Republicans fall quiet in face of Obama deficit success

[ABikerSailor]

Interesting.........................whenever someone wants to point out how badly Obama is doing with the economy, they post graphs and pie charts, but never source their information via links.

Whenever someone points out how good Obama is doing (and reducing the debt), they provide links to prove their posts.

Yeah........................I've got it...........................you're pissed that a black man is in the White House, and you're upset that he's doing a better job than the last idiot Republican that was there.

Face it...........................Obama is a decent President, and he's doing his best to fix this country.

Would be good however if McConnell, Boehner and Cantor were removed from the picture. I'd like to see a scandal, because I'm sure each of them have a few.................................

 

[Meathead]

All the charts and graphs in the world are not going to make Obama performance any better. Not the worst, but a very weak president.

He's already a scandal-ridden lame duck, so there's not a lot of room for improvement.

 

[Sallow]

All the charts and graphs in the world are not going to make Obama performance any better. Not the worst, but a very weak president.

He's already a scandal-ridden lame duck, so there's not a lot of room for improvement.

Call Obama a "weak president" is not going to make it so. And it's quite the opposite.

In terms of projecting American power overseas and engaging in some very shrewd statecraft, Obama's performance far exceeds his predecessor, a President that was considered "strong" by you folks.

Domestically, he passed nationally, what Presidents over the last 100 years could not do, and made a major change to health care. That along with saving the financial and auto industry qualifies as a strong performance. And given the nature of the opposition after 2010, which is extremely radical to the point of being dangerous..Obama's tread lightly enough not to rile those folks up into bring bombs into congress. Which I am sure some of those Tea Party psychos would like to do.

Hopefully that nest of scorpions gets cleared up come 2014.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Um..no..
It's not.

You are rither lying, or ignorant. I'll let you pick which.

National debt

1-20-2001 5,728,195,796,181.57
1-20-2009 10,626,877,048,913.08 +5,728,195,796,181.57 over 8 years
5-16-2013 16,765,040,725,133.72 +6,138,163,676,220.70 over <4.5 years
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Hmm, now if the above were true

There's no "if" - please note the citation provided.

And so, the statement that the debt is not above $16T is either a lie, or a product of ignorance.

Which is it?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Boooohoooohoooooush

 

[Meathead]

All the charts and graphs in the world are not going to make Obama performance any better. Not the worst, but a very weak president.

He's already a scandal-ridden lame duck, so there's not a lot of room for improvement.

Call Obama a "weak president" is not going to make it so. And it's quite the opposite.

In terms of projecting American power overseas and engaging in some very shrewd statecraft, Obama's performance far exceeds his predecessor, a President that was considered "strong" by you folks.

Domestically, he passed nationally, what Presidents over the last 100 years could not do, and made a major change to health care. That along with saving the financial and auto industry qualifies as a strong performance. And given the nature of the opposition after 2010, which is extremely radical to the point of being dangerous..Obama's tread lightly enough not to rile those folks up into bring bombs into congress. Which I am sure some of those Tea Party psychos would like to do.

Hopefully that nest of scorpions gets cleared up come 2014.

Obama's weakness is not mere words. Essentially claiming that things did not get any worse and he is not his predecessor as proof of success is proof of failure itself. Given that there is precious little to distinguish his presidency, I understand that hacks like yourself are reduced to grasping at the abstract and half-baked "accomplishments".

 

[Google]

Oh my, the deficit reduced $800 Billion under Obama ... more than predicted.
My comment ^^
Rachel Maddow Show

You don't give a damn about this issue. Neither does anyone on the left. These are the same people that told us we need to increase government spending to stimulate the economy--arguing that government debt/deficits = economic growth.

 

[Google]

Oh my, the deficit reduced $800 Billion under Obama ... more than predicted.
My comment ^^
Rachel Maddow Show

I wasn't aware that the White House had passed a budget, or that the Executive Branch was in charge of funding.

Couldn't possibly be that those Tea Party Republicans, you know the ones that ousted the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives with the mantra of reigning in deficit spending, that couldn't possibly have anything to do with anything right?

What was the deficit under the first two years of Obama's regime, you know when the DNC controlled all of Congress?

Google it.

It's all a coincidence, and the president gets all the credit for the deficit being reduced.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Left has no end of contortions they can make with logic and figures.
So Bush was responsible for the hike in spending in his last two years, when Dems controlled the House. But Obama is not responsible for the hike in spending in his first two years, far exceeding Bush's record.

The rate of spending has come down from eye popping to dizzying since the GOP took the House but Obama gets the credit for spending less than any other president, even though he has spent more than any other president.
It all makes sense. If you're a lib.

 

[JQPublic1]

You are rither lying, or ignorant. I'll let you pick which.

National debt

1-20-2001 5,728,195,796,181.57
1-20-2009 10,626,877,048,913.08 +5,728,195,796,181.57 over 8 years
5-16-2013 16,765,040,725,133.72 +6,138,163,676,220.70 over <4.5 years
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Hmm, now if the above were true

There's no "if" - please note the citation provided.

And so, the statement that the debt is not above $16T is either a lie, or a product of ignorance.

Which is it?

Citations are not always true,dummy! Just because you grasp at the first one that comes along does not mean there is nothing more to the story.

Now, when you copied your friends erroneous number 16,000,000,000,000,000 it says a lot about you and him. That number represents 16 quadrillion not 16 trillion. And for the mathematically
challenged, as you appear to be, that number is 16 thousand trillion too much.

Now, is that a lie or are you just a hopeless ignoramus who would not know the truth if it hit him between the eyes? We do know now that you don't know a thing about numbers.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hmm, now if the above were true

There's no "if" - please note the citation provided.

And so, the statement that the debt is not above $16T is either a lie, or a product of ignorance.

Which is it?

Citations are not always true,dummy!

Did you see the citation? It's from the federal government - the treasury.
You have no legitimate cause to question the source other than it said something you don't want to hear.
That is, you refuse to accept the truth.

 

[JQPublic1]

There's no "if" - please note the citation provided.

And so, the statement that the debt is not above $16T is either a lie, or a product of ignorance.

Which is it?

Citations are not always true,dummy!

Did you see the citation? It's from the federal government - the treasury.
You have no legitimate cause to question the source other than it said something you don't want to hear.
That is, you refuse to accept the truth.

When a dummy like you posts something there's always cause to question it.
Now, dunce...getting back to that 16 trillion dollar affair. If you are over 21 and Don't know the difference between 16 quadrillion and 16 trillion, I have to question your education level and your ability to engage in an intelligent discussion.

?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Citations are not always true,dummy!

Did you see the citation? It's from the federal government - the treasury.
You have no legitimate cause to question the source other than it said something you don't want to hear.
That is, you refuse to accept the truth.

When a dummy like you posts something there's always cause to question it.

Thank you for proving my statement true.
You refuse to accept the truth, and so there's no reason to take you with any degree of seriousness. You're a mindless partisan bigot, and nothing more.

Now, dunce...getting back to that 16 trillion dollar affair. If you are over 21 and Don't know the difference between 16 quadrillion and 16 trillion, I have to question your education level and your ability to engage in an intelligent discussion.

Aside from the irony so thick you need a continental engineer to cut it...
You obviously aren't paying attention, as I have postred nothing even remotely relevant to this.

 

[JQPublic1]

I sense a little desperation on your part, Mr. Pubic.

NOTATALL! NOTATALL! You and I both know that spending is controlled by the House...
So,the presidents are really not even a factor in spending except for special appropriations.
M14Shooter's pretty graphs and charts are showing that the Democrat controlled House was far more thrifty than the Republican controlled House. That is undeniable and both YOU and he know it! Its a no win situation for either argument isn't it? I'm just pointing out the facts....

Your desperation is making you say stupid shit.
The Republicans held the House until the last 2 years of Bush. Yes, they spent a lot. But that spending was dwarfed by the spending of the Democrats in the last 2 years. And that spending was dwarfed by the spending of the Democrats under Obama in the first 2 years of his administration, leaving a high baseline of spending. That it hasn't increased much over that baseline is due to Republicans retaking the House and reining in spending.

Describe that base line of spending by Obama would you Rabbi(t)?
My, My, you're hopping all over the place today.

 

[JQPublic1]

Now, dunce...getting back to that 16 trillion dollar affair. If you are over 21 and Don't know the difference between 16 quadrillion and 16 trillion, I have to question your education level and your ability to engage in an intelligent discussion.

Aside from the irony so thick you need a continental engineer to cut it...
You obviously aren't paying attention, as I have posted nothing even remotely relevant to this.

Obviously, you must have seen the post since you cut and snipped part of my response to it. For me,, that was enough to assign culpability to you as well as those idiots who posted it.
You were, in fact willing to let it stand as the truth.

The national the national debt indeed is over 16 trillion dollars but your cohorts
couldn't even copy the figures from their graphs correctly. And you, being a curmudgeon, probably noticed the error but, In fact, you snipped around it when you edited my responses.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7258238-post188.html

 

[M14 Shooter]

Now, dunce...getting back to that 16 trillion dollar affair. If you are over 21 and Don't know the difference between 16 quadrillion and 16 trillion, I have to question your education level and your ability to engage in an intelligent discussion.

Aside from the irony so thick you need a continental engineer to cut it...
You obviously aren't paying attention, as I have posted nothing even remotely relevant to this.

Obviously, you must have seen the post since you cut and snipped part of my response to it. For me,, that was enough to assign culpability to you...

Thank you for admitting that you indeed were NOT paying attention.

The national the national debt indeed is over 16 trillion dollars....

So, is the claim that it is not a lie, or simple ignorance?

 

[The Rabbi]

NOTATALL! NOTATALL! You and I both know that spending is controlled by the House...
So,the presidents are really not even a factor in spending except for special appropriations.
M14Shooter's pretty graphs and charts are showing that the Democrat controlled House was far more thrifty than the Republican controlled House. That is undeniable and both YOU and he know it! Its a no win situation for either argument isn't it? I'm just pointing out the facts....

Your desperation is making you say stupid shit.
The Republicans held the House until the last 2 years of Bush. Yes, they spent a lot. But that spending was dwarfed by the spending of the Democrats in the last 2 years. And that spending was dwarfed by the spending of the Democrats under Obama in the first 2 years of his administration, leaving a high baseline of spending. That it hasn't increased much over that baseline is due to Republicans retaking the House and reining in spending.

Describe that base line of spending by Obama would you Rabbi(t)?
My, My, you're hopping all over the place today.

I'll post it but since you cannot read a chart it wont mean much.
Government Spending: Growth and Trend Charts of US Federal Spending by Year

 

[JQPublic1]

Your desperation is making you say stupid shit.
The Republicans held the House until the last 2 years of Bush. Yes, they spent a lot. But that spending was dwarfed by the spending of the Democrats in the last 2 years. And that spending was dwarfed by the spending of the Democrats under Obama in the first 2 years of his administration, leaving a high baseline of spending. That it hasn't increased much over that baseline is due to Republicans retaking the House and reining in spending.

Describe that base line of spending by Obama would you Rabbi(t)?
My, My, you're hopping all over the place today.

I'll post it but since you cannot read a chart it wont mean much.
Government Spending: Growth and Trend Charts of US Federal Spending by Year

I went to your Right Wing Website. Now I have to disinfect my computer to get rid of all the cookies and other spyware that probably lurk on that site. I see that the Heritage Foundation seemingly used graphs from the CBO and other government organizations, then interpreted them with their own spin making it difficult to tell where the government report ended and the Heritage propaganda began.

I will need time to digest this stuff and pick some of the glaring mistakes apart. I'll get back with you on it!

 

[S.J.]

Describe that base line of spending by Obama would you Rabbi(t)?
My, My, you're hopping all over the place today.

I'll post it but since you cannot read a chart it wont mean much.
Government Spending: Growth and Trend Charts of US Federal Spending by Year

I went to your Right Wing Website. Now I have to disinfect my computer to get rid of all the cookies and other spyware that probably lurk on that site. I see that the Heritage Foundation seemingly used graphs from the CBO and other government organizations, then interpreted them with their own spin making it difficult to tell where the government report ended and the Heritage propaganda began.

I will need time to digest this stuff and pick some of the glaring mistakes apart. I'll get back with you on it!

Translated: I'll find some left-wing propaganda to post as a distraction from the truth as soon as I can find some.

 

[JQPublic1]

Obviously, you must have seen the post since you cut and snipped part of my response to it. For me,, that was enough to assign culpability to you...

Thank you for admitting that you indeed were NOT paying attention.

Thank you for admitting that you were paying attention and allowed a gross error in the thousands of trillions concerning the National Debt to be trumpeted by your dumb friends! On second thought, I doubt if you even knew they had made an error... you were just as clueless as they were!

The national the national debt indeed is over 16 trillion dollars...

.

So, is the claim that it is not a lie, or simple ignorance?

What claim? BY Whom? I certainly never made any such claim! I do know that 16 trillion dollars is no where near 16 quadrillion dollars as Wildman originally posted and was later quoted by 007. If you are trying to formulate a lie out of THAT, you are even dumber than I thought!
__________________