Republicans fall quiet in face of Obama deficit success

[M14 Shooter]

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

YOU don't show the article because LIKE MADOW you aren't telling the whole f...king truth!
You and your ilk are so ignorant about the concept of "DEFICIT"!!!

"The CBO projects a $642 billion budget deficit for fiscal year 2013,
down more than $200 billion from its February estimate and the smallest annual shortfall since 2008.
It is the lowest level of deficit spending to date under President Obama, who faced $1 trillion or more in annual deficits during his first term.

NOW HERE ARE THE DEFICITS under BUSH!!!
Historical Tables | The White House
Federal receipts 2000
$2.025 trillion
Outlays
$1.788 trillion outlays
$0.236 trillion deficit

Federal receipts 2001
$1.991 trillion
Outlays
$1.862 trillion outlays
$0.128 trillion deficit

Federal receipts 2002
$1.853 trillion
Outlays
$2.010 trillion outlays
$0.157 trillion deficit

Federal receipts 2003
$1.782 trillion
Outlays
$2.159 trillion outlays
$0.377 trillion deficit

Federal receipts 2004
$1.880 trillion
Outlays
$2.292 trillion outlays
$0.412 trillion deficit

Federal receipts 2005
$2.153 trillion
Outlays
$2.471 trillion outlays
$0.318 trillion deficit

Federal receipts 2006
$2.406 trillion
Outlays
$2.655 trillion outlays
$0.248 trillion deficit

Federal receipts 2007
$2.567 trillion
Outlays
$2.728 trillion outlays
$0.160 trillion deficit

Federal receipts 2008
$2.523 trillion
Outlays
$2.982 trillion outlays
$0.458 trillion deficit

Federal receipts 2009
$2.104 trillion
Outlays
$3.517 trillion outlays
$1.412 trillion deficit

Federal receipts 2010
$2.162 trillion
Outlays
$3.457 trillion outlays
$1.294 trillion deficit

Federal receipts 2011
$2.303 trillion
Outlays
$3.603 trillion outlays
$1.299 trillion deficit

Federal receipts 2012
$2.450 trillion
Outlays
$3.537 trillion outlays
$1.086 trillion deficit

WHERE UNDER BUSH was there EVER a Trillion deficit!!!!!

Its right there under your nose sucka

Federal receipts 2009
$2.104 trillion
Outlays
$3.517 trillion outlays
$1.412 trillion deficit

Obama's budget really didn't start until October of 2009 that's when fiscal yr 2010 started. I'm beginning to wonder do you know the difference between the national debt and the national deficit?

Obama signed the FY2009 budget in March of 2009.
FY2009 deficit belings to Him.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

How was running 4 straight $1 trillion deficits "success"? You can't claim success for this... The debt is still over 16 trillion, Obama has still spent more than Bush, and Liberals still have nothing to brag about. But this is another liberal deflection from scandalous behavior of the Obama administration.

How about successfully preventing the Second Great Republican Depression? For that is where we were headed when President Obama took office. You people completely screwed up. Two failed wars, let the fellow that murdered 3000 Americans on American soil go, and totally tanked the economy.

And now you are trying to shift the blame for your total incompetance to the person that pulled all of our chestnuts out of the fire.

Your so-called scandals are unraveling, and you are going to experiance some major blowback on that nonsense. In the meantime, people see that the economy is slowly improving in spite of your efforts to destroy it.

How can Republicans cause a depression? They haven't been in control of both houses since 2006! So how are you blaming Republicans? You have a majority in the Senate. You have a Senate who took almost 4 1/2 years to pass a budget and has to date rejected any measure to reduce spending and the deficit.

So how exactly are you claiming any success on this? Oh wait, you'll just blame Bush for it like you always have.

You obviously don't understand how economic policies work. The Bush Administration gangraped this country. And honestly, Obama has been mildly effective putting back the pieces of a shattered economy and financial system but he's been a real pussy taking on the rampant corruption and illegal speculation in the finance industry.

 

[Sallow]

Crowing about Obama reducing the deficit is the equivalent of an arsonist claiming credit for putting out a fire.

Actually no it's not.

Because the fire was started by Bush.

 

[S.J.]

I don't believe Afghanistan was based on lies. It was based on the Taliban not giving up Al queada after 9-11.

Say what you will about Iraq.

Neither was based on lies. Bin Laden operated out of Afghanistan until we went in there, and Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians. Syria most likely has them now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How about successfully preventing the Second Great Republican Depression? For that is where we were headed when President Obama took office. You people completely screwed up. Two failed wars, let the fellow that murdered 3000 Americans on American soil go, and totally tanked the economy.

And now you are trying to shift the blame for your total incompetance to the person that pulled all of our chestnuts out of the fire.

Your so-called scandals are unraveling, and you are going to experiance some major blowback on that nonsense. In the meantime, people see that the economy is slowly improving in spite of your efforts to destroy it.

How can Republicans cause a depression? They haven't been in control of both houses since 2006! So how are you blaming Republicans? You have a majority in the Senate. You have a Senate who took almost 4 1/2 years to pass a budget and has to date rejected any measure to reduce spending and the deficit.

So how exactly are you claiming any success on this? Oh wait, you'll just blame Bush for it like you always have.

You obviously don't understand how economic policies work. The Bush Administration gangraped this country.

Spoken like a true partisan bigot.

 

[Sallow]

How about successfully preventing the Second Great Republican Depression? For that is where we were headed when President Obama took office. You people completely screwed up. Two failed wars, let the fellow that murdered 3000 Americans on American soil go, and totally tanked the economy.

And now you are trying to shift the blame for your total incompetance to the person that pulled all of our chestnuts out of the fire.

Your so-called scandals are unraveling, and you are going to experiance some major blowback on that nonsense. In the meantime, people see that the economy is slowly improving in spite of your efforts to destroy it.

How can Republicans cause a depression? They haven't been in control of both houses since 2006! So how are you blaming Republicans? You have a majority in the Senate. You have a Senate who took almost 4 1/2 years to pass a budget and has to date rejected any measure to reduce spending and the deficit.

So how exactly are you claiming any success on this? Oh wait, you'll just blame Bush for it like you always have.

You obviously don't understand how economic policies work. The Bush Administration gangraped this country. And honestly, Obama has been mildly effective putting back the pieces of a shattered economy and financial system but he's been a real pussy taking on the rampant corruption and illegal speculation in the finance industry.

Mildly. He's been a bit more then mildly effective. Think Spiderman when he had to rescue the folks in the Roosevelt Island Gondola AND Mary Jane!

 

[Sallow]

I don't believe Afghanistan was based on lies. It was based on the Taliban not giving up Al queada after 9-11.

Say what you will about Iraq.

Neither was based on lies. Bin Laden operated out of Afghanistan until we went in there, and Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians. Syria most likely has them now.

Which was actually ENCOURAGED by the United States.

And..the United States, provided Iraq with the Chemical Weapons that were used.

There was NO reason, none to attack Iraq.

 

[S.J.]

I don't believe Afghanistan was based on lies. It was based on the Taliban not giving up Al queada after 9-11.

Say what you will about Iraq.

Neither was based on lies. Bin Laden operated out of Afghanistan until we went in there, and Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians. Syria most likely has them now.

Which was actually ENCOURAGED by the United States.

And..the United States, provided Iraq with the Chemical Weapons that were used.

There was NO reason, none to attack Iraq.

Thanks for admitting Saddam had WMDs.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I don't believe Afghanistan was based on lies. It was based on the Taliban not giving up Al queada after 9-11.

Say what you will about Iraq.

Neither was based on lies. Bin Laden operated out of Afghanistan until we went in there, and Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians. Syria most likely has them now.

Which was actually ENCOURAGED by the United States.

And..the United States, provided Iraq with the Chemical Weapons that were used.

There was NO reason, none to attack Iraq.

Really. I think you're talking about Reagan, right? Give me some links. Thanks.

 

[Pete7469]

I'm not interested in the rest of the thread because it's foundation is a steaming pile of wormy bullshit.

I just have to laugh when I see "obama" and "success" in the same sentence.

 

[Sallow]

Neither was based on lies. Bin Laden operated out of Afghanistan until we went in there, and Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians. Syria most likely has them now.

Which was actually ENCOURAGED by the United States.

And..the United States, provided Iraq with the Chemical Weapons that were used.

There was NO reason, none to attack Iraq.

Thanks for admitting Saddam had WMDs.

Had is the operative word here.

And for the most part he ditched them when told too by his US masters.

 

[S.J.]

I'm not interested in the rest of the thread because it's foundation is a steaming pile of wormy bullshit.

I just have to laugh when I see "obama" and "success" in the same sentence.

The only thing he has been successful at is fucking up the country.

 

[The Rabbi]

Which was actually ENCOURAGED by the United States.

And..the United States, provided Iraq with the Chemical Weapons that were used.

There was NO reason, none to attack Iraq.

Thanks for admitting Saddam had WMDs.

Had is the operative word here.

Andfor the most part he ditched them when told too by his US masters.

Thanks for admitting Saddam had WMD when Bush made the decision to go to war.

 

[Pete7469]

I'm not interested in the rest of the thread because it's foundation is a steaming pile of wormy bullshit.

I just have to laugh when I see "obama" and "success" in the same sentence.

The only thing he has been successful at is fucking up the country.

I won't even give him credit for that, it was on decline thanks to the democrooks, RINO's and Bush's ineptitude at combating their endeavors. As well as some of his own poor choices.

 

[Sallow]

Neither was based on lies. Bin Laden operated out of Afghanistan until we went in there, and Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians. Syria most likely has them now.

Which was actually ENCOURAGED by the United States.

And..the United States, provided Iraq with the Chemical Weapons that were used.

There was NO reason, none to attack Iraq.

Really. I think you're talking about Reagan, right? Give me some links. Thanks.

It's in the wiki.

United States support for Iraq during the Iran?Iraq war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

President Ronald Reagan initiated a strategic opening to Iraq, signing National Security Study Directive (NSSD) 4-82 and selecting Donald Rumsfeld as his emissary to Hussein, whom he visited in December 1983 and March 1984.[14] According to U.S. ambassador Peter W. Galbraith, far from winning the conflict, "the Reagan administration was afraid Iraq might actually lose."[15]

In 1982, Iraq was removed from a list of State Sponsors of Terrorism to ease the transfer of dual-use technology to that country. According to investigative journalist Alan Friedman, Secretary of State Alexander Haig was "upset at the fact that the decision had been made at the White House, even though the State Department was responsible for the list."[3] "I was not consulted," Haig is said to have complained.

Howard Teicher served on the National Security Council as director of Political-Military Affairs. He accompanied Rumsfeld to Baghdad in 1983.[16] According to his 1995 affidavit and separate interviews with former Reagan and Bush administration officials, the Central Intelligence Agency secretly directed armaments and hi-tech components to Iraq through false fronts and friendly third parties such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait, and they quietly encouraged rogue arms dealers and other private military companies to do the same:

[T]he United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat... The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.[17]

Donald Rumsfeld meets Saddām on 19–20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984, the day the UN reported that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name."[14]

The full extent of these covert transfers is not yet known. Teicher's files on the subject are held securely at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and many other Reagan Era documents that could help shine new light on the subject remain classified. Teicher declined to discuss details of the affidavit with the Washington Post shortly before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[18]

 

[Pete7469]

Thanks for admitting Saddam had WMDs.

Had is the operative word here.

Andfor the most part he ditched them when told too by his US masters.

Thanks for admitting Saddam had WMD when Bush made the decision to go to war.

Oh yes, regarding the WMD bullshit...

Wasn't it Clinton appointee George Tenet who insisted to then President Bush that the WMD issue was a "slam dunk case"?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Thanks for admitting Saddam had WMDs.

Had is the operative word here.

Andfor the most part he ditched them when told too by his US masters.

Thanks for admitting Saddam had WMD when Bush made the decision to go to war.

Are you talking about George HW Bush? You're right if so, but the question stands on did he have them under George W Bush.

 

[Sallow]

Thanks for admitting Saddam had WMDs.

Had is the operative word here.

Andfor the most part he ditched them when told too by his US masters.

Thanks for admitting Saddam had WMD when Bush made the decision to go to war.

Well no.

Didn't "admit" any such thing.

In any case..though..the US had a very extensive itinerary in terms of what they "thought" Iraq still had in it's arms cache.

Why do you suppose that?

 

[Pete7469]

Which was actually ENCOURAGED by the United States.

And..the United States, provided Iraq with the Chemical Weapons that were used.

There was NO reason, none to attack Iraq.

Really. I think you're talking about Reagan, right? Give me some links. Thanks.

It's in the wiki.

United States support for Iraq during the Iran?Iraq war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

President Ronald Reagan initiated a strategic opening to Iraq, signing National Security Study Directive (NSSD) 4-82 and selecting Donald Rumsfeld as his emissary to Hussein, whom he visited in December 1983 and March 1984.[14] According to U.S. ambassador Peter W. Galbraith, far from winning the conflict, "the Reagan administration was afraid Iraq might actually lose."[15]

In 1982, Iraq was removed from a list of State Sponsors of Terrorism to ease the transfer of dual-use technology to that country. According to investigative journalist Alan Friedman, Secretary of State Alexander Haig was "upset at the fact that the decision had been made at the White House, even though the State Department was responsible for the list."[3] "I was not consulted," Haig is said to have complained.

Howard Teicher served on the National Security Council as director of Political-Military Affairs. He accompanied Rumsfeld to Baghdad in 1983.[16] According to his 1995 affidavit and separate interviews with former Reagan and Bush administration officials, the Central Intelligence Agency secretly directed armaments and hi-tech components to Iraq through false fronts and friendly third parties such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait, and they quietly encouraged rogue arms dealers and other private military companies to do the same:

[T]he United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat... The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.[17]

Donald Rumsfeld meets Saddām on 19–20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984, the day the UN reported that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name."[14]

The full extent of these covert transfers is not yet known. Teicher's files on the subject are held securely at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and many other Reagan Era documents that could help shine new light on the subject remain classified. Teicher declined to discuss details of the affidavit with the Washington Post shortly before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[18]

Blah blah blah...

More leftist psycobabble.

The issue isn't WMD's or anything Hussien had before Desert Strorm, it was the fact he violated the cease fire regularly for 10 years.

Bush cleaned up the problem his daddy left, since he was dumb enough to waste time with the parasitic UN.

 

[Sallow]

Had is the operative word here.

Andfor the most part he ditched them when told too by his US masters.

Thanks for admitting Saddam had WMD when Bush made the decision to go to war.

Are you talking about George HW Bush? You're right if so, but the question stands on did he have them under George W Bush.

You're getting pretty sharp.