In Obama's Six Years as President, he has...

[TemplarKormac]

Do as you are told and we might make something of you yet.

You are so incredibly gullible. Now I know for certain you have an inferiority complex. Sit down Napoleon.

 

[Judicial review]

The libs on this site hate Republicans more than they love Obama. They know he's dogshit. They know he's incompetent. They know he's fucked up the chances for the Democrats ever to win another elecition. But they'll have their dicks/tits cut off before they admit any of that. It's "yay, my team" and nothing more.

You need to post a lot more....

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Why should we believe Republicans would do a better job of putting us on the road to surplus when their MO's been to spend, spend, spend?

Neither Republicans or Democrats are capable of doing a good job, much less their overall job. So, where does that leave you?

Best damn post on this thread.some here seem to be brainwashed that there is no difference between the two parties,that they are one in the same,that its really a corrupt one party system designed to look like two so the sheople think they have a choice in who gets elected not understanding they are like pro wrestlers who pretend to hate each other inside the ring but outside they are buddie buddies with each other and pal around together all the time.Templal here is one here that gets that though.

 

[Paperman299]

.how much of the debt increase do you blame Obama for, based on his direct actions, and in keeping with the basic principle of cause and effect.

See where I blamed Bush for the $1.903 trillion he incurred in his last year in office? Or can you not read?

You "blame" Bush? I'm gonna have to ask you to expand on your position a bit. Do you feel that Bush should not have increased spending in his final budget, in response to the recession?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Do you feel that Bush should not have increased spending in his final budget, in response to the recession?

It was that or let the economy collapse. If I recall, Obama did the same thing with his 'stimulus.' In the end though, all it did was put us further into debt. Delaying the inevitable. I am not just blaming Bush, I'm blaming every president since Ronald Reagan for putting us on this path. And each president who comes and goes without addressing this debt is just as guilty as the one before him for letting it grow.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Paperman299]

Do you feel that Bush should not have increased spending in his final budget, in response to the recession?

It was that or let the economy collapse. If I recall, Obama did the same thing with his 'stimulus.' In the end though, all it did was put us further into debt. Delaying the inevitable. I am not just blaming Bush, I'm blaming every president since Ronald Reagan for putting us on this path. And each president who comes and goes without addressing this debt is just as guilty as the one before him for letting it grow.

See, this doesn't really answer my question. At first you say if he hadn't, the economy would have collapsed, suggesting you approve of the increased spending at that time. Just so you know I'm not trying to lay some crappy trap here, that's my feeling as well. But then you say it all only put us further into debt, and that Bush and Obama only delayed the inevitable, as if to say they shouldn't have bothered.

You almost talk like the economy has gone past a point of no return, as if a depressive cataclysm is unavoidable and all that's left is to assign blame.

I'm not defending the trend of increasing spending over all these years. I'm just looking at one window, 2007-2008: was that a situation where increased spending was justified? If not, is there any situation where increased spending is justified?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just because you were wrong in more than one place doesn't make you right about Obama.

And you aren't? Being a cheerleader for a failed leader doesn't make you an expert on him. I've laid out the facts, it's your turn to sully an attempt to disprove them.

You blamed Obama for CAUSING the debt. You have offered nothing that demonstrates cause and effect.

Therefore your accusation that Obama caused the debt is unsupported by any factual evidence. Therefore it can be dismissed as baseless.

 

[TemplarKormac]

See, this doesn't really answer my question. At first you say if he hadn't, the economy would have collapsed, suggesting you approve of the increased spending at that time.

Let me guess, would you had rather him played the fiddle while America's economy collapsed? You don't seem to care that Obama did the same thing. So, did you approve of what he did? Try not to lecture me, mister. Sacrifices had to be made. In any recession spending goes up, that's just the nature of things.

But then you say it all only put us further into debt, and that Bush and Obama only delayed the inevitable, as if to say they shouldn't have bothered.

Speak for yourself. You really suck at mind reading.

What I meant is that each time you spend your way out of a recession, you only delay the inevitable, while hastening it at the same time. But in the short term however, it helps keep the economy stable for the time being. It gives our inept politicians a chance to pull their heads out of their butts and devise a solution. But until they do, the grim end is but a certainty.

You almost talk like the economy has gone past a point of no return, as if a depressive cataclysm is unavoidable and all that's left is to assign blame.

There is blame, and it lies on the shoulders of each president who doesn't try to address the spending problem. You have any better ideas, bub?

I'm just looking at one window, 2007-2008: was that a situation where increased spending was justified?

And yet you lecture me about not placing blame. I saw it as justified. What would you have done in that situation?

If not, is there any situation where increased spending is justified?

Unbeknownst to you, yes there is. Wartime for example, take World War II. Roosevelt had to spend nearly over $200 billion to help fund the war machine. Before that time though, the debt was in the tens of billions. Had we not funded out troops adequately in the War, we'd be speaking German and Japanese right now.

 

[candycorn]

Do you feel that Bush should not have increased spending in his final budget, in response to the recession?

It was that or let the economy collapse. If I recall, Obama did the same thing with his 'stimulus.' In the end though, all it did was put us further into debt. Delaying the inevitable. I am not just blaming Bush, I'm blaming every president since Ronald Reagan for putting us on this path. And each president who comes and goes without addressing this debt is just as guilty as the one before him for letting it grow.

See, this doesn't really answer my question. At first you say if he hadn't, the economy would have collapsed, suggesting you approve of the increased spending at that time. Just so you know I'm not trying to lay some crappy trap here, that's my feeling as well. But then you say it all only put us further into debt, and that Bush and Obama only delayed the inevitable, as if to say they shouldn't have bothered.

You almost talk like the economy has gone past a point of no return, as if a depressive cataclysm is unavoidable and all that's left is to assign blame.

I'm not defending the trend of increasing spending over all these years. I'm just looking at one window, 2007-2008: was that a situation where increased spending was justified? If not, is there any situation where increased spending is justified?

Also he blames Obama in the OP while saying it's necessary now....I guess his career as a parasite has warped his mind. Living in Georgia probably did the groundwork in all honesty.

 

[Paperman299]

See, this doesn't really answer my question. At first you say if he hadn't, the economy would have collapsed, suggesting you approve of the increased spending at that time.

Let me guess, would you had rather him played the fiddle while America's economy collapsed? You don't seem to care that Obama did the same thing. So, did you approve of what he did? Try not to lecture me, mister. Sacrifices had to be made. In any recession spending goes up, that's just the nature of things.

But then you say it all only put us further into debt, and that Bush and Obama only delayed the inevitable, as if to say they shouldn't have bothered.

Speak for yourself. You really suck at mind reading.

What I meant is that each time you spend your way out of a recession, you only delay the inevitable, while hastening it at the same time. But in the short term however, it helps keep the economy stable for the time being. It gives our inept politicians a chance to pull their heads out of their butts and devise a solution. But until they do, the grim end is but a certainty.

You almost talk like the economy has gone past a point of no return, as if a depressive cataclysm is unavoidable and all that's left is to assign blame.

There is blame, and it lies on the shoulders of each president who doesn't try to address the spending problem. You have any better ideas, bub?

I'm just looking at one window, 2007-2008: was that a situation where increased spending was justified?

And yet you lecture me about not placing blame. I saw it as justified. What would you have done in that situation?

If not, is there any situation where increased spending is justified?

Unbeknownst to you, yes there is. Wartime for example, take World War II. Roosevelt had to spend nearly over $200 billion to help fund the war machine. Before that time though, the debt was in the tens of billions. Had we not funded out troops adequately in the War, we'd be speaking German and Japanese right now.

Are you really so eager to pick a fight, you can't tell when someone holds the same position as you? I mean, wow, you actually cut from your quotes of my post the part where I said "That's my feeling as well," concerning Bush's recession spending.

I may suck at mind-reading, but you suck at just plain reading.

 

[TemplarKormac]

See, this doesn't really answer my question. At first you say if he hadn't, the economy would have collapsed, suggesting you approve of the increased spending at that time.

Let me guess, would you had rather him played the fiddle while America's economy collapsed? You don't seem to care that Obama did the same thing. So, did you approve of what he did? Try not to lecture me, mister. Sacrifices had to be made. In any recession spending goes up, that's just the nature of things.

But then you say it all only put us further into debt, and that Bush and Obama only delayed the inevitable, as if to say they shouldn't have bothered.

Speak for yourself. You really suck at mind reading.

What I meant is that each time you spend your way out of a recession, you only delay the inevitable, while hastening it at the same time. But in the short term however, it helps keep the economy stable for the time being. It gives our inept politicians a chance to pull their heads out of their butts and devise a solution. But until they do, the grim end is but a certainty.

You almost talk like the economy has gone past a point of no return, as if a depressive cataclysm is unavoidable and all that's left is to assign blame.

There is blame, and it lies on the shoulders of each president who doesn't try to address the spending problem. You have any better ideas, bub?

I'm just looking at one window, 2007-2008: was that a situation where increased spending was justified?

And yet you lecture me about not placing blame. I saw it as justified. What would you have done in that situation?

If not, is there any situation where increased spending is justified?

Unbeknownst to you, yes there is. Wartime for example, take World War II. Roosevelt had to spend nearly over $200 billion to help fund the war machine. Before that time though, the debt was in the tens of billions. Had we not funded out troops adequately in the War, we'd be speaking German and Japanese right now.

Are you really so eager to pick a fight, you can't tell when someone holds the same position as you? I mean, wow, you actually cut from your quotes of my post the part where I said "That's my feeling as well," concerning Bush's recession spending.

I may suck at mind-reading, but you suck at just plain reading.

From prior positions you have stated to me, it can be inferred that you disagreed with the increased spending undertaken by the Bush administration to address the recession, but seemingly excused Obama when it came to the same thing. I don't see how you can hold the same position as I, whilst citing your discontent in the same breath.

You spoke as if the spending wasn't justified, first, you asked "I'm just looking at one window, 2007-2008: was that a situation where increased spending was justified?" then you asked "...is there any situation where increased spending is justified?" you asked. Just what am I to discern from those questions?

 

[Paperman299]

See, this doesn't really answer my question. At first you say if he hadn't, the economy would have collapsed, suggesting you approve of the increased spending at that time.

Let me guess, would you had rather him played the fiddle while America's economy collapsed? You don't seem to care that Obama did the same thing. So, did you approve of what he did? Try not to lecture me, mister. Sacrifices had to be made. In any recession spending goes up, that's just the nature of things.

But then you say it all only put us further into debt, and that Bush and Obama only delayed the inevitable, as if to say they shouldn't have bothered.

Speak for yourself. You really suck at mind reading.

What I meant is that each time you spend your way out of a recession, you only delay the inevitable, while hastening it at the same time. But in the short term however, it helps keep the economy stable for the time being. It gives our inept politicians a chance to pull their heads out of their butts and devise a solution. But until they do, the grim end is but a certainty.

You almost talk like the economy has gone past a point of no return, as if a depressive cataclysm is unavoidable and all that's left is to assign blame.

There is blame, and it lies on the shoulders of each president who doesn't try to address the spending problem. You have any better ideas, bub?

I'm just looking at one window, 2007-2008: was that a situation where increased spending was justified?

And yet you lecture me about not placing blame. I saw it as justified. What would you have done in that situation?

If not, is there any situation where increased spending is justified?

Unbeknownst to you, yes there is. Wartime for example, take World War II. Roosevelt had to spend nearly over $200 billion to help fund the war machine. Before that time though, the debt was in the tens of billions. Had we not funded out troops adequately in the War, we'd be speaking German and Japanese right now.

Are you really so eager to pick a fight, you can't tell when someone holds the same position as you? I mean, wow, you actually cut from your quotes of my post the part where I said "That's my feeling as well," concerning Bush's recession spending.

I may suck at mind-reading, but you suck at just plain reading.

From prior positions you have stated to me, it can be inferred that you disagreed with the increased spending undertaken by the Bush administration to address the recession, but seemingly excused Obama when it came to the same thing. I don't see how you can hold the same position as I, whilst citing your discontent in the same breath.

You spoke as if the spending wasn't justified, first, you asked "I'm just looking at one window, 2007-2008: was that a situation where increased spending was justified?" then you asked "...is there any situation where increased spending is justified?" you asked. Just what am I to discern from those questions?

You said earlier you "blamed" Bush for his increased spending as the recession hit. From that point, I was trying to sound out whether you were some anti-spending zealot who felt Bush should have let the collapse happen.

That last page has been me trying to suss out as straightforwardly as possibly if I'd misread your position, and you making assumptions about me and slinging shit my way.

 

[beagle9]

See, this doesn't really answer my question. At first you say if he hadn't, the economy would have collapsed, suggesting you approve of the increased spending at that time.

Let me guess, would you had rather him played the fiddle while America's economy collapsed? You don't seem to care that Obama did the same thing. So, did you approve of what he did? Try not to lecture me, mister. Sacrifices had to be made. In any recession spending goes up, that's just the nature of things.

But then you say it all only put us further into debt, and that Bush and Obama only delayed the inevitable, as if to say they shouldn't have bothered.

Speak for yourself. You really suck at mind reading.

What I meant is that each time you spend your way out of a recession, you only delay the inevitable, while hastening it at the same time. But in the short term however, it helps keep the economy stable for the time being. It gives our inept politicians a chance to pull their heads out of their butts and devise a solution. But until they do, the grim end is but a certainty.

You almost talk like the economy has gone past a point of no return, as if a depressive cataclysm is unavoidable and all that's left is to assign blame.

There is blame, and it lies on the shoulders of each president who doesn't try to address the spending problem. You have any better ideas, bub?

I'm just looking at one window, 2007-2008: was that a situation where increased spending was justified?

And yet you lecture me about not placing blame. I saw it as justified. What would you have done in that situation?

If not, is there any situation where increased spending is justified?

Unbeknownst to you, yes there is. Wartime for example, take World War II. Roosevelt had to spend nearly over $200 billion to help fund the war machine. Before that time though, the debt was in the tens of billions. Had we not funded out troops adequately in the War, we'd be speaking German and Japanese right now.

Are you really so eager to pick a fight, you can't tell when someone holds the same position as you? I mean, wow, you actually cut from your quotes of my post the part where I said "That's my feeling as well," concerning Bush's recession spending.

I may suck at mind-reading, but you suck at just plain reading.

From prior positions you have stated to me, it can be inferred that you disagreed with the increased spending undertaken by the Bush administration to address the recession, but seemingly excused Obama when it came to the same thing. I don't see how you can hold the same position as I, whilst citing your discontent in the same breath.

You spoke as if the spending wasn't justified, first, you asked "I'm just looking at one window, 2007-2008: was that a situation where increased spending was justified?" then you asked "...is there any situation where increased spending is justified?" you asked. Just what am I to discern from those questions?

You said earlier you "blamed" Bush for his increased spending as the recession hit. From that point, I was trying to sound out whether you were some anti-spending zealot who felt Bush should have let the collapse happen.

That last page has been me trying to suss out as straightforwardly as possibly if I'd misread your position, and you making assumptions about me and slinging shit my way.

Isn't it just all numbers anyway, I mean no matter how one looks at it ? Isn't it that what really matters is the ratio between our natural resources, and how fast those resources are to be used (verses) our need of those resources in order to sustain, stimulate and revitalize a nation that has miss-managed the numbers over time anyway ?

I mean don't we look at population explosion + natural resources + allocated money's for spurring the economy without causing a crisis within our natural resources (verses) the consumption of these resources by the population who uses them ? So isn't it that as long as we control the ratios between these things smartly, then won't we always understand how rich we are as a nation, and how much we can utilize at any given time in order to spur growth and prosperity in the nation when need be or to either cut back on, and also how much growth is needed along with the resources that are used in order to get the desired results without causing a crisis to occur ?

I mean if I have say 40 acres of land, and it is rich of natural resources, then shouldn't I be able to figure out just how many people my land can support and allow to live there upon it with me ? Now if I don't know these things, and I allow as many as I can to move onto my land, then the next thing you know the land is laid to waste, and the people begin to suffer greatly upon it. OK, so now I ask why has this government been so foolish about these things, and how come it has knowingly increased or incentivised population explosions within specific areas of this nation, while knowing that in these areas the resources would be stretched beyond the limits, and therefore causing what we see now in so many areas in which we are seeing today in America ? Look at what we see in these people who claim they are victims of this stuff dating back now decades, is this also miss-management by our government looking back now as to what has happened, and as to what just keeps on happening over and over again ? Are we just getting smoke and mirrors all the time in all of this stuff ? Did the dems create huge populations just for votes, and this by doing all sorts of things in order to achieve such things over time ? Are corporations causing huge population explosions in order to full fill quota's of cheap labor needs, so again we get smoke and mirrors or the good guy bad guy thing that keeps us all fooled.

What are we entitled to as Americans ? NOTHING BUT MISERY while all the games keep being played on us by these corrupt politicians ?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Do you feel that Bush should not have increased spending in his final budget, in response to the recession?

It was that or let the economy collapse. If I recall, Obama did the same thing with his 'stimulus.' In the end though, all it did was put us further into debt. Delaying the inevitable. I am not just blaming Bush, I'm blaming every president since Ronald Reagan for putting us on this path. And each president who comes and goes without addressing this debt is just as guilty as the one before him for letting it grow.

as always,you understand it all.The reason Reagan is regarded as one of the greatest presidents is because its the lies the CIA controlled media and our corrupt school system has spread about him that the sheople have swallowed hook,line,and sinker.we have this debt because Reagan started us all on that path and every president since him has followed his footsteps.Reagan was the grandfather of it all that got the ball rolling. in Obama's inaugural address speech,he said he wanted to be like Reagan.well he has done just that.