Founding Fathers against Obama

[bodecea]

So, are you claiming that Reagan didn't "consistently" increase the national debt? (He did).

I never claimed that....

Well, my post was in response to someone who did claim that Reagan's debt was "manageable" rather than "perpetual".

I'll tell you what tho - Obama doubled the debt that all presidents combined accumulated in - 3 years none the less.

No, he didn't.

2009 National Debt - 12.8 Trillion dollars.
Current National Debt - 15.7 Trillion.

Not exactly "doubled".

Damn that Public Education System!

 

[bodecea]

And yet, they all owned slaves...

And many treated them better than we treat the poor today.

Just sayin'

Really? I don't whip poor people, or force them to work for no pay, or sic my dogs on them.

Do you?

Some slaves treated better than some poor people....yep, he said it. Maybe we should start asking our poor if they would like to be "better treated slaves"?

 

[bodecea]

I never claimed that....

Well, my post was in response to someone who did claim that Reagan's debt was "manageable" rather than "perpetual".

I'll tell you what tho - Obama doubled the debt that all presidents combined accumulated in - 3 years none the less.

No, he didn't.

2009 National Debt - 12.8 Trillion dollars.
Current National Debt - 15.7 Trillion.

Not exactly "doubled".

When Bush left office it was like 7 and now it's 15....

IF what you said was true (and you have to prove it with a link), that is Bush....remember....you stated "all presidents combined". Need that figure plz.

 

[bodecea]

I never claimed that....

I'll tell you what tho - Obama doubled the debt that all presidents combined accumulated in - 3 years none the less.

notice how nick refuses to admit that reagan left us with a perpetual debt as well and then tries to change the subject. LOL

Listen here dumb shit - I never said anything of the sort....

EVERY president tacks on debt....

Really? And all those president's and their tacked on dept added together is still half of what Obama's debt is? Because that's what you claimed.

 

[SniperFire]

So, draw the line.

Define it.

Here is one study that attempts it. 77% of GDP is the threshold. Your mileage may vary.

'The present study addresses these questions with the help of threshold estimations based on a yearly dataset of 101 developing and developed economies spanning a time period from 1980 to 2008. The estimations establish a threshold of 77 percent public debt-to-GDP ratio. If debt is above this threshold, each additional percentage point of debt costs 0.017 percentage points of annual real growth. The effect is even more pronounced in emerging markets where the threshold is 64 percent debt-to-GDP ratio. In these countries, the loss in annual real growth with each additional percentage point in public debt amounts to 0.02 percentage points. The cumulative effect on real GDP could be substantial. Importantly, the estimations control for other variables that might impact growth, such as the initial level of per-capita-GDP.'

Finance & Private Sector Research - Report Details

Is there a point or are you just posting shite at random? How does that address discussion about manageable vs perpetual?

The public debt-to-GDP ratio is a standard internationally recognized measure of the ability of a Nation to 'manage' it's debt load.

From your postings, it is clear you are clueless on the topic.

Why post and make an ass out of yourself?

 

[drsmith1072]

When Bush left office it was like 7 and now it's 15....

You are simply wrong.

After Bush's 2009 budget (his last), the National Debt stood at 12.8, not "like 7".

Bush had nothing to do with that budget.

Pelosi and Reid wouldn't let him anywhere near it, and Obama joined them in loading it up with up their spending priorities. And Obama signed it in March of 2009.

they wouldn't let him?? LOL


oh and actually obama signed a budget on march 12, 2009 however, that does not change the fact that W did sign a budget that was supposed to run until sept 2009.

That alone counters the lame and dishonest attempts by rightwingers in this thread to try and hold obama accountable for the debt in 2008.

 

[SniperFire]

Then why is it that the right love to brag about the fact that bush passed a budget but obama hasn't?

um.. Because Bush passed 7 budgets before that one?



You are slightly retarded, aren't you?

 

[freedombecki]

First off, I am absolutely certain, secondly at the time both the House and Senate belonged to progressives from 2006-2010...

Both houses belonged to Reid and Pelosi. They can't rewrite that.

So does your blame for the current economic crisis lie with the republican house as well or are you blaming the president alone? Did the dems have a supermajorty back then or did they have to make deals with republicans to get things passed? Fact is that dems only had a supermajority in the senate for a little over 9 months back in 2009 but that doesn't stop the right from trying to rewrite that bit of history.

Why is it that the right can't be honest about anything? When a republcian is president they try to shift the blame to the congress if they can and yet when a democrat is president it's his watch and therefore all his fault and his alone.

They are all such whiney little hypocrites.

You're painting with too a broad brush. You need to take it issue by issue, bill by bill, vote by vote. Otherwise, your post's essence is brass and tinkling. From reading your case, it seems to me your main objection is against anyone who challenges those who are fast tracking America to debt by proposing more costly measures than American taxpayers can pay interest on. Omitting labels you used, what is the point of calling someone with facts "hypocrite" when you bring no factual information whatever?

 

[drsmith1072]

You do know that Tipp O'Neill rejected Reagan's budget balancing plans, right?

'In February 1981 Reagan presented the Economic Tax Recovery Act to Congress, calling for massive personal and corporate tax cuts, reductions in government spending, and a balanced budget.'

The 1982 Recession . Reagan . WGBH American Experience | PBS

That's a fascinating rightwing myth.

That is the history.

Seems you can't handle the truth.

Your so called history starts out with a LIE. The hostages were released due to an agreement that we would unfreeze their money and they would release our hostages in accordance with the algiers accords which reagan had NOTHING to do with.
The fact that you worthless blog tries to give him credit for something he had NOTHING to do with places doubt on the veractiy of the rest of their claims. LOL

Thanks for the fiction. You be sure to let us know when you get something REAL.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

When Bush left office it was like 7 and now it's 15....

You are simply wrong.

After Bush's 2009 budget (his last), the National Debt stood at 12.8, not "like 7".

Bush had nothing to do with that budget.

Pelosi and Reid wouldn't let him anywhere near it, and Obama joined them in loading it up with up their spending priorities. And Obama signed it in March of 2009.

Bush wrote the 2009 budget, and submitted it to the house. Obama signed it.

That's how the process works.

 

[drsmith1072]

Here is one study that attempts it. 77% of GDP is the threshold. Your mileage may vary.

'The present study addresses these questions with the help of threshold estimations based on a yearly dataset of 101 developing and developed economies spanning a time period from 1980 to 2008. The estimations establish a threshold of 77 percent public debt-to-GDP ratio. If debt is above this threshold, each additional percentage point of debt costs 0.017 percentage points of annual real growth. The effect is even more pronounced in emerging markets where the threshold is 64 percent debt-to-GDP ratio. In these countries, the loss in annual real growth with each additional percentage point in public debt amounts to 0.02 percentage points. The cumulative effect on real GDP could be substantial. Importantly, the estimations control for other variables that might impact growth, such as the initial level of per-capita-GDP.'

Finance & Private Sector Research - Report Details

Is there a point or are you just posting shite at random? How does that address discussion about manageable vs perpetual?

The public debt-to-GDP ratio is a standard internationally recognized measure of the ability of a Nation to 'manage' it's debt load.

From your postings, it is clear you are clueless on the topic.

Why post and make an ass out of yourself?

LOL says the hack posting shite without putting into any form of context even as you fail to show how it applies to the current discussion.

your "study" ends in 2008 so it does not include obama's presidency so do you have anything real to offer that actually addresses the discussion of manageable vs perpetual where reagan and obama are conccerned?

Attacking me does nothing to back up your points but does show how desperate you are.

So why don't you give it a try and show how reagan's was manageable but not perpetual and how obama's is perpetual but not manageable??

 

[SniperFire]

That's a fascinating rightwing myth.

That is the history.

Seems you can't handle the truth.

Your so called history starts out with a LIE. The hostages were released due to an agreement that we would unfreeze their money and they would release our hostages in accordance with the algiers accords which reagan had NOTHING to do with.
The fact that you worthless blog tries to give him credit for something he had NOTHING to do with places doubt on the veractiy of the rest of their claims. LOL

Thanks for the fiction. You be sure to let us know when you get something REAL.

Stoner. My post and comment had NOTHING to do with hostage. We were discussing the 1981 Economic Tax Recovery Act.

 

[SniperFire]

your "study" ends in 2008 so it does not include obama's presidency so do you have anything real to offer that actually addresses the discussion of manageable vs perpetual where reagan and obama are conccerned?

Would you like to see the CBO projections of Debt-to-GDP based on the Obama 5-10-20 year plan, Stoner? I have it.

(Please say YES!)

 

[drsmith1072]

Then why is it that the right love to brag about the fact that bush passed a budget but obama hasn't?

um slightly retarded

I know you are but don't let it get you down. LOL

See how omission and editing works both ways hack?

funnny how you turn tail and run away from facts that counter your spin.

oh and actually obama signed a budget on march 12, 2009 however, that does not change the fact that W did sign a budget that was supposed to run until sept 2009.

That alone counters the lame and dishonest attempts by rightwingers in this thread to try and hold obama accountable for the debt in 2008.

 

[SniperFire]

oh and actually obama signed a budget on march 12, 2009 however, that does not change the fact that W did sign a budget that was supposed to run until sept 2009.

You sure about that, stoner?


LOL


Gawd, this is child's play.

 

[SniperFire]

Bush wrote the 2009 budget

um........




no.



President Obama Signs FY 2009 Omnibus Budget Bill
Written by Michael Wero
Friday, 13 March 2009 14:29

Navajo Nation Washington Office &view=article&id=66resident-obama-sign s-fy-2009-omnibus-budget-bill-&catid=35:fy20 09&Itemid=45

'It was supposed to have been completed last fall, but Democrats opted against election-year battles with Republicans and former President George W. Bush.'


Obama signs massive, 'imperfect' spending bill - politics - White House - msnbc.com



'Feb 26, 2009
OBAMA 2009 BUDGET PROJECTS DEFICIT OF $1.75 TRILLION

President calls for fiscal responsibility and hard choices, but not yet.

Washington, DC - President Obama’s $3.5 trillion 2009 budget will spend money today and burden taxpayers for generations. Under the Presidents proposal, spending will increase to nearly 35 percent of GDP, far from the historical norm of 20 percent, and the deficit will soar to 12.3 percent of GDP, levels not seen since the height of World War II.'

http://www.freedomworks.org/press-releases/obama -2009-budget-projects-deficit-of-175-trillion

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

oh and actually obama signed a budget on march 12, 2009 however, that does not change the fact that W did sign a budget that was supposed to run until sept 2009.

You sure about that, stoner?


LOL


Gawd, this is child's play.

Sounds like Obama gets plenty of blame for 09 then. He certainly gets no credit.

 

[drsmith1072]

Both houses belonged to Reid and Pelosi. They can't rewrite that.

So does your blame for the current economic crisis lie with the republican house as well or are you blaming the president alone? Did the dems have a supermajorty back then or did they have to make deals with republicans to get things passed? Fact is that dems only had a supermajority in the senate for a little over 9 months back in 2009 but that doesn't stop the right from trying to rewrite that bit of history.

Why is it that the right can't be honest about anything? When a republcian is president they try to shift the blame to the congress if they can and yet when a democrat is president it's his watch and therefore all his fault and his alone.

They are all such whiney little hypocrites.

You're painting with too a broad brush. You need to take it issue by issue, bill by bill, vote by vote. Otherwise, your post's essence is brass and tinkling. From reading your case, it seems to me your main objection is against anyone who challenges those who are fast tracking America to debt by proposing more costly measures than American taxpayers can pay interest on. Omitting labels you used, what is the point of calling someone with facts "hypocrite" when you bring no factual information whatever?

funny how you failed to apply this same standard to the rightwing hack who is trying to blame the democrat controlled congress so he can give W a pass even as he claims that only obama is to blame for what happens on his watch.

oh and please keep your misinterpretations to your yourself and stop trying to put words into my mouth. My comments stnad on their own and they don't need any prorpaganda based interpretation from a hack like you.

Furthermore, if the term hypocrite applies based on their own contradictions then I am going to use it. If you have a problem with that too bad.

 

[drsmith1072]

That is the history.

Seems you can't handle the truth.

Your so called history starts out with a LIE. The hostages were released due to an agreement that we would unfreeze their money and they would release our hostages in accordance with the algiers accords which reagan had NOTHING to do with.
The fact that you worthless blog tries to give him credit for something he had NOTHING to do with places doubt on the veractiy of the rest of their claims. LOL

Thanks for the fiction. You be sure to let us know when you get something REAL.

Stoner. My post and comment had NOTHING to do with hostage. We were discussing the 1981 Economic Tax Recovery Act.

MORON, Your own link that you cited for that post starts out trying to give reagan credit for the release of the hostages. did you even read your own link??

During his 1980 campaign, Ronald Reagan promised to end the economic and hostage crises that had plagued Jimmy Carter's administration. The hostage crisis was solved for him when, only hours after he was sworn in, Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini released the captive Americans. With one victory under his belt, Reagan dedicated himself to making good on his other promise.

So did you read your own link or not? It started based on a LIE therefore the rest is questionable. Thanks for the spin come back with someting REAL.

 

[NYcarbineer]

your "study" ends in 2008 so it does not include obama's presidency so do you have anything real to offer that actually addresses the discussion of manageable vs perpetual where reagan and obama are conccerned?

Would you like to see the CBO projections of Debt-to-GDP based on the Obama 5-10-20 year plan, Stoner? I have it.

(Please say YES!)

Yes, it's not nearly as bad as the projections on Romney's.