• 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 State of the Union

Actually most of it is replenishment of inventory and the growth in govt. spending on things such as first time home buyer credits. There was no net gain in revenue to the govt. because there was no real job creation or private sector economic growth. I did not see Cramer so not sure what he said.

From the link it looks like the jobless rate fell to 9.7 in January and it kinda looks like it will be dropping to 9.5,at least that’s what their projecting for February.
Go to bea.gov, Gross Domestic Product, interactive tables, Frequently Requested tables, GDP. See where the growth occurred.

This economic growth was a mirage and unsustainable. If he doesn't do something to get the private sector moving all that gain will sink in a hurry. Obama economic plan is focused on growth of govt. not growth of the private sector where the real jobs are created.

Looks like you have your crystal ball fixed eh? :roll:

<. Payrolls fell by 20,000 last month after a 150,000 drop in December.>

<Unemployment is projected to end the year at 9.5 percent, according to a Bloomberg survey.>

<In other areas of the economy, today’s report showed a smaller trade deficit, which contributed 0.3 percentage point to fourth-quarter growth. Government spending fell at a 1.2 percent pace after a 2.6 percent increase the previous quarter.>
 
donc;1058588924]
From the link it looks like the jobless rate fell to 9.7 in January and it kinda looks like it will be dropping to 9.5,at least that’s what their projecting for February.

Yep, that is what it looks like but the bureau of labor statistics paints a different picture. It provides the number of discouraged workers or individuals who have dropped out of the labor market. The 9.7% unemployment number isn't real and it is more like 16%. There are still 15 million Americans unemployed.

Looks like you have your crystal ball fixed eh? :roll:

<. Payrolls fell by 20,000 last month after a 150,000 drop in December.>

<Unemployment is projected to end the year at 9.5 percent, according to a Bloomberg survey.>

So after a year and a 800 plus billion stimulus program the unemployment rate is still close to 10%? You call that a good thing?

<In other areas of the economy, today’s report showed a smaller trade deficit, which contributed 0.3 percentage point to fourth-quarter growth. Government spending fell at a 1.2 percent pace after a 2.6 percent increase the previous quarter.>

I understand your desire to make the economy look better than it is but the reality just doesn't support your point of view. The right economic policy would have had us out of this mess by now. The majority in this country just do not share your enthusiasm and the facts actually support that negative point of view.
 
donc;1058588924]

Yep, that is what it looks like but the bureau of labor statistics paints a different picture. It provides the number of discouraged workers or individuals who have dropped out of the labor market. The 9.7% unemployment number isn't real and it is more like 16%. There are still 15 million Americans unemployed.

Hhmm…kinda looks like 170,000 thousand of those discouraged workers found employment doesn’t it?:2wave:

<<. Payrolls fell by 20,000 last month after a 150,000 drop in December.>



So after a year and a 800 plus billion stimulus program the unemployment rate is still close to 10%? You call that a good thing?

It looks like its going in the right direction for a change. Why do you hate it when the economy starts is picking up and your fellow Americans get back to work? :(



I understand your desire to make the economy look better than it is but the reality just doesn't support your point of view. The right economic policy would have had us out of this mess by now. The majority in this country just do not share your enthusiasm and the facts actually support that negative point of view.

When all else fails, bloviate. :rofl
 
From the link it looks like the jobless rate fell to 9.7 in January and it kinda looks like it will be dropping to 9.5,at least that’s what their projecting for February.


Looks like you have your crystal ball fixed eh? :roll:

<. Payrolls fell by 20,000 last month after a 150,000 drop in December.>

<Unemployment is projected to end the year at 9.5 percent, according to a Bloomberg survey.>

<In other areas of the economy, today’s report showed a smaller trade deficit, which contributed 0.3 percentage point to fourth-quarter growth. Government spending fell at a 1.2 percent pace after a 2.6 percent increase the previous quarter.>

You have selective data.

FOXNews.com - Employers Took 1, 761 Mass Layoffs in January


Employers made 1, 761 mass layoffs in January, according to data released Tuesday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

January marks the first month-to-month increase in the number of mass layoffs since August 2009, indicating a grim employment forecast for Americans on the job hunt.

Monthly mass layoff numbers are from establishments which have at least 50 initial claims for unemployment insurance filed against them during a 5-week period.
 
Hhmm…kinda looks like 170,000 thousand of those discouraged workers found employment doesn’t it?:2wave:

<<. Payrolls fell by 20,000 last month after a 150,000 drop in December.>





It looks like its going in the right direction for a change. Why do you hate it when the economy starts is picking up and your fellow Americans get back to work? :(





When all else fails, bloviate. :rofl

Nothing ever is going to change the mind of an ideologue. Only a true liberal believes that people dropping out of the labor market which makes the unemployment numbers look better is a good thing.
 
Hhmm…kinda looks like 170,000 thousand of those discouraged workers found employment doesn’t it?:2wave:

<<. Payrolls fell by 20,000 last month after a 150,000 drop in December.>





It looks like its going in the right direction for a change. Why do you hate it when the economy starts is picking up and your fellow Americans get back to work? :(





When all else fails, bloviate. :rofl

When all else fails you divert from the issues raised. Anyone that believes 15 million unemployed Americans and 9.7% unemployment rate is an improvement has no understanding of our economy, no sense of logic, common sense, and reality.

Donc, wouldn't you expect some kind of improvement in unemployment after billions and billions of dollars spent yet the true numbers don't show much of an improvement?

Our economy wasn't built on the principles of Obama, it was built on a private sector economy. Obama doesn't have a clue and quite frankly is incompetent when it comes to his economic understanding. Seems to me that his supporters lack an understanding as well.
 
When all else fails you divert from the issues raised. Anyone that believes 15 million unemployed Americans and 9.7% unemployment rate is an improvement has no understanding of our economy, no sense of logic, common sense, and reality.

Donc, wouldn't you expect some kind of improvement in unemployment after billions and billions of dollars spent yet the true numbers don't show much of an improvement?

Our economy wasn't built on the principles of Obama, it was built on a private sector economy. Obama doesn't have a clue and quite frankly is incompetent when it comes to his economic understanding. Seems to me that his supporters lack an understanding as well.


When Obama took office the unemployment rate was 7.6%, it peaked at 10% now it is at 9.7%,kinda looks to me that number is going in the right direction, especially when you consider that in Dec of 09,we dropped 150,000 jobs, a month later it was a 20,000 job loss. The optimist in me sees a net gain of 120,000 jobs; add to that a shrinking deficient, what’s not to like about that report.

Oh s***, I forgot who I was talking to, the doom and gloomer from the lone star, the person that wants the economy to fail for…well.. the only thing I can think of is ideological reasons. Perhaps he is a long time devotee of ("I hope Obama fails" ) rush. So sad, when someone gets so caught up in their ideological differences that they hope and pray for their President to fail and therefore the country to fail as well.
 
donc;1058589434]
When Obama took office the unemployment rate was 7.6%, it peaked at 10% now it is at 9.7%,kinda looks to me that number is going in the right direction, especially when you consider that in Dec of 09,we dropped 150,000 jobs, a month later it was a 20,000 job loss. The optimist in me sees a net gain of 120,000 jobs; add to that a shrinking deficient, what’s not to like about that report.

What shrinking deficit? Are there ever any consequences in your world? You just don't think beyond the moment. What Obama is doing is unsustainable and will create massive inflation that most people will never be able to handle. The tax increase to cover his spending will destroy a lot of lives.

Deficit in 2009 was over 1.4 trillion, 2010 it is projected at 1.6 trillion so where is the decrease in deficit? Where is the decrease in unemployment as more than 15 million are unemployed compared to the 12 million when he took office.

You and the rest of the Obama supporters don't get it and never will. Your live for today attitude never addresses the consequences of that economic policy.

Oh s***, I forgot who I was talking to, the doom and gloomer from the lone star, the person that wants the economy to fail for…well.. the only thing I can think of is ideological reasons. Perhaps he is a long time devotee of ("I hope Obama fails" ) rush. So sad, when someone gets so caught up in their ideological differences that they hope and pray for their President to fail and therefore the country to fail as well.

I do indeed hope Obama fails based upon the economic policy he is implementing. It is impossible to sustain what he is doing and pay for all his spending. It isn't gloom and doom, it is reality.

You and your ilk simply do not understand the ramifications of what he is doing and simply do not understand how to service that debt. Soon the interest on the debt will exceed the entire defense budget. How does that make you feel?
 
quote Conservative

What shrinking deficit? Are there ever any consequences in your world? You just don't think beyond the moment. What Obama is doing is unsustainable and will create massive inflation that most people will never be able to handle. The tax increase to cover his spending will destroy a lot of lives.

Deficit in 2009 was over 1.4 trillion, 2010 it is projected at 1.6 trillion so where is the decrease in deficit? Where is the decrease in unemployment as more than 15 million are unemployed compared to the 12 million when he took office.

You and the rest of the Obama supporters don't get it and never will. Your live for today attitude never addresses the consequences of that economic policy.



I do indeed hope Obama fails based upon the economic policy he is implementing. It is impossible to sustain what he is doing and pay for all his spending. It isn't gloom and doom, it is reality.

You and your ilk simply do not understand the ramifications of what he is doing and simply do not understand how to service that debt. Soon the interest on the debt will exceed the entire defense budget. How does that make you feel?



It’s odd that you’re shrieking about a record deficit while conveniently forgetting that Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit from the previous misadministration. As for your question. “What shrinking deficit?

Here ya go; enjoy. :2wave:

< In other areas of the economy, today’s report showed a smaller trade deficit, which contributed 0.3-percentage point to fourth-quarter growth. >

BEA National Economic Accounts
 
=donc;1058589741]It’s odd that you’re shrieking about a record deficit while conveniently forgetting that Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit from the previous misadministration. As for your question. “What shrinking deficit?

Here ya go; enjoy. :2wave:

< In other areas of the economy, today’s report showed a smaller trade deficit, which contributed 0.3-percentage point to fourth-quarter growth. >

BEA National Economic Accounts

You are kidding, right? You really aren't that poorly informed? Stop posting data that you do not understand.

I have posted over and over again but obviously the Obama cult is incapable of understanding reality. Let's try again.

Deficits are yearly, debt is cumulative. Ok so far?

Fiscal year of the U.S. is October to September so fiscal year 2009 ran from October 1, 2008 to Sept. 30, 2009. With me so far?

GW Bush submitted the 2009 budget and there wasn't a 1.3 trillion deficit in that budget but then came TARP, the 700 billion bank bailout. That had to be added to the deficit but Bush didn't spend all of TARP. He spent 350 billion and left 350 billion for Obama. With me so far?

Bush Budget had to be approved by Congress of which Obama was part of. Obama voted FOR all the Bush spending including the TARP funding. I guess only in the liberal world do you vote for something but take no responsibility for it. Is that right?

Anyway a little off on a tangent. Bush was in office from Oct. to January 20, 2009. Obama ran on the premise that he would go through the budget line by line and remove unnecessary spending and that would include the budget he started office under.

There is no way that Bush created a 1.3 trillion deficit in 4 months. Still with me? Obama not only kept the Bush budget but added to it. Remember the 800+ billion Stimulus Plan that Obama signed in February? Where did that deficit go and whose was it? How about the GM/Chrysler bailout? Did GW Bush have anything to do with that? That spending was added to the fiscal year 2009 deficit thus it is intellectual dishonesty to claim that deficit is Bush's and thus it is a lie that it was the Bush deficit as it was the Bush/Obama/and Congressional deficit. Can you admit that?

Ok, then comes fiscal year 2010 when Bush was back in TX, out of office. The Obama budget which Bush had nothing to do with is projected to have a 1.6trillion dollar deficit for fiscal year 2010 which is from Oct. 1, 2009 to Sept. 30, 2010. Then Obama submitted the 2011 budget which has a 1.3 trillion deficit and again Bush had nothing to do with it.

So you can blame Bush and ignore Obama's deficits but to do so shows you to be the partisan Obama cult follower that you are.
 
It’s odd that you’re shrieking about a record deficit while conveniently forgetting that Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit from the previous misadministration. As for your question. “What shrinking deficit?

Here ya go; enjoy. :2wave:

< In other areas of the economy, today’s report showed a smaller trade deficit, which contributed 0.3-percentage point to fourth-quarter growth. >

BEA National Economic Accounts

Please stop embarrassing yourself. the Trade deficit is larger not smaller in the fourth qtr and that reduces the GDP not increases it. That so called 5.9% increase in GDP is all about govt. spending which is unsustainable. The private sector is sitting this recession out and that isn't good news for Obama or this country.
 
[QUOTE Conservative;

You are kidding, right? You really aren't that poorly informed? Stop posting data that you do not understand.

I have posted over and over again but obviously the Obama cult is incapable of understanding reality. Let's try again.

Deficits are yearly, debt is cumulative. Ok so far?

Fiscal year of the U.S. is October to September so fiscal year 2009 ran from October 1, 2008 to Sept. 30, 2009. With me so far?

GW Bush submitted the 2009 budget and there wasn't a 1.3 trillion deficit in that budget but then came TARP, the 700 billion bank bailout. That had to be added to the deficit but Bush didn't spend all of TARP. He spent 350 billion and left 350 billion for Obama. With me so far?

Bush Budget had to be approved by Congress of which Obama was part of. Obama voted FOR all the Bush spending including the TARP funding. I guess only in the liberal world do you vote for something but take no responsibility for it. Is that right?

Anyway a little off on a tangent. Bush was in office from Oct. to January 20, 2009. Obama ran on the premise that he would go through the budget line by line and remove unnecessary spending and that would include the budget he started office under.

There is no way that Bush created a 1.3 trillion deficit in 4 months. Still with me? Obama not only kept the Bush budget but added to it. Remember the 800+ billion Stimulus Plan that Obama signed in February? Where did that deficit go and whose was it? How about the GM/Chrysler bailout? Did GW Bush have anything to do with that? That spending was added to the fiscal year 2009 deficit thus it is intellectual dishonesty to claim that deficit is Bush's and thus it is a lie that it was the Bush deficit as it was the Bush/Obama/and Congressional deficit. Can you admit that?

Ok, then comes fiscal year 2010 when Bush was back in TX, out of office. The Obama budget which Bush had nothing to do with is projected to have a 1.6trillion dollar deficit for fiscal year 2010 which is from Oct. 1, 2009 to Sept. 30, 2010. Then Obama submitted the 2011 budget which has a 1.3 trillion deficit and again Bush had nothing to do with it.

So you can blame Bush and ignore Obama's deficits but to do so shows you to be the partisan Obama cult follower that you are.

Oh god, here comes the Bull S***and hoping to pass up pure lies with more bs. It doesn’t take a whole of understanding of data to take a calculator and figure this is pure s***. Hell, even a truck driver managed to do it between sips out of his coffee mug. Note the bolded part.

< The federal government recorded a total budget deficit of $1.4 trillion in fiscal year 2009, about $960 billion more than the deficit incurred in 2008. The federal deficit rose as a share of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) from 3.1 percent in 2008 to 9.9 percent in 2009—the highest deficit as a share of GDP since 1945.>

Monthly Budget Review
 
Oh god, here comes the Bull S***and hoping to pass up pure lies with more bs. It doesn’t take a whole of understanding of data to take a calculator and figure this is pure s***. Hell, even a truck driver managed to do it between sips out of his coffee mug. Note the bolded part.

< The federal government recorded a total budget deficit of $1.4 trillion in fiscal year 2009, about $960 billion more than the deficit incurred in 2008. The federal deficit rose as a share of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) from 3.1 percent in 2008 to 9.9 percent in 2009—the highest deficit as a share of GDP since 1945.>

Monthly Budget Review

Uh, yeah, no one is disputing that, what I proved to you was that it was the Bush/Obama deficit thus he inherited his own deficit and is making it worse in 2010. Where is the outrage?

Are you drinking this early because it appears that you are having a problem with comprehension.
 
Oh god, here comes the Bull S***and hoping to pass up pure lies with more bs. It doesn’t take a whole of understanding of data to take a calculator and figure this is pure s***. Hell, even a truck driver managed to do it between sips out of his coffee mug. Note the bolded part.

< The federal government recorded a total budget deficit of $1.4 trillion in fiscal year 2009, about $960 billion more than the deficit incurred in 2008. The federal deficit rose as a share of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) from 3.1 percent in 2008 to 9.9 percent in 2009—the highest deficit as a share of GDP since 1945.>

Monthly Budget Review

What happened, Donc, did the lightbulb go off in your head? "by God he has a point there and got it right?" Wonder how someone inherited something that he helped create?

Stop being a cheerleader for what Obama is doing and recognize that there is no way his economic policy makes any sense and can be paid for long term. that is what is a failure, that economic policy is what I want to fail for there is no way this country can pay for the debt it is creating and the fall will be greater than any short term gain.
 
Uh, yeah, no one is disputing that, what I proved to you was that it was the Bush/Obama deficit thus he inherited his own deficit and is making it worse in 2010. Where is the outrage?

Are you drinking this early because it appears that you are having a problem with comprehension.

You haven't proven anything,except you inability to use a calculator.Try deducting $960 billion,from $1.4 trillion,that will get you into the ballpark of the deficit that was on Obamas desk the day he was sworn in.
 
You haven't proven anything,except you inability to use a calculator.Try deducting $960 billion,from $1.4 trillion,that will get you into the ballpark of the deficit that was on Obamas desk the day he was sworn in.

LOL, I call people like you hopeless. You really need to take a civics class. The President doesn't spend a dime without the Congressional approval and Congress approved the Bush spending and Obama voted for that spending. You cannot blame someone else for a deficit that you helped create.

Don't know what you do for a living if anything but you really need to learn to think instead of feeling.

There was absolutely nothing preventing Obama from asking Congress to cut the budget and there was nothing to prevent Obama from putting the payback of the TARP money back into the treasury to reduce the deficit.

Further it is absolutely impossible for Bush to spend enough money in 3 1/2 months to create the 960 billion deficit you want to blame Bush for.

Also, nice diversion, but the fiscal year 2010 deficit is projected to be 1.6 trillion and that is all Obama's and the Congress's. Stop buying the Obama rhetoric as it makes you look foolish.
 
QUOTE=ConservativeYou really need to take a civics class. The President doesn't spend a dime without the Congressional approval and Congress approved the Bush spending and Obama voted for that spending. You cannot blame someone else for a deficit that you helped create.

Where was the veto?:confused:



There was absolutely nothing preventing Obama from asking Congress to cut the budget and there was nothing to prevent Obama from putting the payback of the TARP money back into the treasury to reduce the deficit.

I guess he was worrying about the bush depression.

Further it is absolutely impossible for Bush to spend enough money in 3 1/2 months to create the 960 billion deficit you want to blame Bush for.

No, you got it all wrong, I put that $960 billion on Obama, the $13 trill is what was left over from eight years of ineptitude. What I want to get straight is that the wingers keep putting out bull s*** like this, on Obamas one year in office. This is a shared deficit/debt (eight years bush$13 TRILL) Obama is working on his legacy now. All of a sudden the wingers have discovered fiscal responsibility, the height of hypocrisy.

Also, nice diversion, but the fiscal year 2010 deficit is projected to be 1.6 trillion and that is all Obama's and the Congress's. Stop buying the Obama rhetoric as it makes you look foolish.

You’re the only one that keeps trying to divert on a thread that has already been derailed from its original intent. Who knows, this thread might be here for the next state of the union.
 
donc;1058590251]Where was the veto?:confused:
What veto, Bush was in office from October 1, 2008 to January 20, 2009. What did you want him to veto?

Where was Obama's line by line cutting of the budget after he took office? Are you one of those that hasn't a clue how business works? A budget is a guideline and can be cut at any time. Where were the Obama budget cuts?




I guess he was worrying about the bush depression.

What Bush depression and what legislation did Bush generate that caused the financial meltdown? You seem to have a very distorted view of reality. Congress is an equal branch of govt. Obama was part of that Congress but it is easier to place blame on Bush instead of admitting you screwed up in voting for Obama.



No, you got it all wrong, I put that $960 billion on Obama, the $13 trill is what was left over from eight years of ineptitude. What I want to get straight is that the wingers keep putting out bull s*** like this, on Obamas one year in office. This is a shared deficit/debt (eight years bush$13 TRILL) Obama is working on his legacy now. All of a sudden the wingers have discovered fiscal responsibility, the height of hypocrisy.

When Bush took office the debt was 5.6 trillion and when he left it was over 10 trillion. Where do you get your 13 trillion dollars. In his first budget Obama created more debt than Reagan did in 8 years and in 3 years Obama will match the Bush debt for 8 years. You need to wake up.



You’re the only one that keeps trying to divert on a thread that has already been derailed from its original intent. Who knows, this thread might be here for the next state of the union

this thread is about Obama and the state of the Union. You and your ilk want to blame Bush but ignore the fact that Congress was under Obama and Democrat control since January 2007. The recession began in December 2007. Obama has made it worse, not better as 15 million Americans will atest. You need to wake up because all I see here is an Obama lapdog out of touch with reality.
 
QUOTE=Conservative

What veto, Bush was in office from October 1, 2008 to January 20, 2009. What did you want him to veto?

Where was Obama's line by line cutting of the budget after he took office? Are you one of those that hasn't a clue how business works? A budget is a guideline and can be cut at any time. Where were the Obama budget cuts?

Hhm …better take some memory meds, it seems your forgetting what you post.

From post #866
<. The President doesn't spend a dime without the Congressional approval and Congress approved the Bush spending and Obama voted for that spending. You cannot blame someone else for a deficit that you helped create. >

Why didn’t he veto some of the almost $11 trillion debt he handed Obama? Instead he kept the veto stamp in his back pocket and let the Medicare Part D gift to big Pharma and its $3.5 trillion unfounded tab pass on to the next President. Of course we can’t forget about the $2.5 trillions tax-cuts (while engaged in two wars).

What Bush depression and what legislation did Bush generate that caused the financial meltdown? You seem to have a very distorted view of reality. Congress is an equal branch of govt. Obama was part of that Congress but it is easier to place blame on Bush instead of admitting you screwed up in voting for Obama.

This is rich, in your first sentence your implying that a President doesn’t have s*** to do when a depression/recession starts on his watch, while in the same post,last sentance blame a junior senator(Obama) from Illinois for being part of the congress that didn’t stop some of the s***. :rofl



When Bush took office the debt was 5.6 trillion and when he left it was over 10 trillion. Where do you get your 13 trillion dollars. In his first budget Obama created more debt than Reagan did in 8 years and in 3 years Obama will match the Bush debt for 8 years. You need to wake up.

Here’s a start. Not only did bush leave office with a needless war, that cost not only lives of Americas finest, but at a cost of $12 bill per month, a goodly part of it into the coffers of the military industrial complex.

He handed Obama the tab for an unfunded Medicare Part D and its $3.5 billion dead-weight annual loss. Then you add in the fact that the median income declined of 4.2 per cent during bushes eight years in office.

Hhmm…kinda makes one wonder it there was another President that had that dubious honor doesn’t it?

Yea, I don’t have to even take out my calculator to come up with $13 trill; just find any numbers that aren’t from “the onion” and start adding.





this thread is about Obama and the state of the Union.

Yet you keep derailing it. :roll:


You and your ilk want to blame Bush but ignore the fact that Congress was under Obama and Democrat control since January 2007.

us ilks have a nasty habit of putting the blame where it rightfully belongs. :2wave:

The recession began in December 2007. Obama has made it worse, not better as 15 million Americans will atest. You need to wake up because all I see here is an Obama lapdog out of touch with reality.

The seeds of it go back to the time that the republican had control…again an unnecessary war that cost $12 bill a month while taking $2.5 trillions out of the economy with tax-cuts.
 
Last edited:
donc;1058591670]Hhm …better take some memory meds, it seems your forgetting what you post.



Why didn’t he veto some of the almost $11 trillion debt he handed Obama? Instead he kept the veto stamp in his back pocket and let the Medicare Part D gift to big Pharma and its $3.5 trillion unfounded tab pass on to the next President. Of course we can’t forget about the $2.5 trillions tax-cuts (while engaged in two wars).

It really serves no purpose to discuss issues with those that lack the basic understanding of debt and deficits nor how our economy works. Debt is cumulative and deficit is yearly. Bush inherited a 5.6 trillion debt and added 5 trillion to it. Included in that debt was the cost of 9/11, Hurricane's Katrina, Floyd, Rita, and Ike which is over a trillion of that debt. The cost of the wars were 100 billion per year according to the GAO so go back to school and get an education on how to do research. You now want to blame Bush for the debt he inherited?


This is rich, in your first sentence your implying that a President doesn’t have s*** to do when a depression/recession starts on his watch, while in the same post,last sentance blame a junior senator(Obama) from Illinois for being part of the congress that didn’t stop some of the s***. :rofl

That "Junior" Senator was running for President and that "junion" Senator was part of the Democrat Majority that controlled Congress. Congress is an equal branch of the govt. thus is responsible just like the President for any deficits. Please get a civics education.



Here’s a start. Not only did bush leave office with a needless war, that cost not only lives of Americas finest, but at a cost of $12 bill per month, a goodly part of it into the coffers of the military industrial complex.

He handed Obama the tab for an unfunded Medicare Part D and its $3.5 billion dead-weight annual loss. Then you add in the fact that the median income declined of 4.2 per cent during bushes eight years in office.

LOL, nice revisionist history and again something that diverts from my post. what has the cost of the Medicare Part B program been? Not sure where you get your information but Moveon.org would be proud as most of the information you post is false.

Hhmm…kinda makes one wonder it there was another President that had that dubious honor doesn’t it?

Actually if I were you I would be embarrassed about posting lies, distortions, and diversions. Have you no pride?

Yea, I don’t have to even take out my calculator to come up with $13 trill; just find any numbers that aren’t from “the onion” and start adding.

Stop making a fool out of yourself. BEA.govt, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury site shows different data that yours and those are the official sites. You really need to get a clue.


The seeds of it go back to the time that the republican had control…again an unnecessary war that cost $12 bill a month while taking $2.5 trillions out of the economy with tax-cuts.

I suggest you actually get data from non partisan sites. It would make you look smarter than you do by posting the false information you are posting.

Those waves you are posting are actually waves to all those brain cells that have left your head.
 
Conservative

It really serves no purpose to discuss issues with those that lack the basic understanding of debt and deficits nor how our economy works. Debt is cumulative and deficit is yearly. Bush inherited a 5.6 trillion debt and added 5 trillion to it. Included in that debt was the cost of 9/11, Hurricane's Katrina, Floyd, Rita, and Ike which is over a trillion of that debt. The cost of the wars were 100 billion per year according to the GAO so go back to school and get an education on how to do research. You now want to blame Bush for the debt he inherited?

You just posted a load of s*** didn’t you? Bush didn’t pay a f***** bill in the eight years of his Presidency. He added more debt than any administration… EVER. When he took office the national debt was a tad over five trillion dollars, when he and five deferments left , it was 11 and a half trillion dollars.

Lets take Katrina as the starting point on this load of BS. According to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell statement on Friday, February 27th, 2009 in a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference Katrina cost $132 billion. Then you have Hurricane ike costing $22 Billion, Rita rings in at $11.3 billion. I saved the biggist load of s*** for desert….Floyd dear old Floyd,made landfall in North Carolina on Thursday, September 16, 1999, 6:30am.Guess who was in the oval office chasing little fat interns around at that time?How on the hell can you can you say that $165 equls a half a trillinon? And as for as your BS on the cost of war, I got news for you once, the cost of Veterans benefits are factored you haven’t touched anything yet. Forty years and I’m still sucking at the VA tit.



That "Junior" Senator was running for President and that "junion" Senator was part of the Democrat Majority that controlled Congress. Congress is an equal branch of the govt. thus is responsible just like the President for any deficits. Please get a civics education.

You still haven’t explained why bush didn’t use his veto for any legislation that he didn’t approve of. :confused:



LOL, nice revisionist history and again something that diverts from my post. what has the cost of the Medicare Part B program been? Not sure where you get your information but Moveon.org would be proud as most of the information you post is false.

I’m pretty proud of my source and its not move-on can you say the same about yours? Can you show me any source that says that Medicare Part D was funded?


Actually if I were you I would be embarrassed about posting lies, distortions, and diversions. Have you no pride?

Hurricane Floyd.:rofl

Stop making a fool out of yourself. BEA.govt, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury site shows different data that yours and those are the official sites. You really need to get a clue.


I suggest you actually get data from non partisan sites. It would make you look smarter than you do by posting the false information you are posting.

Those waves you are posting are actually waves to all those brain cells that have left your head.

Have you no pride, posting BS night and day?Check this fox link out :rofl

Studies: Iraq War Will Cost $12 Billion a Month in 2008 - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com

< The flow of blood may be ebbing, but the flood of money into the Iraq war is steadily rising, new analyses show.>

In 2008, its sixth year, the war will cost approximately $12 billion a month, triple the "burn" rate of its earliest years, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and co-author Linda J. Bilmes report in a new book.>

And here’s the cherry on top of it for five- deferment Cheney’s old company (Halaburtin).


< WASHINGTON — The United States this year will have spent $100 billion on contractors in Iraq since the invasion in 2003, a milestone that reflects the Bush administration’s unprecedented level of dependence on private firms for help in the war, according to a government report to be released Tuesday. >

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/washington/12contractors.html?_r=1
 
donc;1058592449]You just posted a load of s*** didn’t you? Bush didn’t pay a f***** bill in the eight years of his Presidency. He added more debt than any administration… EVER. When he took office the national debt was a tad over five trillion dollars, when he and five deferments left , it was 11 and a half trillion dollars.

Wrong, but keep showing how misleading some people can be. Are you ever going to do any research? The Treasury is the keeper of the books and Bush took office with a 5.6 trillion and left at 10.6. Stop making a fool of yourself.

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)


Lets take Katrina as the starting point on this load of BS. According to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell statement on Friday, February 27th, 2009 in a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference Katrina cost $132 billion. Then you have Hurricane ike costing $22 Billion, Rita rings in at $11.3 billion. I saved the biggist load of s*** for desert….Floyd dear old Floyd,made landfall in North Carolina on Thursday, September 16, 1999, 6:30am.Guess who was in the oval office chasing little fat interns around at that time?How on the hell can you can you say that $165 equls a half a trillinon? And as for as your BS on the cost of war, I got news for you once, the cost of Veterans benefits are factored you haven’t touched anything yet. Forty years and I’m still sucking at the VA tit.

Learn to read, 9/11 was included with the hurricanes and guess you ought to tell that to the GAO, that would be the General Accounting Office. Guess again those sites you read knew better. Do you realize who is really posting the s***?


You still haven’t explained why bush didn’t use his veto for any legislation that he didn’t approve of. :confused:

What did you want Bush to veto? We were talking about the fiscal year 2009. I am not sure you know what you are talking about. Keep diverting from the mistakes you made.


I’m pretty proud of my source and its not move-on can you say the same about yours? Can you show me any source that says that Medicare Part D was funded?

You made the statements, now back it up. Medicare Part D is funded by that medicare deduction in your pay check and if you did some research you will find it put competition into the prescription drug program for the first time and seems to be doing well. It didn't go into affect until 2006. You made the claim it was unfunded, so prove it. Democrats wanted more spending, not less.



What is 12 billion a month times 12? Did Obama cut spending for the war? Do you know that Obama's Defense budget is over 700 billion dollars? That is more than Bush and he kept the Bush Sec. of Defense. So what is your point? How is that hope and change working out for you.


And here’s the cherry on top of it for five- deferment Cheney’s old company (Halaburtin).



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/washington/12contractors.html?_r=1

:rofl back to the Haliburton argument. How is that working out for the millions of investors.

You really need to move on, bury your head in shame, and never post again.
 
And here’s the cherry on top of it for five- deferment Cheney’s old company (Halaburtin).



Quote:
< WASHINGTON — The United States this year will have spent $100 billion on contractors in Iraq since the invasion in 2003, a milestone that reflects the Bush administration’s unprecedented level of dependence on private firms for help in the war, according to a government report to be released Tuesday. >

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/wa...tors.html?_r=1


Donc, do you understand what you posted here? The article is August 2008 which means that over 5 years that the U.S. Military spent 20 billion a year using private contractors to do what the U.S. Military would have done. Does that mean that the U.S. Military had the means or ability to do what private contractors did? Probably not thus the expense would have occurred anyway only with our military as personnel would have been needed to perform those functions.

You simply buy anything and everything that you believe supports your point of view but in fact makes you look foolish. Whether or not it is 20 billion for private contractors or an additional 20 billion to our military really is irrelevant as it was money that was going to be spent. Money spent with private contractors goes to employ people and pay investors. You seem to have a problem with that.
 
QUOTE Conservative
Wrong, but keep showing how misleading some people can be. Are you ever going to do any research? The Treasury is the keeper of the books and Bush took office with a 5.6 trillion and left at 10.6. Stop making a fool of yourself.

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)


Wrong!! Show me what bills he paid with the (using your figures) $5 trillion he ran up while cutting taxes for the top 1%?

Also you haven’t shown me anything yet that the bush administration did that could help pay for the gift to big Pharma, Plan D of Medicare, commonly called the (unfounded) prescription drug plan?

Why do you keep skipping over that $9.4 trillion unfounded liability? That number is pretty hard to ignore even with the numbers floating around today. :confused:


Learn to read, 9/11 was included with the hurricanes and guess you ought to tell that to the GAO, that would be the General Accounting Office. Guess again those sites you read knew better. Do you realize who is really posting the s***?

So you know something that Senator McConnell doesn’t when he states to the Conservative Political Action Conference Katrina cost $132 billion. Imagine that. :roll:


What did you want Bush to veto? We were talking about the fiscal year 2009. I am not sure you know what you are talking about. Keep diverting from the mistakes you made.


In post #860 you said this < Bush Budget had to be approved by Congress of which Obama was part of.> Seems to me that if he seen that the evil congress was running up the tab more than he wanted he would have vetoed it and said boys we really should get this spending in hand here.


You made the statements, now back it up. Medicare Part D is funded by that medicare deduction in your pay check and if you did some research you will find it put competition into the prescription drug program for the first time and seems to be doing well. It didn't go into affect until 2006. You made the claim it was unfunded, so prove it. Democrats wanted more spending, not less.

Sure thing, enjoy.< Part D a $9.4 trillion unfunded liability over the next 75 years> :2wave:

Overview Trustees Report & Trust Funds



What is 12 billion a month times 12? Did Obama cut spending for the war? Do you know that Obama's Defense budget is over 700 billion dollars? That is more than Bush and he kept the Bush Sec. of Defense. So what is your point? How is that hope and change working out for you.

No answer so you hurl out three questions all about Obama hoping to DEFLECT attention away from the fact that BUSHS IRAQ WAR WAS COSTING $12 BILLION A MONTH IN 2008. :spin:




:rofl back to the Haliburton argument. How is that working out for the millions of investors.

You really need to move on, bury your head in shame, and never post again.

Yes we can’t talk about ole five deferments KBR/Halliburton can we? Or the backroom $25 billion contract that has been in place since September 11, 2001.
 
donc;1058594598]Wrong!! Show me what bills he paid with the (using your figures) $5 trillion he ran up while cutting taxes for the top 1%?

I keep hearing that the tax cut went to the top 1%. Did you get a tax cut? I did and I am not in the top 1%. Explain to me how govt. revenue grew AFTER the tax cut. Stop with the class envy.

Also you haven’t shown me anything yet that the bush administration did that could help pay for the gift to big Pharma, Plan D of Medicare, commonly called the (unfounded) prescription drug plan?

Why do I need to show you anything as you won't believe it. Do some research for a change at non partisan sites

Why do you keep skipping over that $9.4 trillion unfounded liability? That number is pretty hard to ignore even with the numbers floating around today. :confused:

You are indeed confused and really beyond hope.


So you know something that Senator McConnell doesn’t when he states to the Conservative Political Action Conference Katrina cost $132 billion. Imagine that. :roll:

As is now obvious you are incapable of understanding even what is posted. Tell that to the GAO and the cost was for 9/11 and the hurricanes.



In post #860 you said this < Bush Budget had to be approved by Congress of which Obama was part of.> Seems to me that if he seen that the evil congress was running up the tab more than he wanted he would have vetoed it and said boys we really should get this spending in hand here.

We were talking about fiscal year 2009 which you claim that Obama inherited yet conveniently ignored that most of the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was after Bush left office so Bush couldn't veto anything. TARP was passed after the budget and contributed to the debt but most of TARP has been paid back.

Sure thing, enjoy.< Part D a $9.4 trillion unfunded liability over the next 75 years> :2wave:

Why don't you grow up and actually do some research


No answer so you hurl out three questions all about Obama hoping to DEFLECT attention away from the fact that BUSHS IRAQ WAR WAS COSTING $12 BILLION A MONTH IN 2008. :spin:

No one is disputing that the war is costing 12 billion a month, what I am disputing is your ability to understand how much that is on a yearly basis and what percentage that is of the budget. Further you ignore that Obama has increased that spending.


Yes we can’t talk about ole five deferments KBR/Halliburton can we? Or the backroom $25 billion contract that has been in place since September 11, 2001.


Since you are all over the board apparently we can talk about anything. Why is that relevant?
 
Back
Top Bottom