DC Tom Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 out of the 15 tril, 10 is from bush. You're a !@#$ing idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Judging by his other articles, this guy's agenda's pretty clear. He doesn't like Obama and is a hardcore Republican. Good for him, but what does this prove? Would it be any more meaningful to post attack ads on Romney from Democrats? Also, he's a handsome man. For some reason, all the crazy right wing political guys (Rush, Beck, Drudge) are all studs. I'm surprised they would be loud and bitter. That said, I represent the fact they got rich off the money of mindless zombies who can't form their own opinions. I love that people actually pay attention to someone with a resume like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Drudge After reading that, I now actually kind of admire him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 (edited) http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor Edited June 18, 2012 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor That article and chart were debunked so quickly after it came out that I'm surprised you can still even link to it. The author makes the case that "first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock." In other words, the author assigns ALL of Obama's stimulus and Obamacare spending to Bush. You're better off explaining that Harry Reid cheats on his wife and hates blacks because he's a Mormon. It makes only slightly more sense than that ridiculous article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 18, 2012 Author Share Posted June 18, 2012 http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor You might want to check out my link to the Forbes article in the OP in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 That article and chart were debunked so quickly after it came out that I'm surprised you can still even link to it. The author makes the case that "first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock." Technically, by the measure of "passed budgets", this administration's the lowest spending ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Technically, by the measure of "passed budgets", this administration's the lowest spending ever. Now you're getting the hang of it. You could replace Axelrod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Judging by his other articles, this guy's agenda's pretty clear. He doesn't like Obama and is a hardcore Republican. Good for him, but what does this prove? Would it be any more meaningful to post attack ads on Romney from Democrats? Also, he's a handsome man. For some reason, all the crazy right wing political guys (Rush, Beck, Drudge) are all studs. I'm surprised they would be loud and bitter. That said, I represent the fact they got rich off the money of mindless zombies who can't form their own opinions. I love that people actually pay attention to someone with a resume like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Drudge He has more "real life" job experience than that idiot in the White House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 link? http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/adding-to-the-deficit-bush-vs-obama/2012/01/31/gIQAQ0kFgQ_graphic.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFAqdBChP9A when bush left, he doubled the debt. he left with 10 trillion in debt. obama according to this article has only added 1 trillion.... and that was when the private sector was not providing credit. so somebody had to spend to calm the storm... :wallbash: You're a !@#$ing idiot. cant deal with reality? 100% wrong to no ones surprise. . its actually a fact. unreal... the delusion people are under... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 when bush left, he doubled the debt. he left with 10 trillion in debt. obama according to this article has only added 1 trillion.... and that was when the private sector was not providing credit. so somebody had to spend to calm the storm... cant deal with reality? its actually a fact. unreal... the delusion people are under... Its difficult to read your posts without laughing......................I will certainly cede to your expertise in "delusion" ....lol perhaps when you are talking to yourself, you could ask..."how is it that everyone else in the thread is wrong and I'm right ?" Here in the real world we can see the fallacy of your "factual" spending numbers, no matter how many disproved articles you care to quote. But, you will continue on in your own little cocoon..............no expects anything else from you, except more entertainment. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 What an incredible argument by Maher. Bush spent tons more than Obama as he DOUBLED the debt from $5 to $10 trillion in 8 years while Obama's policies grew the deficit by a mere 50% from $10 to $15 trillion in 3 years. $5 trillion is a ton more than $5 trillion. The power of math! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/adding-to-the-deficit-bush-vs-obama/2012/01/31/gIQAQ0kFgQ_graphic.html youtube.com/watch?v=eFAqdBChP9A when bush left, he doubled the debt. he left with 10 trillion in debt. obama according to this article has only added 1 trillion.... and that was when the private sector was not providing credit. so somebody had to spend to calm the storm... :wallbash: cant deal with reality? its actually a fact. unreal... the delusion people are under... oh, so we're going with Obamacare saving $123M? LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 cant deal with reality? The reality that ten trillion of the federal debt is from Bush? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) The reality that ten trillion of the federal debt is from Bush? i never said that. i said bush left with 10 trillion... What an incredible argument by Maher. Bush spent tons more than Obama as he DOUBLED the debt from $5 to $10 trillion in 8 years while Obama's policies grew the deficit by a mere 50% from $10 to $15 trillion in 3 years. $5 trillion is a ton more than $5 trillion. The power of math! just like bush is not entirely responsible for the 10 trillion, neither is obama for his 5 trillion. in reality, obama has only spent 1 trill according to the article. it's specifically laid out. what you can argue is who spent more, and was the spending justified? given the context where consumer spending, private sector lending was in a free fall, i see no other choice than for the govt to spend temporarily to calm the storm when obama took office... one can argue how much, but lending and spending cannot just stop in a depression... we all know where this stands. dems have offered 3-1 in spending cuts to tax hikes. repubs have said 10-1 is not acceptable. it is what it is. all i can say is obama is nowhere near this big spender people make him out to be. the facts do not reflect that. Edited June 19, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) i never said that. i said bush left with 10 trillion... No, you said "out of the 15 tril, 10 is from bush". Are we going to go through another 30 pages of you pretending you didn't post things that everyone knows you posted? Edited June 19, 2012 by DC Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) No, you said "out of the 15 tril, 10 is from bush". Are we going to go through another 30 pages of you pretending you didn't post things that everyone knows you posted? i stand corrected. but the fact remains, bush left with 10 tril, obama in his first term is left with roughly 5 tril... ( what they are actually responsible for spending wise, obama is 1 tril, i think the bush/cheney wars, tax cuts, and drug program all added half that amount, ie out of the additional 5 tril during the 8 years of the bush administration, i think its reasonable to say he created 2.5.) never reducing debt is another problem. its open for debate... leaving with a 10 tillion dollar debt, regardless of whether you are responsible seems problematic. there is also a question of if the spending or not solving the debt during that specific time was wise and justified? some might say the extra 1 trillion from obama and not cutting spending right now is justified but solving debt long term is. im open to that. i personally think bowles simpson was a good start. both parties failed in getting something done... Edited June 20, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 i stand corrected. but the fact remains, bush left with 10 tril, obama in his first term is left with roughly 5 tril... Keep standing. So you are saying that not all of the 10 trillion was from Bush, but he left with 10 trillion. How then is Obama only leaving with 5 trillion instead of 15 trillion? Are you saying that Obama has cut 5 trillion? And if Obama has only added 1 trillion, how did we go from 10 trillion to 15 trillion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 i stand corrected. but the fact remains, bush left with 10 tril, obama in his first term is left with roughly 5 tril... ( what they are actually responsible for spending wise, obama is 1 tril, i think the bush/cheney wars, tax cuts, and drug program all added half that amount, ie out of the additional 5 tril during the 8 years of the bush administration, i think its reasonable to say he created 2.5.) never reducing debt is another problem. its open for debate... leaving with a 10 tillion dollar debt, regardless of whether you are responsible seems problematic. there is also a question of if the spending or not solving the debt during that specific time was wise and justified? some might say the extra 1 trillion from obama and not cutting spending right now is justified but solving debt long term is. im open to that. i personally think bowles simpson was a good start. both parties failed in getting something done... You're still missing the point. Bush inherited $5 trillion of debt. Over the next 8 years the national debt rose to $10 trillion, thus Bush doubled the national debt. Obama inherited $10 trillion in debt which has risen to $15 trillion over the past 3 years and change. While your politically incorrect friend Maher takes delight in announcing that Bush "doubled" the debt while under Obama the national debt has only risen by "half", both presidents realized an increase of $5 trillion in the national debt. It took Bush 8 years to Obama's 3+ years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 You're still missing the point. Bush inherited $5 trillion of debt. Over the next 8 years the national debt rose to $10 trillion, thus Bush doubled the national debt. Obama inherited $10 trillion in debt which has risen to $15 trillion over the past 3 years and change. While your politically incorrect friend Maher takes delight in announcing that Bush "doubled" the debt while under Obama the national debt has only risen by "half", both presidents realized an increase of $5 trillion in the national debt. It took Bush 8 years to Obama's 3+ years. And that's not counting Obamacare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 but the fact remains, bush left with 10 tril, obama in his first term is left with roughly 5 tril... Actually, you can either say Bush left with 10 trillion, and Obama is left with roughly 15 trillion. Or Bush left with 4 trillion, and Obama in his first term is left with 5 trillion. Comparing ALL the accumulated debt by all administrations Bush and prior only to the Obama administration's debt is disingenuous or - the direction I'm leaning, given that it's you - preternaturally stupid. And anyway...it's debt. Hence, a loan. Hence, not real money. Hence Bush and Obama ran up precisely no debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts