• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Releases $3.4 Trillion Budget Plan

The "cuts" are meaningless and only intended to give Obama and his supporters talking points.

Its so transparent that even his butt kissing media is having a hard time spinning it as anything but a pathetically laughable BS routine.
 
Last edited:
Truth Detector said:
While I can appreciate the desperate situation the people of Michigan are going through, they did elect Democrats for decades to run their Governments just as the citizens of California have and as a result, BOTH states suffer ABOVE average unemployment rates and HUGE deficits.
Click to expand...

John Engler was a democrat? Better not tell him that, he might be a bit peeved. Note, since your ignorance is showing, he was our governor here until 2003. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a democrat. Careful, he might terminate you for calling him that.

Truth Detector said:
But when we debate National Politics and the state of the WHOLE economy, compared to the worst times during the Crater years, we have not reached them yet.
Click to expand...

You have some figures to back this up with? A quick google search found me this article, which contradicts you: U.S. economy shrinks 6.1% in Q1. From that article: "the current quarter coupled with the 6.3 percent decline in fourth-quarter 2008 — the biggest drop in 25 years — created the worst economy over a six-month period in 50 years, according to the U.S. Commerce Department". I showed you my figures, now you show me yours.

Truth Detector said:
It is easy to look up the facts; and yet, during the Crater years we didn't have politicians fear mongering the American people to promote marching the nation deeper into debt.
Click to expand...

Wat, wait...did you just say something good about Carter, a democrat? By the way, facts are not a bad thing, they are actually good, if often inconvenient to you.

Truth Detector said:
When I bought my first home in 1985 I think it was, my beginning interest rate was a variable rate at 8% with a cap of 16.5%. Now THAT is BAD. Compared to now, we haven't even begun to see bad.

The national rate of unemployment during the peak of the Carter years was around 10.5% and inflation was around 10%. Now THAT is BAD. Compared to now, we haven't even begun to see bad.

Perhaps you were in a deep slumber during those years or too young to remember, but the notion that what we have been experiencing as being the worst since the depression is nothing more than fear mongering intended to promote a political agenda; in my humble, educated and experienced OPINION. :2wave:
Click to expand...

If I remember right, the fed raises interest rates to deal with inflation. So of course your interest rate was high, but at least property values where going up, which offsets the loan rate some. In fact, if I understand how things work right, 8 % interest on a loan with 10 % inflation means you are making money.

On your unemployment rate numbers: The Bureau of Labor Statistics says you are mistaken(note, not sure if that link will take you to the chart for Carter, you might have to enter the dates yourself). The highest monthly unemployment rate under Carter was 7.8 %.
 
You remarked that it was signifucant that The Obama had (supposedly) budgeted fuds for Iraq/Afghanistan. If true, HOW is that significant? HOW is that relevant?
Click to expand...

Because including the spending on the occupations will end up with a significantly larger budget than the previous year, which was under the Bush administration who did not include spending on the occupations.

However, I haven't had time to look into the budget, as I said earlier, to determine if the spending on the occupations was actually included in the FY2010 budget, and if so how much they budgeted. I was merely throwing it out as a possible reason for the significant increase in budgeted spending.

That's down from 1/5th
Click to expand...

Actually, it is up 4%.

I would ask again, what does this debate have to do with George Bush or how they accounted for the war spending? Bush isn’t in charge anymore and had nothing to do with the formulation of the current budget and its corresponding trillions in deficits so why bring the name or what occurred up in every thread started about Obama?
Click to expand...

I was comparing the budgets of FY2009 and FY2010. Incidentally, the Bush administration was responsible for the FY2009 budget, so I referred to it as such. It was not an attack on Bush at all. If you like, you can replace any references to the Bush administration with "the FY2009 budget".

We are talking about the CURRENT administration, the historically unprecedented spending us into a $1.8 trillion dollar deficit and the reality that we are still waiting for an HONEST debate as to how they are going to pay for it.

The laughable denial so far is that Obama found $17 billion in savings; how is this even remotely going to pay for the deficit.

The REAL story here is that this is a deliberate attempt to AVOID any HONEST discussion about how they are going to have to SIGNIFICANTLY increase taxes ACROSS the board for purely political purposes by waiting until AFTER the 2010 mid term elections.
Click to expand...

I don't think I ever said that any of this was wrong, and unless you can show where I am doing so, I politely request that you stop treating me like an opportunist partisan. I am not interested in defending Obama or his budget, nor am I interested in attacking it; I am merely pointing out factors that should be brought to the attention of those having such a discussion.

Unlike you, I have no personal stake in this, as I support neither the democrats nor the republicans. In fact, I think that in terms of Obama's budget we are in agreement on a lot of aspects.

Personally, I think that the administration's policies have provided a good rebound in the very short term, as we are currently seeing, but that in the mid- to long-term they are going to have disastrous effects.

Transparency? What a freaking laugh! The only thing transparent with this President is the obvious transparency that exists between his BIG ears.
Click to expand...

How does making fun of his ears contribute to an "HONEST discussion," exactly?
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Because including the spending on the occupations will end up with a significantly larger budget than the previous year, which was under the Bush administration who did not include spending on the occupations.
Click to expand...
But, its not significasntly larger. $513B to $533B is only $20B and therefore does NOT cover the costs of the 'occupation' of Afghanistan/Iraq.

However, I haven't had time to look into the budget, as I said earlier, to determine if the spending on the occupations was actually included in the FY2010 budget, and if so how much they budgeted. I was merely throwing it out as a possible reason for the significant increase in budgeted spending.
Click to expand...
The increase of the DoD budget is $20B. Thats not even close to an explanation.

Actually, it is up 4%.
Click to expand...
1/6th (FY2010) is smaller than 1/5th (2009).
DOWN to 1/6th of total spending.
 
But, its not significasntly larger. $513B to $533B is only $20B and therefore does NOT cover the costs of the 'occupation' of Afghanistan/Iraq.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said that I wasn't sure if it was included in the FY2010 budget. It might be, but it might be allocated elsewhere.

1/6th (FY2010) is smaller than 1/5th (2009).
DOWN to 1/6th of total spending.
Click to expand...

"Provides $533.7 billion for the Department of Defense base budget in 2010, a four-percent increase over 2009."
-FY2010 DoD Budget (WARNING: PDF)
 
Khayembii Communique said:
"Provides $533.7 billion for the Department of Defense base budget in 2010, a four-percent increase over 2009."
-FY2010 DoD Budget (WARNING: PDF)
Click to expand...
Yes.... but as TOTAL SPENDING is up, that 4% increast STILL means that the % of defense spending in terms of total spending DROPS from ~20% to ~16%. That, alone, makes it impossible to argue that increased defense spending is responsible for the massive increase in spending.
 
Yes.... but as TOTAL SPENDING is up, that 4% increast STILL means that the % of defense spending in terms of total spending DROPS from ~20% to ~16%. That, alone, makes it impossible to argue that increased defense spending is responsible for the massive increase in spending.
Click to expand...

Ok, now I see what you're saying. However, I wasn't making the claim that the increase in DoD spending was solely responsible for the total increase. I was simply asserting that the cost of the occupations was added into the FY2010 budget (which I am still unsure about, as I won't have time to look into it until either this weekend or next week), which could be a factor in the increase in spending.

The reason I initially reported the DoD spending was because I assumed that it would go under there, although from looking at it we can conclude that either the funds for the occupations were allocated elsewhere or were not factored into the budget at all.
 
What "Occupation" are you talking about?
..the US hasn't occupied a nation now for almost 6 years.

No matter how you cut it or distort it the entire war and all US activities in places like Bosnia etc do are not even a drop in the bucket in expense compared to Obama's spending.

Be blunt about it its another meaningless talking point pushed by Obama and his supporters.
 
What "Occupation" are you talking about?
..the US hasn't occupied a nation now for almost 6 years.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. I thought that was obvious.
 
Analyst said:
While I agree the spending is beyond absurd, the following article does provide some reinforcement of his claims of cutting spending dramatically by the end of his term. I'll believe it when I see it, but it's better than nothing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/us/politics/08budget.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig
Click to expand...

Actually, its worse than nothing if he doesn't keep his promise. He has broken a few of those already, so what makes you think he will keep this one?
 
Redress said:
John Engler was a democrat? Better not tell him that, he might be a bit peeved. Note, since your ignorance is showing, he was our governor here until 2003. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a democrat. Careful, he might terminate you for calling him that.
Click to expand...

Your trite and misguided condescension aside (not sure what brought this on), is John Engler the current Governor? No, he hasn’t been in office since the end of 2002. Are your largest cities in the counties that have such high unemployment NOT run by Democrats and/or Democrat counties?

This is almost as absurd as suggesting that Arnold is a Republican or even Conservative. But even if he were, even the Terminator cannot stop the senseless spending the Democrats engage in the great State of California; a state that over the last five years had an increase of 40% in revenue and still managed to spend $40 billion more than they could take in.

John Engler was Governor from 1991 to 2002. During his tenure unemployment was at 7.6% and dropping. The current Governor who succeeded Engler since 2003 is a Democrat and unemployment is now at 12.6 %.

How trite that you attempt to argue that Democrats are not currently responsible for the current situation in Michigan and how selective of you to attempt to argue it isn’t a Democrat issue.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_Michigan]Political party strength in Michigan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


Redress said:
You have some figures to back this up with? A quick google search found me this article, which contradicts you: U.S. economy shrinks 6.1% in Q1. From that article: "the current quarter coupled with the 6.3 percent decline in fourth-quarter 2008 — the biggest drop in 25 years — created the worst economy over a six-month period in 50 years, according to the U.S. Commerce Department". I showed you my figures, now you show me yours.
Click to expand...

Gee who was President 28 years ago that exceeded this figure? Want to try again?

Redress said:
Wat, wait...did you just say something good about Carter, a democrat? By the way, facts are not a bad thing, they are actually good, if often inconvenient to you.
Click to expand...

The way you are using your facts and trite condescension apparently is not serving your cause which was? To support Democrats who spend a nation into a $1.8 trillion deficit demagogue the economy for purely political gain.

Redress said:
If I remember right, the fed raises interest rates to deal with inflation. So of course your interest rate was high, but at least property values where going up, which offsets the loan rate some. In fact, if I understand how things work right, 8 % interest on a loan with 10 % inflation means you are making money.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, when do property values go UP when interest rates are high? Did you study Obamanomics? :rofl

HIGH interest rates equate to LOWER property values/prices. We bought because the new homes that previously we could not afford had dropped in value by over $40,000.00; which in those days was a LOT for those of you studying Obamanomics. (see, two can play your condescension game)

One can only laugh at your economic assumptions about inflation rates and interest rates; where the hell did they teach that one? :rofl

You think that a 10% inflation rate, which is essentially the LOSS of buying power is making money on an 8% mortgage with an adjustable rate? Come back and argue when you make more sense and have had time to THINK about what it is you are saying.

Redress said:
On your unemployment rate numbers: The Bureau of Labor Statistics says you are mistaken(note, not sure if that link will take you to the chart for Carter, you might have to enter the dates yourself). The highest monthly unemployment rate under Carter was 7.8 %.
Click to expand...

I see that reading comprehension is also not your forte'; I stated PEAKED at 10%, I didn't claim that it averaged 10%. Unemployment at the end of his term was at 8.5%.

FACT: Unemployment was higher during the Carter years.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
FACT: Inflation was higher during the Carter years.
Historical Inflation data from 1914 to the present
FACT: The term STAGFLATION indicating high unemployment combined with high inflation was coined during the Carter years.
FACT: Mortgage Interest rates were at double digits during the Carter years. History of Interest Rates: MRC
FACT: the OIL crises happened during the Carter years.
FACT: foreign policy under Carter was a joke and led to the Iranian takeover of the US embassy.

FACT: interest rates on homes are the lowest they have been in decades
E-RATE Mortgage Rates History 1980-2008, National Average Mortgage Rates, Federal Finance Housing
FACT: gas prices are as low in current dollars as they have ever been
FACT: inflation is nearly non-existent
Historical Inflation data from 1914 to the present
FACT: unemployment has not peaked past previous downturns.

The notion that the events leading up to Obama’s election are the worst we have had since the depression requires either willful ignorance or willful denial. The REALITY is that things were MUCH worse during the late 70s and early 80s and yet, when Reagan came into office we didn’t see a claim to expand the role of Government and spend us into a monstrous deficit to prop up the economy.

Michigan currently has an unemployment rate of 12.6%. California at 11.2% and quickly gaining thanks to the infestation of idiot Democrats in the State Legislature.

Current Unemployment Rates for States and Historical Highs/Lows

But hey, give Obama more time; he is going to make the Carter years look like a cake walk.
 
Goobieman said:
Yes... like how The Obama's deficit in ONE year equates to 70% of GWB's deficit in EIGHT years...
Click to expand...

Ah, fuzzy math. How much of the massive deficit is Bush era items? It is rather dishonest to attack him on a huge deficit that is partially made up of former administration items. Bash him for the specific programs that his administration created. Don't bash him for deficits and spending items created under the last administration.
 
obvious Child said:
Ah, fuzzy math. How much of the massive deficit is Bush era items? It is rather dishonest to attack him on a huge deficit that is partially made up of former administration items. Bash him for the specific programs that his administration created. Don't bash him for deficits and spending items created under the last administration.
Click to expand...

Forget fuzzy math, what about your fuzzy logic? What fuzzy logic does it take to suggest that Obama had NOTHING to do with the monstrous deficits now? Last time I looked the Democrats were in control of the purse strings since 2006 and Obama himself was in FULL support mode of EVERY spending bill that got us where we are today.

When Democrats took over spending, the deficit which was under $170 billion has now ballooned to $1.8 trillion. Whatever happened to pay as you go and fiscal responsibility?

This "fuzzy" logic about inheriting the deficit ONLY works if the President had been OUTSIDE Washington and had NOTHING to do with voting and arguing FOR the spending bills.

Obama OWNS this deficit more so than Bush ever could and attempting to suggest that this is Bush, well, that would require a significant quantity of kool-aid in my opinion. :rofl

Your desperate defense of the indefensible and projecting your anger towards Bush and Republicans suggests that your proclaimed political philosophy is hardly what you claim.

Next you will be ranting about how you are some kind of "independent;" now THAT is funny.
 
Truth Detector said:
How trite that you attempt to argue that Democrats are not currently responsible for the current situation in Michigan and how selective of you to attempt to argue it isn’t a Democrat issue.
Click to expand...

How trite that you attempt to argue that market factors, poor management, horrible quality control measures, over reliance on financing and whole host of factors unrelated to government intervention aren't a play here.

To support Democrats who spend a nation into a $1.8 trillion deficit demagogue the economy for purely political gain.
Click to expand...

But it's okay when the Republicans doubled the national debt? Apparently it's okay if you do it in $500 billion blocks every year, but not okay in a one time lump payment.

HIGH interest rates equate to LOWER property values/prices.
Click to expand...

For commercial property yes in the computation of NOI for valuation purposes. Not necessary residential though.
 
Truth Detector said:
Forget fuzzy math, what about your fuzzy logic? What fuzzy logic does it take to suggest that Obama had NOTHING to do with the monstrous deficits now? Last time I looked the Democrats were in control of the purse strings since 2006 and Obama himself was in FULL support mode of EVERY spending bill that got us where we are today.
Click to expand...

Apparently 2001-2005 doesn't matter to you.

Federal Deficit

Which shows that during the 2001-2005 period, the majority of the deficits were inflicted. While the Democrats of course continued the trend, your argument that they are solely to blame is absolute crap.

Whatever happened to pay as you go and fiscal responsibility?
Click to expand...

That would be the Clinton era. Which is long gone.

This "fuzzy" logic about inheriting the deficit ONLY works if the President had been OUTSIDE Washington and had NOTHING to do with voting and arguing FOR the spending bills.
Click to expand...

I like how you argue that one person is responsible for this mess rather than actually looking how Congress enacts bills. Typical.

Obama OWNS this deficit more so than Bush ever could and attempting to suggest that this is Bush, well, that would require a significant quantity of kool-aid in my opinion. :rofl
Click to expand...

Did Obama enact TARP? Did he come up with it? How about many of the other spending bills specifically designed to help out the financial sector? How about the trillions in bank loans?

More insults from TD. Nothing new.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
I was referring to the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. I thought that was obvious.
Click to expand...



One of which hasn't existed for 6 or so years and another which never existed.
:thumbs:
 
One of which hasn't existed for 6 or so years and another which never existed.
Click to expand...

Simply because there is a government in Iraq does not mean that the country is not being occupied by the US. The same goes for Afghanistan.
 
Truth Detector said:
Your trite and misguided condescension aside (not sure what brought this on), is John Engler the current Governor? No, he hasn’t been in office since the end of 2002. Are your largest cities in the counties that have such high unemployment NOT run by Democrats and/or Democrat counties?
Click to expand...

You really should not speak out of ignorance. Michigan is a largely divided state, with a strong democratic area in the SE(think Detroit), and a western half that is largely Republican/conservative. This is important because the map I linked for you was of the western area of the state.

Now, onto Engler...let me remind you of what I replied to: "they did elect Democrats for decades to run their Governments". Engler was Governor from 1991 to 2003. 2003 was not even one decade ago, let alone "decades".

Truth Detector said:
This is almost as absurd as suggesting that Arnold is a Republican or even Conservative. But even if he were, even the Terminator cannot stop the senseless spending the Democrats engage in the great State of California; a state that over the last five years had an increase of 40% in revenue and still managed to spend $40 billion more than they could take in.
Click to expand...

And yet this powerless person managed a standstill with the California congress for months...By the way, Schwartzeneger is a republican, he belongs to the republican party. You cannot decide for yourself who really is and is not a republican.

Truth Detector said:
John Engler was Governor from 1991 to 2002. During his tenure unemployment was at 7.6% and dropping. The current Governor who succeeded Engler since 2003 is a Democrat and unemployment is now at 12.6 %.

How trite that you attempt to argue that Democrats are not currently responsible for the current situation in Michigan and how selective of you to attempt to argue it isn’t a Democrat issue.

Political party strength in Michigan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that while governor, Engler and Michigan enjoyed the same boom times that the whole country did under a democratic president, and part of the time, under a democratic US congress. Engler should be thanking the democrats.

Truth is, politics is not to blame for the current problems in Michigan. While deregulation did contribute to the crisis currently, that was a bipartisan effort, and not an excuse for mismanagement by auto makers. The UAW also holds a large portion of the blame...thankfully when the UAW comes calling in this part of the state, most auto suppliers run them off(I was glad to vote no on them twice, and we kept them out of our place).

Truth Detector said:
Gee who was President 28 years ago that exceeded this figure? Want to try again?
Click to expand...

"Worst economy over 6 months in 50 years". I never claimed that there where not economic problems when Carter was president, but that this time it is worse. Feel free to refute that when you get a free moment.

Truth Detector said:
The way you are using your facts and trite condescension apparently is not serving your cause which was? To support Democrats who spend a nation into a $1.8 trillion deficit demagogue the economy for purely political gain.
Click to expand...

I have indicated in this thread, and a number of others, that I am highly concerned about the level of spending this year(and last, and the one before, and going back many years). I stated that comparing the budgets under two different presidents, dealing with two different sets of problems, is misleading.


Truth Detector said:
I'm sorry, when do property values go UP when interest rates are high? Did you study Obamanomics? :rofl

HIGH interest rates equate to LOWER property values/prices. We bought because the new homes that previously we could not afford had dropped in value by over $40,000.00; which in those days was a LOT for those of you studying Obamanomics. (see, two can play your condescension game)
Click to expand...

Historical Census of Housing Tables



One can only laugh at your economic assumptions about inflation rates and interest rates; where the hell did they teach that one? :rofl

Truth Detector said:
You think that a 10% inflation rate, which is essentially the LOSS of buying power is making money on an 8% mortgage with an adjustable rate? Come back and argue when you make more sense and have had time to THINK about what it is you are saying.
Click to expand...

If inflation is at 10 %, and you are making 8 % interest on money, you are losing 2 % buying power.

Truth Detector said:
I see that reading comprehension is also not your forte'; I stated PEAKED at 10%, I didn't claim that it averaged 10%. Unemployment at the end of his term was at 8.5%.
Click to expand...

My reading comprehension lacks? In the table and chart I linked, and that you also link to, unemployment never topped 8 %, let alone reached 10 %. You have yet to show, anywhere, that unemployment under Carter topped 10 %.

[quoteFACT: Unemployment was higher during the Carter years.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
FACT: Inflation was higher during the Carter years.
Historical Inflation data from 1914 to the present
FACT: The term STAGFLATION indicating high unemployment combined with high inflation was coined during the Carter years.
FACT: Mortgage Interest rates were at double digits during the Carter years. History of Interest Rates: MRC
FACT: the OIL crises happened during the Carter years.
FACT: foreign policy under Carter was a joke and led to the Iranian takeover of the US embassy.

FACT: interest rates on homes are the lowest they have been in decades
E-RATE Mortgage Rates History 1980-2008, National Average Mortgage Rates, Federal Finance Housing
FACT: gas prices are as low in current dollars as they have ever been
FACT: inflation is nearly non-existent
Historical Inflation data from 1914 to the present
FACT: unemployment has not peaked past previous downturns.[/quote]

FACT: Unemployment now is worse than under Carter, and continues to get worse...ie, it's going to get even worse than the numbers that are already worse than under Carter.

FACT: I have never claimed that things where not bad economically under Carter. They where. I aid things are worse economically now than then. I have given supporting stats to prove this, which you have yet to disprove.

Truth Detector said:
The notion that the events leading up to Obama’s election are the worst we have had since the depression requires either willful ignorance or willful denial. The REALITY is that things were MUCH worse during the late 70s and early 80s and yet, when Reagan came into office we didn’t see a claim to expand the role of Government and spend us into a monstrous deficit to prop up the economy.

Michigan currently has an unemployment rate of 12.6%. California at 11.2% and quickly gaining thanks to the infestation of idiot Democrats in the State Legislature.

Current Unemployment Rates for States and Historical Highs/Lows

The reality is that things are worse now than under Carter, though it was bad under Carter too. You have yet to show any concrete evidence to suggest otherwise, while I have pointed to a direct statistic showing that the economy has shrunk at rates unseen in 50 years, which is the most direct measure of the economy I know of.

You have also failed to show any evidence, period, of how it is the democrats that caused the economic problems. The economic problems we are suffering through now are a bipartisan problem, caused by actions of democrats and republicans and those not in office. I could play your game, and find all the ways that republicans have contributed to the economic failures and claim that this is all republican fault, but I don't like to play those hyper-partisan games. I will leave those to you.

But hey, give Obama more time; he is going to make the Carter years look like a cake walk.
Click to expand...
 
obvious Child said:
How trite that you attempt to argue that market factors, poor management, horrible quality control measures, over reliance on financing and whole host of factors unrelated to government intervention aren't a play here.
Click to expand...

That's funny, I could have sworn my comments were directed to Redress; are you his mommy?

The notion that the Government had nothing to do with the mortgage meltdown requires serious denial; or a LOT of kool-aid.

But then, Redress and I were talking about Michigan's economy whose meltdown started LONG before the National one.

obvious Child said:
But it's okay when the Republicans doubled the national debt?
Click to expand...

Apparently the ONLY time you care is when it is Republicans. How much do you think the National Debt will increase since the Democrats took over? Oh that's right; you only have issues with Republicans.....carry on.

obvious Child said:
Apparently it's okay if you do it in $500 billion blocks every year, but not okay in a one time lump payment.
Click to expand...

$500 billion blocks every year? Fabricating facts to support your delusions about Republicans again? :rofl

You know Obvious, you would have so much more credibility if you spent half as much time with your selective outrage with Democrats as you do with republicans.

obvious Child said:
For commercial property yes in the computation of NOI for valuation purposes. Not necessary residential though.
Click to expand...

The notion that interest rates do NOT affect Residential Property prices requires some willful denial or an incredible lack of facts. Why don't you ask an expert if you don't believe me?

But again, the last time I looked, my comments were not directed to you were they? Funny how you choose to selectively interject your uninformed views into OTHERS debates and discussions.

I tend to make it a point to avoid your whiney immature rants as often as I can, why can't you do me the same courtesy?

:2wave:
 
Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Forget fuzzy math, what about your fuzzy logic? What fuzzy logic does it take to suggest that Obama had NOTHING to do with the monstrous deficits now? Last time I looked the Democrats were in control of the purse strings since 2006 and Obama himself was in FULL support mode of EVERY spending bill that got us where we are today.
obvious Child said:
Apparently 2001-2005 doesn't matter to you.

Federal Deficit

Which shows that during the 2001-2005 period, the majority of the deficits were inflicted. While the Democrats of course continued the trend, your argument that they are solely to blame is absolute crap.
Click to expand...

WTF does the budget deficit from 2001 to 2005 have to do with ANYTHING being stated here? ZERO Nada.

FACT: The Federal deficit in 2006 was in decline and at $162 billion.
Congressional Budget Office - Historical Budget Data
FACT: The Federal deficit since Democrats took over is estimated at $1.7 trillion plus.

I don't need to make this stuff up, READ it for yourself.

FACT: From 1970 until the Republicans took over the Congress in 1992, the Democrats ran up deficits; the Republicans controlled Congress in 1995 balanced the Budget after almost FOUR decades.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf

FACT: during Republican control of Congress the National Debt increased by 2.9% as a percentage of GDP. Before that, in the four decades the Democrats controlled Congress, it increased by 51.2% as a percentage of GDP and since Democrats took over in 2006 it has increased by 2.9% as a percentage of GDP.

Go look at the FACTUAL data; this is hardly a Republican idea, yet you want to make it one when of the last six decades, Republicans have only had control congress for 12 short years and part of those years saw Democrats still in control of the Senate. What level of willful denial does it take to suggest that Republicans are being fiscally irresponsible in the face of what Democrats have already done since 2006?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/sheets/hist07z1.xls

Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Whatever happened to pay as you go and fiscal responsibility?
obvious Child said:
That would be the Clinton era. Which is long gone.
Click to expand...

What blatant denial do you wallow in? Pelosi and the current Democrat leadership railed about this during the 2004, 2006 and 2008 campaigns; were you asleep during that time…again?

Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
This "fuzzy" logic about inheriting the deficit ONLY works if the President had been OUTSIDE Washington and had NOTHING to do with voting and arguing FOR the spending bills.
obvious Child said:
I like how you argue that one person is responsible for this mess rather than actually looking how Congress enacts bills. Typical.
Click to expand...

What an ironic statement coming from someone who fabricates his own version of others arguments in a desperate effort to defend the indefensible.

But alas, this rant comes from someone who interjects himself into debates with little comprehension of what is stated, selectively argues in an incoherent fashion purely for the sake of arguing and rails about the fiscal irresponsibility of Republicans and Bush but is completely silent on the even greater irresponsibility of Democrats; but the greatest irony of all is the notion you are not just another uninformed Liberal who fabricates your own version of reality.

Yes, the irony of your statements are not lost on me as I watch you desperately assailing Republicans “perceived” fiscal mismanagement, yet willfully ignoring or desperately defending the gross and almost criminally negligent fiscal mismanagement of Democrats.

Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Obama OWNS this deficit more so than Bush ever could and attempting to suggest that this is Bush, well, that would require a significant quantity of kool-aid in my opinion.

obvious Child said:
Did Obama enact TARP? Did he come up with it? How about many of the other spending bills specifically designed to help out the financial sector? How about the trillions in bank loans?
Click to expand...

Obama argued FOR Tarp and VOTED FOR Tarp; Obama voted FOR all the other idiotic financial bailouts we have seen passed. Your desperate and illogical assertions aside, what part of VOTING and debating FOR a bill do you NOT get?

Your desperate desire to suggest that Obama had NOTHING to do with the current deficit mess is about as inane as many of your other typical uniformed whiney rants that you tend to interject yourself into and then when you get bitch slapped, run to the basement to complain.

You live in a parallel universe that is more for Liberal talking points than reasoned factual and coherent arguments.

obvious Child said:
More insults from TD. Nothing new.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, once more the selective outrage and ignoring when others are condescending? But then, this is hardly new coming from you and your typical whiney rants and dramatic proclamations about hyper partisanship and insults.

Give us all a break and get a new hobby; your spiel is tiresome.
 
Truth Detector said:
That's funny, I could have sworn my comments were directed to Redress; are you his mommy?
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware there was a rule on pointing out sheer idiocy. Could you direct me to it?

But then, Redress and I were talking about Michigan's economy whose meltdown started LONG before the National one.
Click to expand...

Except you were discussing the auto industry and blaming the Democrats for the problems rather than, oh, you know, the business decisions.

I really don't want you as a consultant. Someone who cannot even understand that there are success and risk factors is not a someone that should be spoken to in the context of a business.

Apparently the ONLY time you care is when it is Republicans.
Click to expand...

If that lie makes it easier for you to sleep at night, sure, believe it.

How much do you think the National Debt will increase since the Democrats took over? Oh that's right; you only have issues with Republicans.....carry on.
Click to expand...

Plenty. If you bothered to read my other post which predates your response, you'd know that. But you'd rather just lie about what I actually believe then deal with what I wrote.

$500 billion blocks every year? Fabricating facts to support your delusions about Republicans again? :rofl
Click to expand...

Federal Deficit

Huh. Looks like $500 billion per year averaged. Facts. The antidote to TD.

The notion that interest rates do NOT affect Residential Property prices requires some willful denial or an incredible lack of facts. Why don't you ask an expert if you don't believe me?
Click to expand...

Residential property is far more affected by supply and demand. While interest rates do factor in to loans to purchase them, there isn't clear data like there is for commercial property. Commercial, as I suspect you know, is based on valuations off of NOI. That does not exist for residential.

I tend to make it a point to avoid your whiney immature rants as often as I can, why can't you do me the same courtesy?

:2wave:
Click to expand...

Aww, you admitted your comments are "your whiney immature rants."

Thanks. LOL.
 
Truth Detector said:
Forget fuzzy math, what about your fuzzy logic? What fuzzy logic does it take to suggest that Obama had NOTHING to do with the monstrous deficits now?
Click to expand...

Where did I say nothing? Or are you again lying? I can see why few respond to you. Most can't stomach your factory of endless lies.

Last time I looked the Democrats were in control of the purse strings since 2006 and Obama himself was in FULL support mode of EVERY spending bill that got us where we are today.
Click to expand...

And yet who's program was it? Not to mention that Democrat control of Congress was relatively weak at best in 2006, unlike now. Trying to blame the Democrats for this entirely is ludicrous.

WTF does the budget deficit from 2001 to 2005 have to do with ANYTHING being stated here? ZERO Nada.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true partisan. Never mind the use of it to show just how partisan you are.

I don't need to make this stuff up, READ it for yourself.
Click to expand...

But you did call the CBO worthless and that it cannot analyze or predict anything well.

Interestingly, in 2007, when the Democrats took over, the budget deficit slimmed down even more.

the Republicans controlled Congress in 1995 balanced the Budget after almost FOUR decades.
Click to expand...

LOL. This is how I know you don't have a finance or accounting degree. The federal budget has never, ever, ever come close to ever being balanced for one simple reason: off balance sheet financing. Clinton's alleged surplus was fake because it did not take into account spending on things like the Postal service. Someone who understood financing and accounting would know this. Hence, you're a liar.

FACT: during Republican control of Congress the National Debt increased by 2.9% as a percentage of GDP. Before that, in the four decades the Democrats controlled Congress, it increased by 51.2% as a percentage of GDP and since Democrats took over in 2006 it has increased by 2.9% as a percentage of GDP.
Click to expand...

Hey, TD, what is 51.2/40 years?

Is that more or less than 2.9%? I realize you think .003% is a majority, but humor me.

What level of willful denial does it take to suggest that Republicans are being fiscally irresponsible in the face of what Democrats have already done since 2006?
Click to expand...

in the face of? I never said that either party was respectable in financing. In fact I have several threads and many posts calling both parties horrible. Again it's easier for you to lie than to deal with the facts. Both parties are fiscally irresponsible. Again, you'll pretend I never said that because lying is easier for you.

What blatant denial do you wallow in? Pelosi and the current Democrat leadership railed about this during the 2004, 2006 and 2008 campaigns; were you asleep during that time…again?
Click to expand...

Railed about what? Clinton's fiscal responsibility? What ARE you talking about?
e.

Yes, the irony of your statements are not lost on me as I watch you desperately assailing Republicans “perceived” fiscal mismanagement, yet willfully ignoring or desperately defending the gross and almost criminally negligent fiscal mismanagement of Democrats.
Click to expand...

Never mind my posts doing just the opposite. Let's pretend they don't exist. Let's just assume whatever we want about people and attack them on fabrications of our design.

Do you really think anyone takes you seriously when you never stop lying?
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Simply because there is a government in Iraq does not mean that the country is not being occupied by the US. The same goes for Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

There is fact then there is fiction.
Simply because you have chosen to rely on fiction does not mean I'm going to.
Its rhetoric based on nothing and its pretty clear you know that.

Iraq was occupied for about a year or so. Afghanistan was never occupied.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Actually, its worse than nothing if he doesn't keep his promise. He has broken a few of those already, so what makes you think he will keep this one?
Click to expand...

I don't recall saying he would. In fact, I doubt he will but unlike others here, I won't give up all hope just because they say I should.

This thread is filled with one-sided data and personal opinion, mostly devoid of facts. I prefer measured discussion on an issue whenever possible. We can all agree Obama sucks horribly as many times as we want, but what good does it do, really?

I'd also argue that those quick to condemn his actions are talking out their ass - I mean, how many of them can honestly state they are experts on the economy? I'd bet few, if any.

I've posted numerous times asking folks to post a link that supports the efficacy of conservative economics as opposed to what's happening now, and I've still not seen anything that remotely supports their stance. It's fine to take a strong stance on an issue - but seriously, put your money where your mouth is.

I'm not an expert, which is why I'm taking a wait and see approach.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom