Bush was an idiot going along with the Democrats in 2007 and 2008. However, when that shithead Obama took over it got worse and we still haven't recovered.

Meanwhile the Democrats have given us a poor recovery, tremendously more debt, much larger destructive government, lowest workforce participation in 40 years, very high U-6 unemployment, highest poverty rate ever, most number of people on welfare, more taxes, worse health care and declining family income , not to mention a really shitty foreign policy. Thanks a lot Obama.

Now these butt pirates Democrats didn't do it all by themselves. The Republicans didn't stop the Democrats so they are partially responsible. When you elect big government shitheads whether they be Republican or Democrats you always get bad government.

 

[Faun]

The rightwing denial in this thread would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.

Of course the leftwing denial is worse.

The Democrats passed the CRA when that idiot Carter was President and years later it comes back and bites this country in the ass big time almost collapsing our economy. Who would have ever thunk that using government pressure to give credit (for social justice reasons) to to people that neither had the means or the inclination to pay back the money would tank our economy? Answer: not the Liberals. They never think about the consequences of their failed policies.

The CRA was enhanced during the Clinton administration but when Barney Queerboy, Obama, Peloski and Reid took over Congress after the 2006 election it really was able to do its damage.

After that it was just poor management by the Democrats. Bush was an idiot going along with the Democrats in 2007 and 2008. However, when that shithead Obama took over it got worse and we still haven't recovered.

Meanwhile the Democrats have given us a poor recovery, tremendously more debt, much larger destructive government, lowest workforce participation in 40 years, very high U-6 unemployment, highest poverty rate ever, most number of people on welfare, more taxes, worse health care and declining family income , not to mention a really shitty foreign policy. Thanks a lot Obama.

Now these butt pirates Democrats didn't do it all by themselves. The Republicans didn't stop the Democrats so they are partially responsible. When you elect big government shitheads whether they be Republican or Democrats you always get bad government.

How many times must this be debunked for a conservative to learn?

Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) contribute to foreclosures and the financial crisis? And, is the CRA being reformed?

The Federal Reserve Board has found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. In fact, the Board's analysis (102 KB PDF) found that nearly 60 percent of higher-priced loans went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods, which are not the focus of CRA activity. Additionally, about 20 percent of the higher-priced loans that were extended in low- or moderate-income areas, or to low- or moderate-income borrowers, were loans originated by lenders not covered by the CRA. Our analysis found that only six percent of all higher-priced loans were made by CRA-covered lenders to borrowers and neighborhoods targeted by the CRA. Further, our review of loan performance found that rates of serious mortgage delinquency are high in all neighborhood groups, not just in lower-income areas.​

 

[OKTexas]

Any asshole politician who claims the federal government is running a surplus is a liar, you don't run a surplus until you've paid all outstanding obligations and have money left over.

Meanwhile, that's exactly what Bush did. Did you vote for him anyway?

Your dear leader swore no one with an income less than $250K would see a single dime tax increase, he lied, did you vote for him anyway? Most times we just have to go with who we think is the lesser evil.

I take it this means you did vote for Bush even though he lied to you? Oh, and Obama did not lie to me. I am in the same 28 percent bracket I was in when he became president. He did raise taxes on those earning $450K+ though.

He did lie, I'm not in your 28% bracket, mine is lower and he did raise my taxes along with 23% of other Americans, mostly in the lower income brackets.

Again ... he didn't lie to me. I also have my same doctor, though my insurance has changed. Meanwhile, Bush lied to you and you didn't care. You voted for him anyway.

And you didn't answer my question about the debt....

FDR increased the debt by an average of 15 billion per year. Reagan increased an average of 212 billion per year. Those are nominal figures which you insist tell the "truth." How much better was FDR at managing the debt than Reagan? More than ten fold? That's what the nominal numbers reveal, isn't it?

Just because you think your dear leader didn't lie to you doesn't mean he didn't lie, he did win liar of the year.
Who was I supposed to vote for, Al Whore, not likely, like I said most times you have to chose the lesser evil.
Didn't see a question about the debt, all I've seen is a snide remark about using nominal figures, but anyway.
Clinton raised it about the same as Reagan and supposedly had 4 balanced budgets, what does that say about your proclaimed thrift hero and his debt management?

 

[Faun]

Meanwhile, that's exactly what Bush did. Did you vote for him anyway?

Your dear leader swore no one with an income less than $250K would see a single dime tax increase, he lied, did you vote for him anyway? Most times we just have to go with who we think is the lesser evil.

I take it this means you did vote for Bush even though he lied to you? Oh, and Obama did not lie to me. I am in the same 28 percent bracket I was in when he became president. He did raise taxes on those earning $450K+ though.

He did lie, I'm not in your 28% bracket, mine is lower and he did raise my taxes along with 23% of other Americans, mostly in the lower income brackets.

Again ... he didn't lie to me. I also have my same doctor, though my insurance has changed. Meanwhile, Bush lied to you and you didn't care. You voted for him anyway.

And you didn't answer my question about the debt....

FDR increased the debt by an average of 15 billion per year. Reagan increased an average of 212 billion per year. Those are nominal figures which you insist tell the "truth." How much better was FDR at managing the debt than Reagan? More than ten fold? That's what the nominal numbers reveal, isn't it?

Just because you think your dear leader didn't lie to you doesn't mean he didn't lie, he did win liar of the year.
Who was I supposed to vote for, Al Whore, not likely, like I said most times you have to chose the lesser evil.
Didn't see a question about the debt, all I've seen is a snide remark about using nominal figures, but anyway.
Clinton raised it about the same as Reagan and supposedly had 4 balanced budgets, what does that say about your proclaimed thrift hero and his debt management?

But he didn't lie to me. I understand when presidential candidates make promises, they don't apply to everyone. They can't, virtually nothing applies to everyone. They're appealing to the masses.

Still, Bush lied to you. You called him a lying asshole for doing so. Yet you voted for him anyway.

 

[Faun]

Meanwhile, that's exactly what Bush did. Did you vote for him anyway?

Your dear leader swore no one with an income less than $250K would see a single dime tax increase, he lied, did you vote for him anyway? Most times we just have to go with who we think is the lesser evil.

I take it this means you did vote for Bush even though he lied to you? Oh, and Obama did not lie to me. I am in the same 28 percent bracket I was in when he became president. He did raise taxes on those earning $450K+ though.

He did lie, I'm not in your 28% bracket, mine is lower and he did raise my taxes along with 23% of other Americans, mostly in the lower income brackets.

Again ... he didn't lie to me. I also have my same doctor, though my insurance has changed. Meanwhile, Bush lied to you and you didn't care. You voted for him anyway.

And you didn't answer my question about the debt....

FDR increased the debt by an average of 15 billion per year. Reagan increased an average of 212 billion per year. Those are nominal figures which you insist tell the "truth." How much better was FDR at managing the debt than Reagan? More than ten fold? That's what the nominal numbers reveal, isn't it?

Just because you think your dear leader didn't lie to you doesn't mean he didn't lie, he did win liar of the year.
Who was I supposed to vote for, Al Whore, not likely, like I said most times you have to chose the lesser evil.
Didn't see a question about the debt, all I've seen is a snide remark about using nominal figures, but anyway.
Clinton raised it about the same as Reagan and supposedly had 4 balanced budgets, what does that say about your proclaimed thrift hero and his debt management?

As far as debt, I understand that nominal figures are completely meaningless when comparing different years. Since you missed my post, I'll ask you again ... increasing the debt on average per year in nominal figures...

FDR ....... 15 billion
Reagan .. 212 billion

Does this mean FDR was superman when it came to managing the debt compared to Reagan?

 

[OKTexas]

Your dear leader swore no one with an income less than $250K would see a single dime tax increase, he lied, did you vote for him anyway? Most times we just have to go with who we think is the lesser evil.

I take it this means you did vote for Bush even though he lied to you? Oh, and Obama did not lie to me. I am in the same 28 percent bracket I was in when he became president. He did raise taxes on those earning $450K+ though.

He did lie, I'm not in your 28% bracket, mine is lower and he did raise my taxes along with 23% of other Americans, mostly in the lower income brackets.

Again ... he didn't lie to me. I also have my same doctor, though my insurance has changed. Meanwhile, Bush lied to you and you didn't care. You voted for him anyway.

And you didn't answer my question about the debt....

FDR increased the debt by an average of 15 billion per year. Reagan increased an average of 212 billion per year. Those are nominal figures which you insist tell the "truth." How much better was FDR at managing the debt than Reagan? More than ten fold? That's what the nominal numbers reveal, isn't it?

Just because you think your dear leader didn't lie to you doesn't mean he didn't lie, he did win liar of the year.
Who was I supposed to vote for, Al Whore, not likely, like I said most times you have to chose the lesser evil.
Didn't see a question about the debt, all I've seen is a snide remark about using nominal figures, but anyway.
Clinton raised it about the same as Reagan and supposedly had 4 balanced budgets, what does that say about your proclaimed thrift hero and his debt management?

But he didn't lie to me. I understand when presidential candidates make promises, they don't apply to everyone. They can't, virtually nothing applies to everyone. They're appealing to the masses.

Still, Bush lied to you. You called him a lying asshole for doing so. Yet you voted for him anyway.

So?

 

[OKTexas]

Your dear leader swore no one with an income less than $250K would see a single dime tax increase, he lied, did you vote for him anyway? Most times we just have to go with who we think is the lesser evil.

I take it this means you did vote for Bush even though he lied to you? Oh, and Obama did not lie to me. I am in the same 28 percent bracket I was in when he became president. He did raise taxes on those earning $450K+ though.

He did lie, I'm not in your 28% bracket, mine is lower and he did raise my taxes along with 23% of other Americans, mostly in the lower income brackets.

Again ... he didn't lie to me. I also have my same doctor, though my insurance has changed. Meanwhile, Bush lied to you and you didn't care. You voted for him anyway.

And you didn't answer my question about the debt....

FDR increased the debt by an average of 15 billion per year. Reagan increased an average of 212 billion per year. Those are nominal figures which you insist tell the "truth." How much better was FDR at managing the debt than Reagan? More than ten fold? That's what the nominal numbers reveal, isn't it?

Just because you think your dear leader didn't lie to you doesn't mean he didn't lie, he did win liar of the year.
Who was I supposed to vote for, Al Whore, not likely, like I said most times you have to chose the lesser evil.
Didn't see a question about the debt, all I've seen is a snide remark about using nominal figures, but anyway.
Clinton raised it about the same as Reagan and supposedly had 4 balanced budgets, what does that say about your proclaimed thrift hero and his debt management?

As far as debt, I understand that nominal figures are completely meaningless when comparing different years. Since you missed my post, I'll ask you again ... increasing the debt on average per year in nominal figures...

FDR ....... 15 billion
Reagan .. 212 billion

Does this mean FDR was superman when it came to managing the debt compared to Reagan?

Yep and Reagan was a superman compared to Clinton.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Funny how every time I bother to look this stuff up, the picture isn't as brilliant as the left claim.

You are telling me that 2002 to 2008 was worse, than the jobless claims from 2009 to 2011? The numbers clearly show different.

because the left is mostly filled with sheeple

that would not bother to look up the facts but would rather parrot whatever the party tells them

 

[Faun]

I take it this means you did vote for Bush even though he lied to you? Oh, and Obama did not lie to me. I am in the same 28 percent bracket I was in when he became president. He did raise taxes on those earning $450K+ though.

He did lie, I'm not in your 28% bracket, mine is lower and he did raise my taxes along with 23% of other Americans, mostly in the lower income brackets.

Again ... he didn't lie to me. I also have my same doctor, though my insurance has changed. Meanwhile, Bush lied to you and you didn't care. You voted for him anyway.

And you didn't answer my question about the debt....

FDR increased the debt by an average of 15 billion per year. Reagan increased an average of 212 billion per year. Those are nominal figures which you insist tell the "truth." How much better was FDR at managing the debt than Reagan? More than ten fold? That's what the nominal numbers reveal, isn't it?

Just because you think your dear leader didn't lie to you doesn't mean he didn't lie, he did win liar of the year.
Who was I supposed to vote for, Al Whore, not likely, like I said most times you have to chose the lesser evil.
Didn't see a question about the debt, all I've seen is a snide remark about using nominal figures, but anyway.
Clinton raised it about the same as Reagan and supposedly had 4 balanced budgets, what does that say about your proclaimed thrift hero and his debt management?

But he didn't lie to me. I understand when presidential candidates make promises, they don't apply to everyone. They can't, virtually nothing applies to everyone. They're appealing to the masses.

Still, Bush lied to you. You called him a lying asshole for doing so. Yet you voted for him anyway.

So?

Someone can lie to you and you'll support them anyway.

 

[OKTexas]

He did lie, I'm not in your 28% bracket, mine is lower and he did raise my taxes along with 23% of other Americans, mostly in the lower income brackets.

Again ... he didn't lie to me. I also have my same doctor, though my insurance has changed. Meanwhile, Bush lied to you and you didn't care. You voted for him anyway.

And you didn't answer my question about the debt....

FDR increased the debt by an average of 15 billion per year. Reagan increased an average of 212 billion per year. Those are nominal figures which you insist tell the "truth." How much better was FDR at managing the debt than Reagan? More than ten fold? That's what the nominal numbers reveal, isn't it?

Just because you think your dear leader didn't lie to you doesn't mean he didn't lie, he did win liar of the year.
Who was I supposed to vote for, Al Whore, not likely, like I said most times you have to chose the lesser evil.
Didn't see a question about the debt, all I've seen is a snide remark about using nominal figures, but anyway.
Clinton raised it about the same as Reagan and supposedly had 4 balanced budgets, what does that say about your proclaimed thrift hero and his debt management?

But he didn't lie to me. I understand when presidential candidates make promises, they don't apply to everyone. They can't, virtually nothing applies to everyone. They're appealing to the masses.

Still, Bush lied to you. You called him a lying asshole for doing so. Yet you voted for him anyway.

So?

Someone can lie to you and you'll support them anyway.

The lesser evil, you support someone who lied to everyone hundreds of times, it hasn't seemed to phase you. So if your trying to make it a big deal because I supported Bush you're barking up the wrong tree. because I would have never voted for Al Whore.

BTW if you healthcare didn't go down $2500.00 your dear leader lied to you too.

 

[Faun]

I take it this means you did vote for Bush even though he lied to you? Oh, and Obama did not lie to me. I am in the same 28 percent bracket I was in when he became president. He did raise taxes on those earning $450K+ though.

He did lie, I'm not in your 28% bracket, mine is lower and he did raise my taxes along with 23% of other Americans, mostly in the lower income brackets.

Again ... he didn't lie to me. I also have my same doctor, though my insurance has changed. Meanwhile, Bush lied to you and you didn't care. You voted for him anyway.

And you didn't answer my question about the debt....

FDR increased the debt by an average of 15 billion per year. Reagan increased an average of 212 billion per year. Those are nominal figures which you insist tell the "truth." How much better was FDR at managing the debt than Reagan? More than ten fold? That's what the nominal numbers reveal, isn't it?

Just because you think your dear leader didn't lie to you doesn't mean he didn't lie, he did win liar of the year.
Who was I supposed to vote for, Al Whore, not likely, like I said most times you have to chose the lesser evil.
Didn't see a question about the debt, all I've seen is a snide remark about using nominal figures, but anyway.
Clinton raised it about the same as Reagan and supposedly had 4 balanced budgets, what does that say about your proclaimed thrift hero and his debt management?

As far as debt, I understand that nominal figures are completely meaningless when comparing different years. Since you missed my post, I'll ask you again ... increasing the debt on average per year in nominal figures...

FDR ....... 15 billion
Reagan .. 212 billion

Does this mean FDR was superman when it came to managing the debt compared to Reagan?

Yep and Reagan was a superman compared to Clinton.

Thanks for demonstrating you have no ******* clue what you're talking about. First of all, FDR did not run circles around Reagan managing debt. He ballooned the debt due to the Great Depression and fighting WWII. That you don'don't understand that reveals how out of touch with reality you are. This is why no one compares presidents with nominal figures. The dollar in 1945 was not worth the same as it was it 1988 or in 2000.

Further contributing to your idiocy in comparing Reagan to Clinton, you ignore the reality that the debt under Reagan was because Reagan increased the deficit in most years he was president. Whereas the debt was as high as it was under Clinton because he inherited a very large deficit. Clinton reduced the deficit every year.

 

[Faun]

Again ... he didn't lie to me. I also have my same doctor, though my insurance has changed. Meanwhile, Bush lied to you and you didn't care. You voted for him anyway.

And you didn't answer my question about the debt....

FDR increased the debt by an average of 15 billion per year. Reagan increased an average of 212 billion per year. Those are nominal figures which you insist tell the "truth." How much better was FDR at managing the debt than Reagan? More than ten fold? That's what the nominal numbers reveal, isn't it?

Just because you think your dear leader didn't lie to you doesn't mean he didn't lie, he did win liar of the year.
Who was I supposed to vote for, Al Whore, not likely, like I said most times you have to chose the lesser evil.
Didn't see a question about the debt, all I've seen is a snide remark about using nominal figures, but anyway.
Clinton raised it about the same as Reagan and supposedly had 4 balanced budgets, what does that say about your proclaimed thrift hero and his debt management?

But he didn't lie to me. I understand when presidential candidates make promises, they don't apply to everyone. They can't, virtually nothing applies to everyone. They're appealing to the masses.

Still, Bush lied to you. You called him a lying asshole for doing so. Yet you voted for him anyway.

So?

Someone can lie to you and you'll support them anyway.

The lesser evil, you support someone who lied to everyone hundreds of times, it hasn't seemed to phase you. So if your trying to make it a big deal because I supported Bush you're barking up the wrong tree. because I would have never voted for Al Whore.

BTW if you healthcare didn't go down $2500.00 your dear leader lied to you too.

No one put a gun to your head and forced you to vote for the person who lied to you.

 

[Flash]

[

Thanks for demonstrating you have no ******* clue what you're talking about. First of all, FDR did not run circles around Reagan managing debt. He ballooned the debt due to the Great Depression and fighting WWII. That you don'don't understand that reveals how out of touch with reality you are. This is why no one compares presidents with nominal figures. The dollar in 1945 was not worth the same as it was it 1988 or in 2000.

Further contributing to your idiocy in comparing Reagan to Clinton, you ignore the reality that the debt under Reagan was because Reagan increased the deficit in most years he was president. Whereas the debt was as high as it was under Clinton because he inherited a very large deficit. Clinton reduced the deficit every year.

If anybody is out of touch with reality it is you.

FDR screwed up this country tremendously with his big government pro labor policies, just like every Democrat and a few Republicans.

The Great Depression was worldwide. However, most countries got out of it pretty quickly but it lingered on for years and years in the US thanks to FDR.

Some economist from UCLA did some research and figured it out.

FDR s policies prolonged Depression by 7 years UCLA economists calculate UCLA

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

 

[OKTexas]

He did lie, I'm not in your 28% bracket, mine is lower and he did raise my taxes along with 23% of other Americans, mostly in the lower income brackets.

Again ... he didn't lie to me. I also have my same doctor, though my insurance has changed. Meanwhile, Bush lied to you and you didn't care. You voted for him anyway.

And you didn't answer my question about the debt....

FDR increased the debt by an average of 15 billion per year. Reagan increased an average of 212 billion per year. Those are nominal figures which you insist tell the "truth." How much better was FDR at managing the debt than Reagan? More than ten fold? That's what the nominal numbers reveal, isn't it?

Just because you think your dear leader didn't lie to you doesn't mean he didn't lie, he did win liar of the year.
Who was I supposed to vote for, Al Whore, not likely, like I said most times you have to chose the lesser evil.
Didn't see a question about the debt, all I've seen is a snide remark about using nominal figures, but anyway.
Clinton raised it about the same as Reagan and supposedly had 4 balanced budgets, what does that say about your proclaimed thrift hero and his debt management?

As far as debt, I understand that nominal figures are completely meaningless when comparing different years. Since you missed my post, I'll ask you again ... increasing the debt on average per year in nominal figures...

FDR ....... 15 billion
Reagan .. 212 billion

Does this mean FDR was superman when it came to managing the debt compared to Reagan?

Yep and Reagan was a superman compared to Clinton.

Thanks for demonstrating you have no ******* clue what you're talking about. First of all, FDR did not run circles around Reagan managing debt. He ballooned the debt due to the Great Depression and fighting WWII. That you don'don't understand that reveals how out of touch with reality you are. This is why no one compares presidents with nominal figures. The dollar in 1945 was not worth the same as it was it 1988 or in 2000.

Further contributing to your idiocy in comparing Reagan to Clinton, you ignore the reality that the debt under Reagan was because Reagan increased the deficit in most years he was president. Whereas the debt was as high as it was under Clinton because he inherited a very large deficit. Clinton reduced the deficit every year.

Actually if any of FDR's debt remains on the books it's in todays dollars, and since the debt has continued to rise since his presidency, I would venture to say some of it still remains, imagine the interest we have paid on it. And just because Clinton reduced the rate of rise, the rise still occurred the whole time he was president. So much for a real balanced budget.

 

[OKTexas]

Just because you think your dear leader didn't lie to you doesn't mean he didn't lie, he did win liar of the year.
Who was I supposed to vote for, Al Whore, not likely, like I said most times you have to chose the lesser evil.
Didn't see a question about the debt, all I've seen is a snide remark about using nominal figures, but anyway.
Clinton raised it about the same as Reagan and supposedly had 4 balanced budgets, what does that say about your proclaimed thrift hero and his debt management?

But he didn't lie to me. I understand when presidential candidates make promises, they don't apply to everyone. They can't, virtually nothing applies to everyone. They're appealing to the masses.

Still, Bush lied to you. You called him a lying asshole for doing so. Yet you voted for him anyway.

So?

Someone can lie to you and you'll support them anyway.

The lesser evil, you support someone who lied to everyone hundreds of times, it hasn't seemed to phase you. So if your trying to make it a big deal because I supported Bush you're barking up the wrong tree. because I would have never voted for Al Whore.

BTW if you healthcare didn't go down $2500.00 your dear leader lied to you too.

No one put a gun to your head and forced you to vote for the person who lied to you.

Right back at ya hero.

 

[AmericanGirl05]

HOWEVER, the amount Obama signed could have been much less than the previous year. It was all up to him.

CRs provide a very limited allowance, and because of their restrictions, agencies are very frugal during CR times.

Also, by law, agencies may not undertake new policies or programs during a CR unless specifically authorized by Congress.

Obama owns the whole year.

You can say it until you're blue in the face and pass out. Obama will not be responsible for the whole fiscal year. Hell, he wasn't even president for nearly 1/3rd of FY2009.

Your sycophancy is too funny.

So... I pass a bad policy. It's my policy right? And the policy causes tons and tons of debt. It's all my fault.

So far.... I'm with you. I agree with that logic. Bush did bad, bad cost money, thus debt is Bush's fault.

We all agree.

Here's the problem sparky............ The MOMENT that Obama got into office, he COULD HAVE cut those bad policies, and repealed the bad plan, cut the spending, and taken a new course of action.

If Obama had done that, I would right here, right now, be supporting Obama on that.

Is that what Obama did? No. It is not. Not only did Obama not repeal the bad Bush policies... he extended them, and expanded them. He inherited a bad Federal Deficit, and made it 5 times worse.

Now whether you agree with this or not, the fact is, the moment Obama continued Bush policies, and expanded Bush policies, and increased Bush policies.... the moment he did that.... HE OWNS IT.

Whether you like it or not, that's the fact.

Again, Obama wasn't even president for almost a third of FY2009. But walk me through this ... a budget is a law ... the House is granted Constitutional authority to initiate all spending bills ... explain how an incoming president can unilaterally "repeal" the existing budget approved and signed into law by the previous president and congress....?

Because the budget, i.e., the annual appropriations, were not yet signed into law. They were not passed by Congress and not signed by the President.

The continuing resolution the government was operating under until Obama signed the appropriations bill was signed into law in September 2008. That kept spending going until March, 2009.

At a reduced rate. Which, in signing the final appropriations bill -- in January -- Obama was perfectly free to reduce.

Of course, he didn't. He raised it.

 

[AmericanGirl05]

HOWEVER, the amount Obama signed could have been much less than the previous year. It was all up to him.

CRs provide a very limited allowance, and because of their restrictions, agencies are very frugal during CR times.

Also, by law, agencies may not undertake new policies or programs during a CR unless specifically authorized by Congress.

Obama owns the whole year.

You can say it until you're blue in the face and pass out. Obama will not be responsible for the whole fiscal year. Hell, he wasn't even president for nearly 1/3rd of FY2009.

Your sycophancy is too funny.

So... I pass a bad policy. It's my policy right? And the policy causes tons and tons of debt. It's all my fault.

So far.... I'm with you. I agree with that logic. Bush did bad, bad cost money, thus debt is Bush's fault.

We all agree.

Here's the problem sparky............ The MOMENT that Obama got into office, he COULD HAVE cut those bad policies, and repealed the bad plan, cut the spending, and taken a new course of action.

If Obama had done that, I would right here, right now, be supporting Obama on that.

Is that what Obama did? No. It is not. Not only did Obama not repeal the bad Bush policies... he extended them, and expanded them. He inherited a bad Federal Deficit, and made it 5 times worse.

Now whether you agree with this or not, the fact is, the moment Obama continued Bush policies, and expanded Bush policies, and increased Bush policies.... the moment he did that.... HE OWNS IT.

Whether you like it or not, that's the fact.

Again, Obama wasn't even president for almost a third of FY2009. But walk me through this ... a budget is a law ... the House is granted Constitutional authority to initiate all spending bills ... explain how an incoming president can unilaterally "repeal" the existing budget approved and signed into law by the previous president and congress....?

Because the budget, i.e., the annual appropriations, were not yet signed into law. They were not passed by Congress and not signed by the President.

Yes, BECAUSE the US federal Gov't would just stop on a dime right? Fkkking dishonest cons today!


Why is it EVERY other US Prez accepts responsibility for their first budget AFTER they are in office and get their players in place with the next fiscal year budget, but Obama, he had super powers and accepts responsibility for most of Dubya's final and 8th fiscal year budget??? lol

Because he signed the final approps bill for that year AND because his party was in power in Congress and they set it up so he could do that.