Mr. Ambien Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 The fact that you are citing $5 trillion as "spending" pretty adequately shows you have no idea what you're talking about, Ratiocinator aka pucklovinicehockey or whatever your old name was. The 2010 budget alone has $3.7 trillion in "spending". Since you're jumping in like you actually know something in a debt debate, keep in mind that Sharpshooter's own sources show that Bush left with $10 trillion dollars in federal public debt. It looks to me more like $9 trillion but making conservative estimates we'll say $10 trillion. That means Obama came in with $10 trillion of debt January 20, 2009, oh look, US public debt is sitting just shy of $16 trillion as of today. I've tried keeping things simple but clearly you wish to obfuscate it for.. whatever reasons. The latest hilarity is that I'm a racist for blaming Obama for what he signs and spends, I'm a Bush croney.. rofl. Whatever you just cited that suggests Obama spends $126 billion on the DOD plus military expenditures almost made me fall out of my chair laughing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense First off, the DOD expenditures by itself per fiscal year during Obama's Presidency is at least 4-5 times what your "source" suggests. A $100 billion budget for the DOD presuming it means fiscal year and not $100 billion during Obama's entire Presidency (which would make your usual conspiracy theory herpderp seem petty if it means for the entire Obama Presidency) means the DOD would not function and would go bankrupt. Since the US wars in the Middle East didn't immediately cease upon Obama's inauguration, the fact that this image you cited blatantly disregards military spending shows how patently false their claims are. If you wonder why your sources get criticized it's because you have an inability to critically analyse them, and just present a typical cut and paste response, leaving me to educate you on what you're reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 The fact that you are citing $5 trillion as "spending" pretty adequately shows you have no idea what you're talking about, Ratiocinator aka pucklovinicehockey or whatever your old name was. The 2010 budget alone has $3.7 trillion in "spending". Since you're jumping in like you actually know something in a debt debate, keep in mind that Sharpshooter's own sources show that Bush left with $10 trillion dollars in federal public debt. It looks to me more like $9 trillion but making conservative estimates we'll say $10 trillion. That means Obama came in with $10 trillion of debt January 20, 2009, oh look, US public debt is sitting just shy of $16 trillion as of today. I've tried keeping things simple but clearly you wish to obfuscate it for.. whatever reasons. The latest hilarity is that I'm a racist for blaming Obama for what he signs and spends, I'm a Bush croney.. rofl. Whatever you just cited that suggests Obama spends $126 billion on the DOD plus military expenditures almost made me fall out of my chair laughing. http://en.wikipedia....ment_of_Defense First off, the DOD expenditures by itself per fiscal year during Obama's Presidency is at least 4-5 times what your "source" suggests. A $100 billion budget for the DOD presuming it means fiscal year and not $100 billion during Obama's entire Presidency (which would make your usual conspiracy theory herpderp seem petty if it means for the entire Obama Presidency) means the DOD would not function and would go bankrupt. Since the US wars in the Middle East didn't immediately cease upon Obama's inauguration, the fact that this image you cited blatantly disregards military spending shows how patently false their claims are. If you wonder why your sources get criticized it's because you have an inability to critically analyse them, and just present a typical cut and paste response, leaving me to educate you on what you're reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 It is impossible to have a reasonable , rational conversation with you is'nt it . as other cdc members have noted your contemptuous attitude and your personal attacks {herp a derp ] make it very diificult to take you seriously . as noted that graph appeared in the new york times and yet you descredit it, we will let others decide what they believe . i did not suggest you are a rascist , that was merely a humourous cartoon i found that seemed to sum up the situtation nicely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Used to be, and still is, "deluded" .. (searches in vain for a mute/ignore button) .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Used to be, and still is, "deluded" .. (searches in vain for a mute/ignore button) .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Yeah I find reasonable, rational discussions include these gems: I already pointed out Bush has the next worse fiscal policy to Obama (worse does not denote it was a good fiscal policy, it means they sucked), I dare you to find it and prove you read something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 as i pointed out that was a cartoon i found humourous and what has anothers post to do with me ? i have read that post , but you have not explained why you think bush's policies contributed to the average american being in a better position than he/she is today . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 I think it's safe to say that Bush certainly got the ball rolling but Obama (and congress) didn't exactly enact austerity. In fact they kept all the Bush spending and tax cuts and followed them up with even more. They didn't kick the can down the road, they accelerated bad policy. The only thing that resembles a tough decision or fiscal prudence will be the fiscal cliff - nicely timed to hit after the election but before the innaugeration. Obviously it was approved by Obama but it will be interesting to see how everything gets spun moving forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrawfull Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Joe Biden on what century we are living in ... I can not wait until the Paul Ryan debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Stats are for liars in some ways in that they can be twisted to suit your own delusional agenda .. I, too, could balance my budget if I failed to include all my costs, which is what the Bush Neo-con regime did .. when Obama puts the true costs on the books so they could be dealt with, he gets stuck with them being a part of "his" budget for 2009 .. if this does not appear true to you then you are fooling yourself .. The whole American economy is being controlled by a select few who would love to return to the days of 12 hour work days 6 days a week, women pregnant and barefoot and raising all those potential low wage workers to perpetuate the capitalist spiral .. Denial is insidious .. at least some folks are willing to compromise their principles to take advantage of other folks efforts .. How sorry do you think the American power brokers are that they brought all that cheap labor in from Africa .. came back to bite em in the arse due to "entitlement" .. literally laugh out loud ironic .. At least you and yours are safe back in Canada, Used 2 Be .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Its amazing that an Australian is engulfed in American style two-party Karl Rove'ian politicking. What I mean is.. since when is criticism of Obama an intimation that I support Bush at all? That includes your statement plus insinuation that because my criticism of Obama is so heavy handed that means Americans were better off under Bush. They would have been better off without both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamboni_14 Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Better off under Ron Paul? .. you would have had to move North for health care even sooner under RP .. or maybe Huckabee was more your ilk?? .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 I think it's safe to say that Bush certainly got the ball rolling but Obama (and congress) didn't exactly enact austerity. In fact they kept all the Bush spending and tax cuts and followed them up with even more. They didn't kick the can down the road, they accelerated bad policy. The only thing that resembles a tough decision or fiscal prudence will be the fiscal cliff - nicely timed to hit after the election but before the innaugeration. Obviously it was approved by Obama but it will be interesting to see how everything gets spun moving forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Sanctimonious must be zaibatsu's middle name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 just because he didn't like either, doesn't mean he liked RP better. I don't like either Bush or Obama either... and I wouldn't have voted for either RP or Huckabee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Earlier in the thread, I do believe RP was held up as someone who would have most of the answers .. plus Paul Ryan .. the "Ayn Rand denier" .. what a joke .. I sometimes wonder why I bother commenting on the whole political mess as everyone skews the information to suit their own "agenda" .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Sure I have the sources, the US Treasury on my part which I cited earlier already, I'll cite them again since you failed to read them: Points out that Bush left at ~ $9-$10 trillion, as I said I used $10 trillion "conservatively". Your latest hilarious post says Obama came in with a debt of $12,311,349,677,512, and Bush left with $10,699,804,864,612. For this to be true, Bush would have had to spend nearly $2 trillion in 3 weeks unless there was some magical President between January 1st 2009 and January 20th 2009 that not even the US government wasn't aware of. All in all, you can't even keep up with your own sources, you're desperately doing your best to find anything hence why citing websites akin to MoveOn.org or BlameBushForObamasFailure.org, but thankfully you aren't bothering to decipher what your source's "sources" are saying and the more the debate goes on, both 1) it's clear you aren't critically looking at your own sources, if even reading them at all, just cut and pasting anything from a slanted anti-Bush website and 2) you're getting left far behind on this debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 RP wouldn't be the answer but he would be a good step - elimating the costly foreign wars and slashing other government spending would be a good first step. Doubtful he would do tax reform (aka simplification) without cutting taxes but reforming taxes is even harder than raising them which he would also do. It can not be stressed enough how critical it is for the US to avoid insovlentcy and they are toying with it. It seems noone wants to acknowlege this. The he said/she said garbage doesn't help in the least since both major parties are responsible for jacking up the deficit. In fact the only person that has been consistant at voting down entitlements AND the outrageous foreign policy is RP. Perfect? No. But better than the rest of the clowns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Yep .. that all sounds good, as they would have legalized "drugs", death sentences for abortion Doctors and recipients, plus everyone could own their own UZI and wear it on their hip!! .. I love it .. that alone will lower the population by 5% in the first term .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Knife meet gun.....again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.