• 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!

The Glenn Beck Boycott Gaining Traction - FOX News Losing Money

misterman said:
Numbers please. Be sure to separate emergency spending.
Click to expand...

God you are the epitome of a hyper partisan, its laughable you say this while in another thread say you don't use talking points...a laughable notion when you sit here spouting talking points.

Emergency spending is still spending, and "emergency" is a gimmick legislative term that essentially means "We want to spend more money than we budgeted for so we need to pass a bill to allow it". Its nothing but a legislative smoke screen custom made for both sides pathetic partisan hacks to stream out and use as talking points...exactly as you do.

Link

This is Ron Paul speaking about them:

Home | About | Columnists | Blog | Subscribe | Donate



Another 'Emergency' Spending Bill

by Ron Paul
by Ron Paul


Congress funds the federal government through 13 enormous appropriations bills, but even an annual budget of more than $2 trillion is not enough to satisfy Washington’s appetite for new spending. As a result, a new category of spending bill has emerged, known as the “emergency supplemental” appropriation. There’s no real emergency, however; Congress simply needs a 14th spending bill as a grab bag filled with hundreds of pages of goodies for countless favored groups, industries, individual companies, and foreign governments. It’s common for dozens of amendments to be added to the supplemental bill, all with more money for somebody.
Click to expand...

Here's the surprise for you, this is from 2006. Did you do any research into your worthless talking poitn to find out this would significantly affect Bush's totals as well. You know the Wars liberals continually use to complain about spending, much of that was on emergency spending. Katrina costs? Emergency spending. Early on while trying to get TSA on its feet in response to 9/11, emergency spending.

Asking him to provide the information he actually stated is understandable, and nothing wrong with that. However, since YOU are moving the goal posts however by asking for spending that doesn't include Emergency Spending (which essentially means just their spending based on their budgets and not the rampant overspending after it) then YOU provide those numbers.

Frankly, spending is bad, but debt is worse in my mind as that's spending we're not even accounting for. Lets look at that:

Zyphlin said:
Lets look at this year by year. I found some interesting numbers...

2001 5,769,900,000,000
2002 6,198,400,000,000 - - - - - - - - - - 428.5 bil difference
2003 6,760,000,000,000 - - - - - - - - - - 561.6 bil difference
2004 7,354,700,000,000 - - - - - - - - - - 594.7 bil difference
2005 7,905,300,000,000 - - - - - - - - - - 550.6 bil difference
2006 8,451,400,000,000 - - - - - - - - - - 546.1 bil difference
2007 8,950,700,000,000 - - - - - - - - - - 499.3 bil difference
2008 9,985,800,000,000 - - - - - - - - - - 1,035.1 bil difference

2009 12,311,400,000,000 - - - - - - - - - - 2,325.6 bil dif
2010(est) 14,456,300,000,000 - - - - - - - 2,1449.6 bil dif

Mind you, the number before the "," in 2008-2010 is denoting trillion rather than billion.

So what interesting facts can we find from this.

How about these, basing simply on these numbers:

Obama’s first year is more than double that of George Bush’s biggest year (1,035.1 bil W vs 2,325.6 bil O)
Obama’s first year is more than the next four largest years of Bush, combined…2003-2006 (2,253.0 bil W vs 2,325.6 bil O)
Obama’s first year and projected second year is more than all 8 year of George Bush’s years, combined (4,215.9 bil W vs 4,470.5 O)

I don’t care how you want to slice it, if you’re going to bitch and complain about the spending and huge debt George Bush ran up but say nothing about Obama you’re nothing but a pure hyper partisan that is attempting to rationalize away the facts. At the very least Bush backers can try and claim that while they disliked Bush’s spending Obama’s huge amount in comparison shook them out. It went from Big to Gigantic. But you can’t say going from Big to Gigantic made you complain about Big but ignore Gigantic.
Click to expand...
 
Zyphlin said:
God you are the epitome of a hyper partisan, its laughable you say this while in another thread say you don't use talking points...a laughable notion when you sit here spouting talking points.

Emergency spending is still spending, and "emergency" is a gimmick legislative term that essentially means "We want to spend more money than we budgeted for so we need to pass a bill to allow it". Its nothing but a legislative smoke screen custom made for both sides pathetic partisan hacks to stream out and use as talking points...exactly as you do.
Click to expand...

Poor widdle Zyphlin, upset about emergency spending.

Fine - just be sure to include all spending in the past with your comparison.

Here's the surprise for you, this is from 2006. Did you do any research into your worthless talking poitn to find out this would significantly affect Bush's totals as well.
Click to expand...

Yes. You could exclude that too. Too late though, you said we can't.

I looked at your original message - these look like debt, not spending. Right? If they are spending numbers, are on-budget, off, or unified? Indexed for inflation? What's the source?
 
Last edited:
-edit- Ah, I see you posted and then clicked the arrow to see the original post. Thanks for that :) Yes, these are debt, not spending, as I stated it would be at the end of my post. They are from Wiki whose source was a White House report.

As I said, your beef with the spending comment is with the person that made the spending comment. Based on posting history and this thread I don't see it as a time productive thing to try and research that information for an argument I didn't make just to appease you. However, I put the debt info there to give my take on what's more important than simply spending in and of itself as being problematic, but the primary purpose was pointing out the ridiculous notion that emergency spending shouldn't be countered against the "spending" done during a Presidency. While not all spending is equal in terms of the legitimate need or use of it (and even that's debated based on what side is doing it and what they think is "legitimate") ultimately a dollar is a dollar.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
-edit- Ah, I see you posted and then clicked the arrow to see the original post. Thanks for that :) Yes, these are debt, not spending, as I stated it would be at the end of my post. They are from Wiki whose source was a White House report.
Click to expand...

Then I don't have to explain to you why they are worthless, given that deficits are highly sensitive to economic conditions and the resulting revenue collected - and the fact that the topic is spending.

So why did you post them in response to me? If you have some spending numbers, feel free to post those instead. Or not.
 
misterman said:
Then I don't have to explain to you why they are worthless, given that deficits are highly sensitive to economic conditions and the resulting revenue collected - and the fact that the topic is spending.

So why did you post them in response to me? If you have some spending numbers, feel free to post those instead. Or not.
Click to expand...
Wow. Tis almost as if Mr is illiterate. Bad Zhph, BAD!:doh
 
Sir Loin said:
Not so much, but you go right on pretending.:shock:
Click to expand...

I'm happy to have a discussion with an adult like Zyphlin. You, however, will be ignored.
 
Conservative said:
How do you know that? You buy what you are told yet haven't a clue as to what the details are of the bill. What is the threshold for income? You want so badly to buy the Administration rhetoric as you ignore the questions regarding the bill as well as the content that shows that this will NOT improve the quality of healthcare?
Click to expand...

Laws are written down. We don't have to BELIEVE when we can read the law. Most of the news outlets have been presenting a health reform guide to simplify it for those who can't read the entire thing. You should check one out.
 
Boo Radley said:
Laws are written down. We don't have to BELIEVE when we can read the law. Most of the news outlets have been presenting a health reform guide to simplify it for those who can't read the entire thing. You should check one out.
Click to expand...

I have read a number of so called analysis of the healthcare bill and there is nothing there that indicates the threshold that has to be met for govt. funded insurance, who enforces the fines and determines whether or not someone qualifies, so until that information is defined neither of us know how many fit into that category.

You have faith in the process, whereas history doesn't support your position nor your belief in the promises made by politicians. This thoroughly vetted bill that has taken years to put together has a lot of holes in it and does nothing to improve the quality of healthcare. You know it, I know it, but the difference is there is only one of us that admits it, me.
 
misterman said:
Health care reform bill 101: Who gets subsidized insurance? / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com
Click to expand...

Great, thanks, something to look forward to in 4 YEARS. Who enforces this and is that poverty level net or gross income? Need to start now figuring out how to get my reportable income down to 44,000. Shouldn't be a problem.

I look forward to having you pay for my healthcare insurance. After this goes into effect in 4 YEARS and still leaves 23 million uninsured and creates taxes for 10 years while benefits are only 6, an accounting gimmick and creation of another entitlement program , it still does nothing to improve healthcare.
 
Conservative said:
Great, thanks, something to look forward to in 4 YEARS.
Click to expand...

You're changing the subject - again.

And not all of it takes four years. Though if we hadn't had the GOP obstructing for so damn long, maybe we'd have this already. Heck, we could have had Clinton's plan.

I look forward to having you pay for my healthcare insurance.
Click to expand...

That's unlikely.
 
misterman said:
You're changing the subject - again.

And not all of it takes four years. Though if we hadn't had the GOP obstructing for so damn long, maybe we'd have this already. Heck, we could have had Clinton's plan.



That's unlikely.
Click to expand...

What does any of this have to do with the thread topic?

The so called benefits of the bill don't go into effect for 4 years and the Republicans had nothing to do with creating that time frame. Your empty suit President has this carefully orchestrated all tied to the elections.

If you support this empty suit then you have the same credibility as he has. There is nothing in this bill that improves the quality of healthcare, you know it, I know it but only I can admit it.
 
Conservative said:
The so called benefits of the bill don't go into effect for 4 years and the Republicans had nothing to do with creating that time frame. Your empty suit President has this carefully orchestrated all tied to the elections.
Click to expand...

The mid-term election is this fall, not in four years. And yes, some benefits will kick in by then.
 
misterman said:
The mid-term election is this fall, not in four years. And yes, some benefits will kick in by then.
Click to expand...

Glenn Beck ratings skyrocket, Olbermann up, Maddow down, has anyone seen CNN?
March 18, 2009, 2:45 am

Note: here’s a more current article on the ratings: O’Reilly-Hannity-Beck go 1-2-3 in cable news ratings again, Fox destroys competition again

The biggest news in cable news this week is the remarkable rise of Glenn Beck at Fox.


Glad to see the Glenn Beck Boycott gaining traction. Wonder where Beck would be today were it not for this boycott?
 
Conservative said:
Glenn Beck ratings skyrocket, Olbermann up, Maddow down, has anyone seen CNN?
March 18, 2009, 2:45 am

Note: here’s a more current article on the ratings: O’Reilly-Hannity-Beck go 1-2-3 in cable news ratings again, Fox destroys competition again

The biggest news in cable news this week is the remarkable rise of Glenn Beck at Fox.


Glad to see the Glenn Beck Boycott gaining traction. Wonder where Beck would be today were it not for this boycott?
Click to expand...

Do you actually read posts that you respond to, or do you just blather with whatever is on your mind at the time?
 
misterman said:
Do you actually read posts that you respond to, or do you just blather with whatever is on your mind at the time?
Click to expand...

Thread topic--Re: The Glenn Beck Boycott Gaining Traction - FOX News Losing Money
 
misterman said:
The mid-term election is this fall, not in four years. And yes, some benefits will kick in by then.
Click to expand...

Benefits are in the eye of the beholder. I see no benefits in this bill as it does nothing to improve the quality of healthcare. Apparently the public agrees with me.

From Rasmussen

55% Favor Repeal of Health Care Bill
Thursday, March 25, 2010

Just before the House of Representatives passed sweeping health care legislation last Sunday, 41% of voters nationwide favored the legislation while 54% were opposed. Now that President Obama has signed the legislation into law, most voters want to see it repealed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom