Obama Gets Last Laugh..."The Chinese and Russians"...have nothing to worry about.

[kaz]

(CNN)President Barack Obama tore into Republican presidential candidates Monday night at a Democratic fundraising event in New York, saying their complaints about CNBC's debate moderation aren't an encouraging preview for their governing abilities.

"Have you noticed that everyone of these candidates say, 'Obama's weak. Putin's kicking sand in his face. When I talk to Putin, he's going to straighten out,'" Obama said, impersonating a refrain among Republican candidates that he's allowed Russian President Vladimir Putin too much leeway.

"Then it turns out they can't handle a bunch of CNBC moderators at the debate. Let me tell you, if you can't handle those guys, then I don't think the Chinese and the Russians are going to be too worried about you," Obama said.

Obama rips into 2016 GOP field - CNNPolitics.com

LOL, the guy Putin simply refers to as Bitch is worried the Russians won't take the Republican seriously. That's classic

 

[kaz]

Putin was pissed because Obama ran back for the picture before he got the coffee Putin sent him to get

 

[kaz]

nospoon 12763430

Tax cuts? Are you kidding?.....The reduction in across the board tax rates resulted in increased revenue.

What increase in revenue? Bush had budget surpluses inherited from Clinton to start his first term. We very quickly returned to yearly deficits. During war time it was unprecedented to cut higher rates when Bush did it. The old trickle down theory raised its ugly head - promising to create jobs. Look at the net number of jobs created over Bush's eight years. Zero!!!! Do you actually think Bush43's economic failed policies had much to do with the Great Bush Recession of 2007?


And do you actually think Iraq was invaded and occupied at no increase in cost to the peacetime US Defense Department budget. Lordy Lordy if you do????


The Bush Admin said the invasion of Iraq would cost fifty billion. They never said it would cost nothing. Do you know what "off the books" means. The Bushies did intend to deceive the public on the cost of the Iraq War. Are you one of the many still deceived?

.
When the US invaded Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration estimated that it would cost $50-60bn to overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a functioning government. This estimate was catastrophically wrong: the war in Iraq has cost $823.2bn between 2003 and 2011. Some estimates suggesting that it may eventually cost as much as $3.7tnwhen factoring in the long-term costs of caring for the wounded and the families of those killed.

The most striking fact about the cost of the war in Iraq has been the extent to which it has been kept "off the books" of the government's ledgers and hidden from the American people. This was done by design. A fundamental assumption of the Bush administration's approach to the war was that it was only politically sustainable if it was portrayed as near-costless to the American public and to key constituencies in Washington. The dirty little secret of the Iraq war – one that both Bush and the war hawks in the Democratic party knew, but would never admit – was that the American people would only support a war to get rid of Saddam Hussein if they could be assured that they would pay almost nothing for it.

The most obvious way in which the true cost of this war was kept hidden was with the use of supplemental appropriations to fund the occupation. By one estimate, 70% of the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2003 and 2008 were funded with supplemental or emergency appropriations approved outside the Pentagon's annual budget. These appropriations allowed the Bush administration to shield the Pentagon's budget from the cuts otherwise needed to finance the war, to keep the Pentagon's pet programs intact and to escape the scrutiny that Congress gives to its normal annual regular appropriations.

With the Iraq war treated as an "off the books" expense, the Pentagon was allowed to keep spending on high-end military equipment and cutting-edge technology. In fiscal terms, it was as if the messy wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were never happening.

How the US public was defrauded by the hidden cost of the Iraq war | Michael Boyle

How did Clinton have a "budget surplus" when the national debt went up every year he was President?

 

[Camp]

The only thing Putin has succeeded at with his efforts to become somewhere near equal in global authority and renewing the cold war status of Russia has been the success his propaganda machine has had in recruiting right-wing Obama obsessed hater dupes to rally to his causes. In reality, his efforts to restrict NATO, limit western influence in Ukraine, impress the world with Russian military power in Syria and promote Russia as a military superpower has failed.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

nospoon 12763430

Tax cuts? Are you kidding?.....The reduction in across the board tax rates resulted in increased revenue.

What increase in revenue? Bush had budget surpluses inherited from Clinton to start his first term. We very quickly returned to yearly deficits. During war time it was unprecedented to cut higher rates when Bush did it. The old trickle down theory raised its ugly head - promising to create jobs. Look at the net number of jobs created over Bush's eight years. Zero!!!! Do you actually think Bush43's economic failed policies had much to do with the Great Bush Recession of 2007?


And do you actually think Iraq was invaded and occupied at no increase in cost to the peacetime US Defense Department budget. Lordy Lordy if you do????


The Bush Admin said the invasion of Iraq would cost fifty billion. They never said it would cost nothing. Do you know what "off the books" means. The Bushies did intend to deceive the public on the cost of the Iraq War. Are you one of the many still deceived?

.
When the US invaded Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration estimated that it would cost $50-60bn to overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a functioning government. This estimate was catastrophically wrong: the war in Iraq has cost $823.2bn between 2003 and 2011. Some estimates suggesting that it may eventually cost as much as $3.7tnwhen factoring in the long-term costs of caring for the wounded and the families of those killed.

The most striking fact about the cost of the war in Iraq has been the extent to which it has been kept "off the books" of the government's ledgers and hidden from the American people. This was done by design. A fundamental assumption of the Bush administration's approach to the war was that it was only politically sustainable if it was portrayed as near-costless to the American public and to key constituencies in Washington. The dirty little secret of the Iraq war – one that both Bush and the war hawks in the Democratic party knew, but would never admit – was that the American people would only support a war to get rid of Saddam Hussein if they could be assured that they would pay almost nothing for it.

The most obvious way in which the true cost of this war was kept hidden was with the use of supplemental appropriations to fund the occupation. By one estimate, 70% of the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2003 and 2008 were funded with supplemental or emergency appropriations approved outside the Pentagon's annual budget. These appropriations allowed the Bush administration to shield the Pentagon's budget from the cuts otherwise needed to finance the war, to keep the Pentagon's pet programs intact and to escape the scrutiny that Congress gives to its normal annual regular appropriations.

With the Iraq war treated as an "off the books" expense, the Pentagon was allowed to keep spending on high-end military equipment and cutting-edge technology. In fiscal terms, it was as if the messy wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were never happening.

How the US public was defrauded by the hidden cost of the Iraq war | Michael Boyle

How did Clinton have a "budget surplus" when the national debt went up every year he was President?

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

 

[bedowin62]

250,000 Syrians are dead; all you care about is if your Messiah Obama can laugh???

 

[NotfooledbyW]

12767704

250,000 Syrians are dead; all you care about is if your Messiah Obama can laugh???

What is it you believe could have been done about the civil war in Syria?

 

[kaz]

nospoon 12763430

Tax cuts? Are you kidding?.....The reduction in across the board tax rates resulted in increased revenue.

What increase in revenue? Bush had budget surpluses inherited from Clinton to start his first term. We very quickly returned to yearly deficits. During war time it was unprecedented to cut higher rates when Bush did it. The old trickle down theory raised its ugly head - promising to create jobs. Look at the net number of jobs created over Bush's eight years. Zero!!!! Do you actually think Bush43's economic failed policies had much to do with the Great Bush Recession of 2007?


And do you actually think Iraq was invaded and occupied at no increase in cost to the peacetime US Defense Department budget. Lordy Lordy if you do????


The Bush Admin said the invasion of Iraq would cost fifty billion. They never said it would cost nothing. Do you know what "off the books" means. The Bushies did intend to deceive the public on the cost of the Iraq War. Are you one of the many still deceived?

.
When the US invaded Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration estimated that it would cost $50-60bn to overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a functioning government. This estimate was catastrophically wrong: the war in Iraq has cost $823.2bn between 2003 and 2011. Some estimates suggesting that it may eventually cost as much as $3.7tnwhen factoring in the long-term costs of caring for the wounded and the families of those killed.

The most striking fact about the cost of the war in Iraq has been the extent to which it has been kept "off the books" of the government's ledgers and hidden from the American people. This was done by design. A fundamental assumption of the Bush administration's approach to the war was that it was only politically sustainable if it was portrayed as near-costless to the American public and to key constituencies in Washington. The dirty little secret of the Iraq war – one that both Bush and the war hawks in the Democratic party knew, but would never admit – was that the American people would only support a war to get rid of Saddam Hussein if they could be assured that they would pay almost nothing for it.

The most obvious way in which the true cost of this war was kept hidden was with the use of supplemental appropriations to fund the occupation. By one estimate, 70% of the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2003 and 2008 were funded with supplemental or emergency appropriations approved outside the Pentagon's annual budget. These appropriations allowed the Bush administration to shield the Pentagon's budget from the cuts otherwise needed to finance the war, to keep the Pentagon's pet programs intact and to escape the scrutiny that Congress gives to its normal annual regular appropriations.

With the Iraq war treated as an "off the books" expense, the Pentagon was allowed to keep spending on high-end military equipment and cutting-edge technology. In fiscal terms, it was as if the messy wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were never happening.

How the US public was defrauded by the hidden cost of the Iraq war | Michael Boyle

How did Clinton have a "budget surplus" when the national debt went up every year he was President?

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

kaz: "the national debt went up every year he was President"

Date Dollar Amount
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66

For all the brinkmanship of the government and leftist sites like factcheck.org, you can't hide that debt went up every year Slick was in the White House. I like how factcheck didn't even wonder or mention the debt going up in their claim we ran "surpluses."

There was no "surplus," Holmes, not a real one. Debt only goes up one way, you take in less than you spend...

 

[NotfooledbyW]

There was no "surplus," Holmes, not a real one. Debt only goes up one way, you take in less than you spend...

The public debt did not rise when the surpluses occurred at the end of Presudent Clinton's term. The surpluses are real. Perhaps you need an education on how public debt is acceptably measured by economists.....

Do you deny what's shown on this chart?

A Century of Deficits

Chart 4.04: Federal Deficit 1900-2020

. Today’s annual federal deficit, the difference between outlays and revenue in a single year, always seems dangerous and unprecedented. In fact, you need a war to really get a big deficit. The peak deficits came during World War I (17% of GDP in 1919) and World War II (24% in 1945), as the chart shows. The deficits of the Great Depression only came to about five percent of GDP, and the big $1.4 trillion deficit for FY 2009 amounted to 9.8% of GDP. In 2015 it is estimated that the federal deficit will have reduced to 3.24 percent GDP.

Past Debt History with Charts - a www.usgovernmentspending.com briefing


The following explains your confusion and ignorance based impression that annual budget surpluses did not exist as a result under President Clinton's term.

The following two quotes are found in this link:

ttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/23/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-his-administration-paid-down-deb/

. "There are actually a few ways of tabulating the debt. One is public debt, which includes all debt borrowed by the federal government and held by investors through Treasury notes and other securities. Another is gross federal debt, which includes public debt plus debt held by the government. The most notable forms of debt held by the government are the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare, money which is owed to beneficiaries in the future."

You are citing gross debt figures which do not refute the real surpluses that Clinton achieved. Here's why you are baffled:

. "The discrepancy between the two concepts of federal debt in these years occurred because of program surpluses and the rapid growth of reserves held by the various trust fund accounts, such as Social Security," said Brookings Institution economist Gary Burtless. Social Security surpluses don't go into a "lock box" but are instead invested in government bonds; the proceeds of these purchases go into the general treasury, and when the bonds mature, the treasury is obligated to pay back the Social Security trust both principal and interest.

"The growth of these surpluses meant the rest of the federal government did not have to issue as much debt to the public," Burtless said. "In fact, the federal government paid off more of its old debt than it issued new debt to the public. Therefore, net federal debt held by the public declined."

So, is there any reason to prefer any single measurement? On this question, we couldn't find a clear consensus.

The Congressional Budget Office wrote in a 2009 report that government-held debt, such as the Social Security trust fund, "has no direct, immediate impact on the economy. Instead, it simply represents credits to the various government accounts that can be redeemed as necessary to authorize payments for benefits or other expenses." By contrast, CBO wrote, "long-term projections of federal debt held by the public, measured relative to the size of the economy, provide useful yardsticks for assessing the sustainability of fiscal policies."

It's probably too much for you to comprehend so try reading it all several times until you get this point:

"The Congressional Budget Office wrote in a 2009 report that government-held debt, such as the Social Security trust fund, "has no direct, immediate impact on the economy. Instead, it simply represents credits to the various government accounts that can be redeemed as necessary to authorize payments for benefits or other expenses."

 

[kaz]

So you're admitting there is no social security "trust fund?" Interesting. you don't get it, do you Holmes?

 

[The Rabbi]

The only thing Putin has succeeded at with his efforts to become somewhere near equal in global authority and renewing the cold war status of Russia has been the success his propaganda machine has had in recruiting right-wing Obama obsessed hater dupes to rally to his causes. In reality, his efforts to restrict NATO, limit western influence in Ukraine, impress the world with Russian military power in Syria and promote Russia as a military superpower has failed.

What reality are you living in? Putin's forces control the entire Crimean peninsula (you'll need Mapquest to tell you where that is). They control significant portions of the Ukraine itlsef. He has eliminated dissent domestically. He has forged a strong alliance with Syria and Iran.
You cannot tell failure from success. This is why you think Obama is successful and Putin a failure.

 

[Geaux4it]

SJ 12721614

Well one thing's for sure. Russia and China don't have anything to worry about with Obama.

Yepp. They don't have to worry about crashing the world economy like Bush did. Or starting dumb wars for no reason in the Gulf region. Although Bush did invade Iraq and drive up oil prices to over $120 a barrel so Russia made big bucks while Americans were getting killed in Iraq. I'm glad Obama has oil prices down and nothing like a hundred troops getting killed a month in an unnecessary war.

What you think is irrelevant

-Geaux

 

[Camp]

The only thing Putin has succeeded at with his efforts to become somewhere near equal in global authority and renewing the cold war status of Russia has been the success his propaganda machine has had in recruiting right-wing Obama obsessed hater dupes to rally to his causes. In reality, his efforts to restrict NATO, limit western influence in Ukraine, impress the world with Russian military power in Syria and promote Russia as a military superpower has failed.

What reality are you living in? Putin's forces control the entire Crimean peninsula (you'll need Mapquest to tell you where that is). They control significant portions of the Ukraine itlsef. He has eliminated dissent domestically. He has forged a strong alliance with Syria and Iran.
You cannot tell failure from success. This is why you think Obama is successful and Putin a failure.

I don't need a map to know where Crimea is. While I have never been on the peninsula, I got pretty close to it a few times while road tripping from the southeastern areas to Odesa.
Crimea is a headache for Russia. Things didn't work out as planned. Russia will be spending huge sums of cash it can not afford to provide for sustenance to the Crimean population. They didn't get the land bridge they planned on that they hoped would physically connect Russia and Crimea. The push got stopped at Maripol. Crimea might as well be a huge island that can only be supplied by ships and planes. Unfortunately, the international community still refuses to recognize Crimea as part of Russia and still considers it part of Ukraine. Makes trading, transfer of funds etc. a problem.
Maybe you didn't hear the latest updates. The battlefront has been relatively calm since September and the Russians have given up on it's plans for the annexation of the planned Novorussiya. You will have to provide a source for your claim that Russia is controlling significant or even any portions of Ukraine. Some slivers of territory are under the control of militia's and quasi-recognized governing bodies who are negotiating how to rejoin Ukraine. BTW, Ukraine just had yet another internationally monitored election. They guys who took control from the Russian stooge who abandoned his office have now won four national elections.
There is less violence between the Ukraine government forces and volunteer battalions fighting the Russian-supported rebels than what can be expected between street gangs in an American city.

 

[bedowin62]

Are left-wingers retarded? how is russia and china not having "anything to worry about" something to be seen as obama having "the last laugh"??????

is this a good thing? something to brag about??? is it obama's job to make things easier for russia and china???

 

[bedowin62]

six countries HAVE recognized the annexation of Crimea by Russia. Guess what???? they are all darlings of the Left.

idiots and hypocrites

 

[bedowin62]

There is less violence between the Ukraine government forces and volunteer battalions fighting the Russian-supported rebels than what can be expected between street gangs in an American city

wow dimwit!! says alot about American cities who are virtually all run by liberals!

 

[Camp]

There is less violence between the Ukraine government forces and volunteer battalions fighting the Russian-supported rebels than what can be expected between street gangs in an American city

wow dimwit!! says alot about American cities who are virtually all run by liberals!

I was disputing and refuting Rabbi's claims which were all false. You have not come close to giving a valid critique of my refutations of Rabbi's nonsense. A handful of countries, giving symbolic recognition does not equal international recognition or resolve the difficulties of international business restrictions, travel and legal authority in international courts regarding international laws.
The comment comparing violence in American cities was to show the foolishness of Rabbi's contention about Russia controlling significant areas of Ukraine. The answer being that they don't, and the warfare is reduced to occasional gun fights is an indication of who has won or is winning in Ukraine.
You Putin lovers have to make shit up or stay misinformed to keep supporting the Putin propaganda being fed to you. Heck, the Ukraine propaganda you are stuck on is old and outdated. You jerks are just ignorant and poorly informed.
Look in the mirror to see who the dimwit is.

 

[The Rabbi]

The only thing Putin has succeeded at with his efforts to become somewhere near equal in global authority and renewing the cold war status of Russia has been the success his propaganda machine has had in recruiting right-wing Obama obsessed hater dupes to rally to his causes. In reality, his efforts to restrict NATO, limit western influence in Ukraine, impress the world with Russian military power in Syria and promote Russia as a military superpower has failed.

What reality are you living in? Putin's forces control the entire Crimean peninsula (you'll need Mapquest to tell you where that is). They control significant portions of the Ukraine itlsef. He has eliminated dissent domestically. He has forged a strong alliance with Syria and Iran.
You cannot tell failure from success. This is why you think Obama is successful and Putin a failure.

I don't need a map to know where Crimea is. While I have never been on the peninsula, I got pretty close to it a few times while road tripping from the southeastern areas to Odesa.

There is less violence between the Ukraine government forces and volunteer battalions fighting the Russian-supported rebels than what can be expected between street gangs in an American city

wow dimwit!! says alot about American cities who are virtually all run by liberals!

I was disputing and refuting Rabbi's claims which were all false. You have not come close to giving a valid critique of my refutations of Rabbi's nonsense. A handful of countries, giving symbolic recognition does not equal international recognition or resolve the difficulties of international business restrictions, travel and legal authority in international courts regarding international laws.
The comment comparing violence in American cities was to show the foolishness of Rabbi's contention about Russia controlling significant areas of Ukraine. The answer being that they don't, and the warfare is reduced to occasional gun fights is an indication of who has won or is winning in Ukraine.
You Putin lovers have to make shit up or stay misinformed to keep supporting the Putin propaganda being fed to you. Heck, the Ukraine propaganda you are stuck on is old and outdated. You jerks are just ignorant and poorly informed.
Look in the mirror to see who the dimwit is.

How stupid are you, again?

You have refuted nothing. You have made false unsupported assertions because you are losing this exchange very badly.

 

[Camp]

The only thing Putin has succeeded at with his efforts to become somewhere near equal in global authority and renewing the cold war status of Russia has been the success his propaganda machine has had in recruiting right-wing Obama obsessed hater dupes to rally to his causes. In reality, his efforts to restrict NATO, limit western influence in Ukraine, impress the world with Russian military power in Syria and promote Russia as a military superpower has failed.

What reality are you living in? Putin's forces control the entire Crimean peninsula (you'll need Mapquest to tell you where that is). They control significant portions of the Ukraine itlsef. He has eliminated dissent domestically. He has forged a strong alliance with Syria and Iran.
You cannot tell failure from success. This is why you think Obama is successful and Putin a failure.

I don't need a map to know where Crimea is. While I have never been on the peninsula, I got pretty close to it a few times while road tripping from the southeastern areas to Odesa.

There is less violence between the Ukraine government forces and volunteer battalions fighting the Russian-supported rebels than what can be expected between street gangs in an American city

wow dimwit!! says alot about American cities who are virtually all run by liberals!

I was disputing and refuting Rabbi's claims which were all false. You have not come close to giving a valid critique of my refutations of Rabbi's nonsense. A handful of countries, giving symbolic recognition does not equal international recognition or resolve the difficulties of international business restrictions, travel and legal authority in international courts regarding international laws.
The comment comparing violence in American cities was to show the foolishness of Rabbi's contention about Russia controlling significant areas of Ukraine. The answer being that they don't, and the warfare is reduced to occasional gun fights is an indication of who has won or is winning in Ukraine.
You Putin lovers have to make shit up or stay misinformed to keep supporting the Putin propaganda being fed to you. Heck, the Ukraine propaganda you are stuck on is old and outdated. You jerks are just ignorant and poorly informed.
Look in the mirror to see who the dimwit is.

How stupid are you, again?

You have refuted nothing. You have made false unsupported assertions because you are losing this exchange very badly.

First, your map is over a year old. Second, the light brown section indicates Ukraine control. Only the gold section indicated rebel control and that has changed drastically. Do you know how to read a map? Even this obsolete and poorly drawn map shows only a sliver of land on the Russian border.

www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/death-of-novorossia-why-kremlin-abandoned-ukraine-separatist-project/522320.html

 

[bedowin62]

The only thing Putin has succeeded at with his efforts to become somewhere near equal in global authority and renewing the cold war status of Russia has been the success his propaganda machine has had in recruiting right-wing Obama obsessed hater dupes to rally to his causes. In reality, his efforts to restrict NATO, limit western influence in Ukraine, impress the world with Russian military power in Syria and promote Russia as a military superpower has failed.

What reality are you living in? Putin's forces control the entire Crimean peninsula (you'll need Mapquest to tell you where that is). They control significant portions of the Ukraine itlsef. He has eliminated dissent domestically. He has forged a strong alliance with Syria and Iran.
You cannot tell failure from success. This is why you think Obama is successful and Putin a failure.

I don't need a map to know where Crimea is. While I have never been on the peninsula, I got pretty close to it a few times while road tripping from the southeastern areas to Odesa.

There is less violence between the Ukraine government forces and volunteer battalions fighting the Russian-supported rebels than what can be expected between street gangs in an American city

wow dimwit!! says alot about American cities who are virtually all run by liberals!

I was disputing and refuting Rabbi's claims which were all false. You have not come close to giving a valid critique of my refutations of Rabbi's nonsense. A handful of countries, giving symbolic recognition does not equal international recognition or resolve the difficulties of international business restrictions, travel and legal authority in international courts regarding international laws.
The comment comparing violence in American cities was to show the foolishness of Rabbi's contention about Russia controlling significant areas of Ukraine. The answer being that they don't, and the warfare is reduced to occasional gun fights is an indication of who has won or is winning in Ukraine.
You Putin lovers have to make shit up or stay misinformed to keep supporting the Putin propaganda being fed to you. Heck, the Ukraine propaganda you are stuck on is old and outdated. You jerks are just ignorant and poorly informed.
Look in the mirror to see who the dimwit is.

How stupid are you, again?

You have refuted nothing. You have made false unsupported assertions because you are losing this exchange very badly.

First, your map is over a year old. Second, the light brown section indicates Ukraine control. Only the gold section indicated rebel control and that has changed drastically. Do you know how to read a map? Even this obsolete and poorly drawn map shows only a sliver of land on the Russian border.

www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/death-of-novorossia-why-kremlin-abandoned-ukraine-separatist-project/522320.html

you think you're convincing anybody obama isnt a weak and inept clown???

that obama did anything that makes Putin think twice??