Obama is Leaving America Worse off than Under Bush

[frigidweirdo]

and remember during Bush years when the average share of the debt was around 10,000 per American,,,what its now? One Million per "Legal American"? what does that come out to,? Payments of 50,000 a month?

After Republicans helped send jobs to China. They fucked up what produces revenue. Now they want to blame it on Obama after the turds they handed him? What a bunch of creeps.

Send jobs to China? You mean jobs that someone with no education can do? Why exactly would the US want jobs that anyone can do?

Surely the US should be after jobs that only EDUCATED PEOPLE can do, seeing as the US is one of the leading "exporters" of education, and seeing as the US is a first world country with mass education as the norm.

 

[Conservative65]

Mostly cotton actually, and cotton doesn't grow on trees.

OK...money doesn't grow on trees...it grows on bushes

Democrats seem to think money grows on trees. Their answer is to spend more and more and more then go pick it.

And Republicans think money for wars, money for profits and corruption in the health care system, money for producing dollar bills instead of coins, and so on comes from where exactly?

Republicans KNOW that the ability to wage war comes from the Constitution.

Obamacare has done plenty to make profits for the healthcare system. It's OK with you when it's something the black boy did, though.

Last time I looked, the authority to coin money also comes from the Constitution.

I guess all those trillions spent on social programs that have no mention in the Constitution wasn't real money?

I'm sorry, what's your point? That war is in the constitution therefore it's a good thing to do?

Never said it was a good thing just that's it's CONSTITUTIONAL.

And what relevance does this have to do with the discussion exactly?

You're the moron that asked if I believed war was a good thing because it was in the Constitution. You made the statement above "And Republican think money for wars . . . and so comes from where exactly"? I know where that money comes from, it comes from taxes. That why I responded with the claim that declaring/waging war by funding it was in the Constitution as a power of Congress. You,as mentioned, assumed that meant I thought war was good. Not so. I don't think war is good but if war occurs, the power to declare it/wage it comes from the Constitution.

 

[Conservative65]

anyone ever hear about this? or about Any cost from this administration how they have spent our money.? these Damn Lamestream medias has become an Enemy to us as well as this administration and the Democrat party

SNIP:
US Paradrops 50 Tons Of Ammo To Syrian Rebels


Submitted by Tyler Durden on 10/12/2015 20:04 -0400






As we noted over the weekend, the US has now thrown in the towel on the ill-fated (and that’s putting it lightly) strategy of training Syrian fighters and sending them into battle only to be captured and killed by other Syrian fighters who the US also trained.

The Pentagon’s effort to recruit 5,400 properly “vetted” anti-ISIS rebels by the end of the year ended in tears when the entire world laughed until it cried after word got out that only “four or five” of these fighters were actually still around. The rest are apparently either captured, killed, lost in the desert, or fighting for someone else.

This has cost the US taxpayer somewhere in the neighborhood of $40 million over the last six months.

Because this latest program was such a public embarrassment, the Pentagon had to come up with a new idea to assist Syria’s “freedom fighters” now that they are fleeing under bombardment by the Russian air force only to be cut down by Hezbollah.

The newest plan: helicopter ammo. No, really. The US has now resorted to dropping "tons" of ammo into the middle of nowhere and hoping the “right” people find it.

No, really.

Here’s CNN:

ALL OF here:
US Paradrops 50 Tons Of Ammo To Syrian Rebels | Zero Hedge
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and lets see the COST of all this.

snip:

Says President Barack Obama has launched "twice as many strikes (on) countries that are predominantly Muslim" than President George W. Bush.

— LZ Granderson on Sunday, September 28th, 2014 in comments on CNN's "State of the Union"

LZ Granderson: Obama has bombed twice as many Muslim countries as Bush

all of it here:
LZ Granderson: Obama has bombed twice as many Muslim countries as Bush

The media lies or distorts the news every day. Obama is no different than W when it comes to war and foreign interventions. The media just doesn't report it when a D is in the WH.

No, I disagree, they are different. However they're not complete polar opposites. Obama doesn't oppose war, he's just limited in what waring he will do.

That statement about the media distorting thing such as war and foreign intervention is true. When Bush was President, the media reported regularly the number of deaths/wounded. When Obama became President, nothing. It stopped despite 3 out of 4 deaths in Afghanistan happening under Obama. The amount of time for which each was CIC is roughly the same.

 

[frigidweirdo]

OK...money doesn't grow on trees...it grows on bushes

And Republicans think money for wars, money for profits and corruption in the health care system, money for producing dollar bills instead of coins, and so on comes from where exactly?

Republicans KNOW that the ability to wage war comes from the Constitution.

Obamacare has done plenty to make profits for the healthcare system. It's OK with you when it's something the black boy did, though.

Last time I looked, the authority to coin money also comes from the Constitution.

I guess all those trillions spent on social programs that have no mention in the Constitution wasn't real money?

I'm sorry, what's your point? That war is in the constitution therefore it's a good thing to do?

Never said it was a good thing just that's it's CONSTITUTIONAL.

And what relevance does this have to do with the discussion exactly?

You're the moron that asked if I believed war was a good thing because it was in the Constitution. You made the statement above "And Republican think money for wars . . . and so comes from where exactly"? I know where that money comes from, it comes from taxes. That why I responded with the claim that declaring/waging war by funding it was in the Constitution as a power of Congress. You,as mentioned, assumed that meant I thought war was good. Not so. I don't think war is good but if war occurs, the power to declare it/wage it comes from the Constitution.

Ah, insults as an argument, do you really think that is appropriate? I don't. Bye.

 

[Conservative65]

Republicans KNOW that the ability to wage war comes from the Constitution.

Obamacare has done plenty to make profits for the healthcare system. It's OK with you when it's something the black boy did, though.

Last time I looked, the authority to coin money also comes from the Constitution.

I guess all those trillions spent on social programs that have no mention in the Constitution wasn't real money?

I'm sorry, what's your point? That war is in the constitution therefore it's a good thing to do?

Never said it was a good thing just that's it's CONSTITUTIONAL.

And what relevance does this have to do with the discussion exactly?

You're the moron that asked if I believed war was a good thing because it was in the Constitution. You made the statement above "And Republican think money for wars . . . and so comes from where exactly"? I know where that money comes from, it comes from taxes. That why I responded with the claim that declaring/waging war by funding it was in the Constitution as a power of Congress. You,as mentioned, assumed that meant I thought war was good. Not so. I don't think war is good but if war occurs, the power to declare it/wage it comes from the Constitution.

Ah, insults as an argument, do you really think that is appropriate? I don't. Bye.

It's not an insult if it's true.

Run bitch. That's what losers do.

 

[Faun]

You do know that Republicans control spending, right?

Not when your ****** President vetoes it.

Dayam, you're one dumbfucking conservative.

Idiot... if Obama vetoes a spending bill, NOTHING in it gets spent.

Just how rightarded are you??

Also, what adjective did you use to describe Obama? All I see is, "******"

Congress didn't pass an immigration bill or gun control so Obama decided to do something on his own. You're the idiot if you think it can't happen.

The president doesn't write spending bills, ya dumbfuck. Only the House can do that. Learn civics 101 before you speak so you don't look so retarded.

Meanwhile, in response to educating you that Republicans control spending, you idiotically pointed out that Obama can veto their spending bills. Meaning nothing in such bills gets spent; meaning Obama would be the one cutting spending when he vetoes such bills.

You really are a fucking rightard.

According to the Constitution, the President doesn't have authority to issue executive orders which carry the same weight as law yet your boy did just that because Congress wouldn't pass one the way he wanted. Quit kissing his black ass before you speak and look like an idiot.

No president has issued fewer Executive Orders than Obama in modern history...

Moron.

 

[Faun]

You do know that Republicans control spending, right?

You do know that Republicans control spending, right?

If so, shouldn't Republicans get credit for the deficit being reduced instead of Obama. If they control it, why do so many of you give him credit for something you say Republicans control? That's right, you pucker.

You really don't know shit, do ya, rightie? You're so stupid, you're now conflating spending with revenue. The decrease in the deficit has nothing to do with spending since federal spending is at an all-time high under Republicans. The deficit reduction occurred due to increased revenue; stemming primarily from tax increases (which Republicans oppose) and the surge in employment.

If that's what you want to believe.

Since many of those working the jobs that were supposedly created don't pay income taxes, your surge argument is invalid and discounted.

That's not a matter of opinion. Numbers are real. The deficit has not dropped because of spending because spending is at an all-time high under this Republican Congress. The deficit has dropped because tax revenues are also at an all-time high.

You righties voted these Republicans into office in a landslide in 2014 -- they thanked you by increasing spending to unprecedented levels.



And then idiots like you try to credit those out of control spending-maniac Republicans credit for lowering the deficit

They can't increase spending unless Obama signs the bills into law. If he vetoes them, how is that money being spent. Perhaps you should take a Civics class before running that damn mouth. Are you now saying he signed them? If so, it's on him because nothing Congress does matters unless he signs it.

The money is not spent if Obama vetoes them -- which is why you proved you're an imbecile claiming that Republicans aren't responsible for the increase in spending because Obama can veto their spending bills -- which means Obama is cutting spending when he does that.

 

[Conservative65]

If so, shouldn't Republicans get credit for the deficit being reduced instead of Obama. If they control it, why do so many of you give him credit for something you say Republicans control? That's right, you pucker.

You really don't know shit, do ya, rightie? You're so stupid, you're now conflating spending with revenue. The decrease in the deficit has nothing to do with spending since federal spending is at an all-time high under Republicans. The deficit reduction occurred due to increased revenue; stemming primarily from tax increases (which Republicans oppose) and the surge in employment.

If that's what you want to believe.

Since many of those working the jobs that were supposedly created don't pay income taxes, your surge argument is invalid and discounted.

That's not a matter of opinion. Numbers are real. The deficit has not dropped because of spending because spending is at an all-time high under this Republican Congress. The deficit has dropped because tax revenues are also at an all-time high.

You righties voted these Republicans into office in a landslide in 2014 -- they thanked you by increasing spending to unprecedented levels.



And then idiots like you try to credit those out of control spending-maniac Republicans credit for lowering the deficit

They can't increase spending unless Obama signs the bills into law. If he vetoes them, how is that money being spent. Perhaps you should take a Civics class before running that damn mouth. Are you now saying he signed them? If so, it's on him because nothing Congress does matters unless he signs it.

The money is not spent if Obama vetoes them -- which is why you proved you're an imbecile claiming that Republicans aren't responsible for the increase in spending because Obama can veto their spending bills -- which means Obama is cutting spending when he does that.

If he vetoes it, what you say about out of control Republican spending can't occur and the reason you say the debt is going up isn't happening like you say it. Retarded piece of shit.

 

[Faun]

You really don't know shit, do ya, rightie? You're so stupid, you're now conflating spending with revenue. The decrease in the deficit has nothing to do with spending since federal spending is at an all-time high under Republicans. The deficit reduction occurred due to increased revenue; stemming primarily from tax increases (which Republicans oppose) and the surge in employment.

If that's what you want to believe.

Since many of those working the jobs that were supposedly created don't pay income taxes, your surge argument is invalid and discounted.

That's not a matter of opinion. Numbers are real. The deficit has not dropped because of spending because spending is at an all-time high under this Republican Congress. The deficit has dropped because tax revenues are also at an all-time high.

You righties voted these Republicans into office in a landslide in 2014 -- they thanked you by increasing spending to unprecedented levels.



And then idiots like you try to credit those out of control spending-maniac Republicans credit for lowering the deficit

They can't increase spending unless Obama signs the bills into law. If he vetoes them, how is that money being spent. Perhaps you should take a Civics class before running that damn mouth. Are you now saying he signed them? If so, it's on him because nothing Congress does matters unless he signs it.

The money is not spent if Obama vetoes them -- which is why you proved you're an imbecile claiming that Republicans aren't responsible for the increase in spending because Obama can veto their spending bills -- which means Obama is cutting spending when he does that.

If he vetoes it, what you say about out of control Republican spending can't occur and the reason you say the debt is going up isn't happening like you say it. Retarded piece of shit.

Holyfuckingshit!

You're the one who said Republicans aren't responsible for the increase in spending when Obama vetoes their spending bills -- meaning Obama is cutting spending when he does that.

That's making my argument.

You're also the one crediting Republicans for the drop in the deficit, despite the reality that they've increased spending to an all-time high.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm sorry, what's your point? That war is in the constitution therefore it's a good thing to do?

Never said it was a good thing just that's it's CONSTITUTIONAL.

And what relevance does this have to do with the discussion exactly?

You're the moron that asked if I believed war was a good thing because it was in the Constitution. You made the statement above "And Republican think money for wars . . . and so comes from where exactly"? I know where that money comes from, it comes from taxes. That why I responded with the claim that declaring/waging war by funding it was in the Constitution as a power of Congress. You,as mentioned, assumed that meant I thought war was good. Not so. I don't think war is good but if war occurs, the power to declare it/wage it comes from the Constitution.

Ah, insults as an argument, do you really think that is appropriate? I don't. Bye.

It's not an insult if it's true.

Run bitch. That's what losers do.

Oh please.... This is pathetic, the sort of thing you should have left behind in high school. On ignore, bye forever.

 

[Conservative65]

Never said it was a good thing just that's it's CONSTITUTIONAL.

And what relevance does this have to do with the discussion exactly?

You're the moron that asked if I believed war was a good thing because it was in the Constitution. You made the statement above "And Republican think money for wars . . . and so comes from where exactly"? I know where that money comes from, it comes from taxes. That why I responded with the claim that declaring/waging war by funding it was in the Constitution as a power of Congress. You,as mentioned, assumed that meant I thought war was good. Not so. I don't think war is good but if war occurs, the power to declare it/wage it comes from the Constitution.

Ah, insults as an argument, do you really think that is appropriate? I don't. Bye.

It's not an insult if it's true.

Run bitch. That's what losers do.

Oh please.... This is pathetic, the sort of thing you should have left behind in high school. On ignore, bye forever.

I did. However, when people like you keep acting like those still in high school, that's how you get treated.

Ignoring is a sign of a weakling. It's the mindset that if I don't see it, I'm not what he correctly identified me as being.

 

[Conservative65]

If that's what you want to believe.

Since many of those working the jobs that were supposedly created don't pay income taxes, your surge argument is invalid and discounted.

That's not a matter of opinion. Numbers are real. The deficit has not dropped because of spending because spending is at an all-time high under this Republican Congress. The deficit has dropped because tax revenues are also at an all-time high.

You righties voted these Republicans into office in a landslide in 2014 -- they thanked you by increasing spending to unprecedented levels.



And then idiots like you try to credit those out of control spending-maniac Republicans credit for lowering the deficit

They can't increase spending unless Obama signs the bills into law. If he vetoes them, how is that money being spent. Perhaps you should take a Civics class before running that damn mouth. Are you now saying he signed them? If so, it's on him because nothing Congress does matters unless he signs it.

The money is not spent if Obama vetoes them -- which is why you proved you're an imbecile claiming that Republicans aren't responsible for the increase in spending because Obama can veto their spending bills -- which means Obama is cutting spending when he does that.

If he vetoes it, what you say about out of control Republican spending can't occur and the reason you say the debt is going up isn't happening like you say it. Retarded piece of shit.

Holyfuckingshit!

You're the one who said Republicans aren't responsible for the increase in spending when Obama vetoes their spending bills -- meaning Obama is cutting spending when he does that.

That's making my argument.

You're also the one crediting Republicans for the drop in the deficit, despite the reality that they've increased spending to an all-time high.

You're the one that says when Obama vetoes spending bills money isn't spent. However, you blame Republicans for spending going up despite spending bills being vetoes. If Obama vetoes, money can't be spent. Your words. Tell me how Republicans can be responsible for increased spending when the spending can't occur because of vetoed bills.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Romney would have done better.

Sure he would have dude. IF he could of only got elected. WHOOPS.

Gofirit, you would be doing better if you didnt spend all your time whining on a message board.

true story. Get a J O B..

I see I struck a nerve no? 51% of the people did not want a free and prosperous America. 51% wanted to punish success instead of incentivize it.

Obama said he would be a one term President is he didn't fix the economy. A sustained 1.7% GDP is not a recovery. Its hospice life support

-Geaux

Must have fixed the economy as we won in a landslide

Reagan's reelection was a landslide, Obama not even close. Looked more like a consolation prize.

 

[Faun]

That's not a matter of opinion. Numbers are real. The deficit has not dropped because of spending because spending is at an all-time high under this Republican Congress. The deficit has dropped because tax revenues are also at an all-time high.

You righties voted these Republicans into office in a landslide in 2014 -- they thanked you by increasing spending to unprecedented levels.



And then idiots like you try to credit those out of control spending-maniac Republicans credit for lowering the deficit

They can't increase spending unless Obama signs the bills into law. If he vetoes them, how is that money being spent. Perhaps you should take a Civics class before running that damn mouth. Are you now saying he signed them? If so, it's on him because nothing Congress does matters unless he signs it.

The money is not spent if Obama vetoes them -- which is why you proved you're an imbecile claiming that Republicans aren't responsible for the increase in spending because Obama can veto their spending bills -- which means Obama is cutting spending when he does that.

If he vetoes it, what you say about out of control Republican spending can't occur and the reason you say the debt is going up isn't happening like you say it. Retarded piece of shit.

Holyfuckingshit!

You're the one who said Republicans aren't responsible for the increase in spending when Obama vetoes their spending bills -- meaning Obama is cutting spending when he does that.

That's making my argument.

You're also the one crediting Republicans for the drop in the deficit, despite the reality that they've increased spending to an all-time high.

You're the one that says when Obama vetoes spending bills money isn't spent. However, you blame Republicans for spending going up despite spending bills being vetoes. If Obama vetoes, money can't be spent. Your words. Tell me how Republicans can be responsible for increased spending when the spending can't occur because of vetoed bills.

Imbecile... you blamed Democrats for spending. Democrats don't control the House. Republicans do and the House controls spending. Learn civics 101...

Power of the Purse

Congress—and in particular, the House of Representatives—is invested with the “power of the purse,” the ability to tax and spend public money for the national government. ​

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

They can't increase spending unless Obama signs the bills into law. If he vetoes them, how is that money being spent. Perhaps you should take a Civics class before running that damn mouth. Are you now saying he signed them? If so, it's on him because nothing Congress does matters unless he signs it.

The money is not spent if Obama vetoes them -- which is why you proved you're an imbecile claiming that Republicans aren't responsible for the increase in spending because Obama can veto their spending bills -- which means Obama is cutting spending when he does that.

If he vetoes it, what you say about out of control Republican spending can't occur and the reason you say the debt is going up isn't happening like you say it. Retarded piece of shit.

Holyfuckingshit!

You're the one who said Republicans aren't responsible for the increase in spending when Obama vetoes their spending bills -- meaning Obama is cutting spending when he does that.

That's making my argument.

You're also the one crediting Republicans for the drop in the deficit, despite the reality that they've increased spending to an all-time high.

You're the one that says when Obama vetoes spending bills money isn't spent. However, you blame Republicans for spending going up despite spending bills being vetoes. If Obama vetoes, money can't be spent. Your words. Tell me how Republicans can be responsible for increased spending when the spending can't occur because of vetoed bills.

Imbecile... you blamed Democrats for spending. Democrats don't control the House. Republicans do and the House controls spending. Learn civics 101...

Power of the Purse

Congress—and in particular, the House of Representatives—is invested with the “power of the purse,” the ability to tax and spend public money for the national government. ​

So when liberals blame Bush spending more than Obama, it's actually Speaker Pelosi more than Boehner? Which side of the argument do you want to stick to?

 

[Conservative65]

They can't increase spending unless Obama signs the bills into law. If he vetoes them, how is that money being spent. Perhaps you should take a Civics class before running that damn mouth. Are you now saying he signed them? If so, it's on him because nothing Congress does matters unless he signs it.

The money is not spent if Obama vetoes them -- which is why you proved you're an imbecile claiming that Republicans aren't responsible for the increase in spending because Obama can veto their spending bills -- which means Obama is cutting spending when he does that.

If he vetoes it, what you say about out of control Republican spending can't occur and the reason you say the debt is going up isn't happening like you say it. Retarded piece of shit.

Holyfuckingshit!

You're the one who said Republicans aren't responsible for the increase in spending when Obama vetoes their spending bills -- meaning Obama is cutting spending when he does that.

That's making my argument.

You're also the one crediting Republicans for the drop in the deficit, despite the reality that they've increased spending to an all-time high.

You're the one that says when Obama vetoes spending bills money isn't spent. However, you blame Republicans for spending going up despite spending bills being vetoes. If Obama vetoes, money can't be spent. Your words. Tell me how Republicans can be responsible for increased spending when the spending can't occur because of vetoed bills.

Imbecile... you blamed Democrats for spending. Democrats don't control the House. Republicans do and the House controls spending. Learn civics 101...

Power of the Purse

Congress—and in particular, the House of Representatives—is invested with the “power of the purse,” the ability to tax and spend public money for the national government. ​

Someone needs to explain to you that between 2009 and 2011, Democrats controlled the House yet you think nothing they did involved spending. Moron from a long line of them.

You blame Republicans for increasing spending yet admit Obama vetoed bills giving him credit for reducing the deficit. How can any bill passed by Republicans raise spending if Obama vetoed it? The money isn't spent.

 

[Faun]

The money is not spent if Obama vetoes them -- which is why you proved you're an imbecile claiming that Republicans aren't responsible for the increase in spending because Obama can veto their spending bills -- which means Obama is cutting spending when he does that.

If he vetoes it, what you say about out of control Republican spending can't occur and the reason you say the debt is going up isn't happening like you say it. Retarded piece of shit.

Holyfuckingshit!

You're the one who said Republicans aren't responsible for the increase in spending when Obama vetoes their spending bills -- meaning Obama is cutting spending when he does that.

That's making my argument.

You're also the one crediting Republicans for the drop in the deficit, despite the reality that they've increased spending to an all-time high.

You're the one that says when Obama vetoes spending bills money isn't spent. However, you blame Republicans for spending going up despite spending bills being vetoes. If Obama vetoes, money can't be spent. Your words. Tell me how Republicans can be responsible for increased spending when the spending can't occur because of vetoed bills.

Imbecile... you blamed Democrats for spending. Democrats don't control the House. Republicans do and the House controls spending. Learn civics 101...

Power of the Purse

Congress—and in particular, the House of Representatives—is invested with the “power of the purse,” the ability to tax and spend public money for the national government. ​

Someone needs to explain to you that between 2009 and 2011, Democrats controlled the House yet you think nothing they did involved spending. Moron from a long line of them.

You blame Republicans for increasing spending yet admit Obama vetoed bills giving him credit for reducing the deficit. How can any bill passed by Republicans raise spending if Obama vetoed it? The money isn't spent.

You're too fucking retarded.

You blamed Democrats for spending too much. Meanwhile, spending is controlled by Republicans and is at an all-time high.

You also tried to credit Republicans for the decrease of the deficit; but that decrease is due to increased revenue, not a decrease in spending.

 

[Geaux4it]

Peter has provided us with some much more needed information

-Geaux
----------

In fact, Schiff said that we may already be in recession and this one is going to be a doozy.

"We're in worse shape now than we were in 2007," he said.

Chief among his concerns is a growing bubble of debt that has accumulated in the US, which he said "is even bigger than the real-estate bubble" that burst in 2008.

PETER SCHIFF: We're going to have a serious recession and negative interest rates before the election