Republicans lie about "explosion of spending" under Obama

[ilia25]

The you admit your premise that the government "had to borrow a trillion each year to keep financing the military and keep sending those social security checks" is unsound.

I did not, but if you can't read, I can't help you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The you admit your premise that the government "had to borrow a trillion each year to keep financing the military and keep sending those social security checks" is unsound.

I did not, but if you can't read, I can't help you.

But, you did.
You said:

I never disputed the fact that US has been running deficits by a willful choice of its government

And so, the government did not HAVE to borrow "a trillion each year to keep financing the military and keep sending those social security checks" - it CHOSE to do so.

Thus, your statement to that effect is unsound.

 

[ilia25]

The you admit your premise that the government "had to borrow a trillion each year to keep financing the military and keep sending those social security checks" is unsound.

I did not, but if you can't read, I can't help you.

But, you did.
You said:

I never disputed the fact that US has been running deficits by a willful choice of its government

And so, the government did not HAVE to borrow "a trillion each year to keep financing the military and keep sending those social security checks" - it CHOSE to do so.

Thus, your statement to that effect is unsound.

Look, by "willful choice" I meant that the government had an option of balancing its budget by withdrawing some of the services it provides -- like the army, or social security. It still can do it tomorrow -- but it does not mean, that exercising that option would not lead to a catastrophe and, therefore, would be completely irresponsible.

Are we clear now?

 

[grunt11b]

While giving the Republican Response to the State of the Union, Mitch Daniels repeated the lie about how government spending grew under Obama:

"In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt."

Well, that is a blatant lie. Here is how the spending really increased:

As anyone can see in the chart above, the government spending grew under Obama at the same rate they were growing under Bush's 8 years. There was an uptick in 2009 (that was the stimulus package), but since then there was no increase at all.

It is true, that the budget deficit exploded ten-fold around the time when Obama moved to the White House. But the reason for that were falling tax revenues as the economy tanked in the end of 2008 -- not an increase in the spending.

So why respected Republican leaders -- and not just Tea Party nuts -- keep repeating such an obvious lies? That is a good question, but it speaks a lot about the state of US democracy.

Semantics, the lefts way of avoiding responsibility. I guess when the left avoids passing a budget for over 1000 days it is there way of saying they did not grow the debt, but the fact of the matter is, when Obama took over the debt was 10 trillion, and it is now 15 trillion, 5 trillion more than 3 years ago, so yes........they did add 5 trillion to the debt, budget be damned they will not wiggle out of this one.

 

[Meister]

I did not, but if you can't read, I can't help you.

But, you did.
You said:

I never disputed the fact that US has been running deficits by a willful choice of its government

And so, the government did not HAVE to borrow "a trillion each year to keep financing the military and keep sending those social security checks" - it CHOSE to do so.

Thus, your statement to that effect is unsound.

Look, by "willful choice" I meant that the government had an option of balancing its budget by withdrawing some of the services it provides -- like the army, or social security. It still can do it tomorrow -- but it does not mean, that exercising that option would not lead to a catastrophe and, therefore, would be completely irresponsible.

Are we clear now?

What budget? Has one been passed?

 

[grunt11b]

Republicans lying? I find that hard to believe. They are so honest and truthful. Remember all the WMD's we found in Iraq? Remember "Jobs Jobs Jobs"? Remember how they help the "Middle Class"?

You don't remember? Funny, neither do I.

I remember a bunch of democrats who authorized bush to go to war to look for those WMD's as well. Bush could not have went to war without democrat consent. So it is just as much as the democrats fault as it is anyone elses. We have to give bush credit though, at least he got congress's approval before invading, something the current occupier of the white house did not do in Libya.

 

[grunt11b]

This is how democrats and there followers see things, through harry reids glasses.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJjyxPvw0J8]Harry Reid's Magical Glasses Infomercial...Check It Out Now!!! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[grunt11b]

So the President hasnt borrowed more money in three years than all the time from George Washington to Bill Clinton?

And by the way, Reagan borrowed more money than all presidents before him. So even by this measurement Obama is doing no worse than the greatest Reagan of all times

If the country was in this bad of shape back when Reagan served I think he would have figured something else out instead of borrowing and knowing it would be unsustainable. It was a different time back then than it is now. I know it's not a good excuse, but it is what it is. Reagan borrowed to build up national defense, Obama borrowed to to pay off political allies and support cronie capitalism, two entirely different people and the exact opposite ideologies. The former loved this country, the latter wishes to change it into something the founders did not envision.

 

[Mr.Nick]

While giving the Republican Response to the State of the Union, Mitch Daniels repeated the lie about how government spending grew under Obama:

"In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt."

Well, that is a blatant lie. Here is how the spending really increased:

As anyone can see in the chart above, the government spending grew under Obama at the same rate they were growing under Bush's 8 years. There was an uptick in 2009 (that was the stimulus package), but since then there was no increase at all.

It is true, that the budget deficit exploded ten-fold around the time when Obama moved to the White House. But the reason for that were falling tax revenues as the economy tanked in the end of 2008 -- not an increase in the spending.

So why respected Republican leaders -- and not just Tea Party nuts -- keep repeating such an obvious lies? That is a good question, but it speaks a lot about the state of US democracy.

I believe you're lying to yourself.

The amendments made by Clinton under the CRA are the reason..

That motherfucker sold the the future out just so HE could look like a good president..

Clinton belongs in fucking prison...

Fuck his blowjob - He belongs in prison for selling out the future - Barney Frank as well.

 

[grunt11b]

While giving the Republican Response to the State of the Union, Mitch Daniels repeated the lie about how government spending grew under Obama:

"In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt."

Well, that is a blatant lie. Here is how the spending really increased:

As anyone can see in the chart above, the government spending grew under Obama at the same rate they were growing under Bush's 8 years. There was an uptick in 2009 (that was the stimulus package), but since then there was no increase at all.

It is true, that the budget deficit exploded ten-fold around the time when Obama moved to the White House. But the reason for that were falling tax revenues as the economy tanked in the end of 2008 -- not an increase in the spending.

So why respected Republican leaders -- and not just Tea Party nuts -- keep repeating such an obvious lies? That is a good question, but it speaks a lot about the state of US democracy.

I believe you're lying to yourself.

The amendments made by Clinton under the CRA are the reason..

That motherfucker sold the the future out just so HE could look like a good president..

Clinton belongs in fucking prison...

Fuck his blowjob - He belongs in prison for selling out the future - Barney Frank as well.

Maybe he and barney can go to prison together, barney would give him a blowjob I'm sure.

 

[Mr.Nick]

While giving the Republican Response to the State of the Union, Mitch Daniels repeated the lie about how government spending grew under Obama:

"In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt."

Well, that is a blatant lie. Here is how the spending really increased:

As anyone can see in the chart above, the government spending grew under Obama at the same rate they were growing under Bush's 8 years. There was an uptick in 2009 (that was the stimulus package), but since then there was no increase at all.

It is true, that the budget deficit exploded ten-fold around the time when Obama moved to the White House. But the reason for that were falling tax revenues as the economy tanked in the end of 2008 -- not an increase in the spending.

So why respected Republican leaders -- and not just Tea Party nuts -- keep repeating such an obvious lies? That is a good question, but it speaks a lot about the state of US democracy.

I believe you're lying to yourself.

The amendments made by Clinton under the CRA are the reason..

That motherfucker sold the the future out just so HE could look like a good president..

Clinton belongs in fucking prison...

Fuck his blowjob - He belongs in prison for selling out the future - Barney Frank as well.

Maybe he and barney can go to prison together, barney would give him a blowjob I'm sure.

I'm sure Bill would take it too - he'd call it "progressive."

 

[Mr.Nick]

Politicians are no better than used car salesmen.

Ron Paul and few others such as Rand Paul are honest - the rest are shithead liars...

 

[ilia25]

Semantics

You can call it what you want. But Republicans are lying about the cause of the debt increase under Obama -- doesn't it bother you at all?

 

[ilia25]

The amendments made by Clinton under the CRA are the reason

My post was not about the cause of the housing bubble. It was about Republicans lying about "Obama's big government" being the cause of the debt increase under Obama.

 

[peach174]

Semantics

You can call it what you want. But Republicans are lying about the cause of the debt increase under Obama -- doesn't it bother you at all?

That chart says that it did go up. All three blue lines from 2009 to 20011 are higher than any of the blue lines from 2000 to 2008.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I did not, but if you can't read, I can't help you.

But, you did.
You said:

I never disputed the fact that US has been running deficits by a willful choice of its government

And so, the government did not HAVE to borrow "a trillion each year to keep financing the military and keep sending those social security checks" - it CHOSE to do so.

Thus, your statement to that effect is unsound.

Look, by "willful choice" I meant that the government had an option of balancing its budget by withdrawing some of the services it provides -- like the army, or social security. It still can do it tomorrow -- but it does not mean, that exercising that option would not lead to a catastrophe and, therefore, would be completely irresponsible.

Are we clear now?

Yes... it is -very- clear that the government did not HAVE to borrow anything, contrary to your claim. This defeats your enture argument that the decline in revenues is the reason for the deficits, as nothing necessitated that spending not follow a similar decline.

Not that I expect you to admit this.

 

[Intense]

Obama is a Train Wreck in Slow Motion. Everything Else is a diversion.

 

[ilia25]

But, you did.
You said:

And so, the government did not HAVE to borrow "a trillion each year to keep financing the military and keep sending those social security checks" - it CHOSE to do so.

Thus, your statement to that effect is unsound.

Look, by "willful choice" I meant that the government had an option of balancing its budget by withdrawing some of the services it provides -- like the army, or social security. It still can do it tomorrow -- but it does not mean, that exercising that option would not lead to a catastrophe and, therefore, would be completely irresponsible.

Are we clear now?

Yes... it is -very- clear that the government did not HAVE to borrow anything, contrary to your claim. This defeats your enture argument that the decline in revenues is the reason for the deficits, as nothing necessitated that spending not follow a similar decline.

Not that I expect you to admit this.

I admit that instead of piling up the debt, Obama could have simply disband the military, cancel social security and medicare. The economy would fold down, so Obama would have to abolish the rest of the government and default on the existing debt, and the US of A will cease to exist soon after.

I still don't think that this was the course of action that Obama should have taken, but I admit that in that case the government would not have to borrow a dime. Satisfied?

And yes, it does defeat the whole argument that the decline in revenues is the reason for the deficits. The real reason, as I see it now, was Obama's incomprehensible determination to save the US from being destroyed by the decline in the government revenues. Republicans should demand that Obama be hanged for that despicable crime.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Look, by "willful choice" I meant that the government had an option of balancing its budget by withdrawing some of the services it provides -- like the army, or social security. It still can do it tomorrow -- but it does not mean, that exercising that option would not lead to a catastrophe and, therefore, would be completely irresponsible.

Are we clear now?

Yes... it is -very- clear that the government did not HAVE to borrow anything, contrary to your claim. This defeats your enture argument that the decline in revenues is the reason for the deficits, as nothing necessitated that spending not follow a similar decline.

Not that I expect you to admit this.

I admit that instead of piling up the debt, Obama could have simply disband the military, cancel social security and medicare.
[

Or done any number of other things to cut spendning to match revenue.

The fact is that The Obama CHOSE to run the deficits.
He did not HAVE to.
And so, your argument that the decline in revenues is the reason for the deficits in unsound, as nothing necessitated that spending not follow a similar decline.

Next contestant, please.

 

[ilia25]

as nothing necessitated that spending not follow a similar decline.

Nothing, except it was needed to save the US from turning into Somalia. Look, if you goal was to make yourself looking like a fool, there's no need to continue, you have already succeeded ten times over.