Why Republicans Should Stop Bitching About The Debt That Has Accumulated Under Obama

[The Rabbi]

Hmm, debt was $5.6T when Bush took over.
Debt was $10T when Obama took over.
It is over $17T now.
Bush added less than 5 trillion dollars in eight years.
Obama added 7 trillion dollars in six years.
Looks like Obama wins Biggest Spender of All Time award.

What was Billy Nothing bleating about?

You rightards are too funny. Bush hands Obama a broken economy with a trillion dollar deficit and here you are complaining Obama's increased the debt too much. Had Bush handed Obama a $17 billion deficit like Clinton handed Bush, perhaps then Obama would have added only $5 trillion to the debt like Bush did.

Was there some point there? Somethign your feeble brain is trying to express? Because that post was a total fail.

Woooooosh!

That was the sound of the point sailing clear over your head.

No. Whoosh is the sound of a ball missing its goal. Sort of like all your posts.

Cries the rightard who admitted he couldn't understand my post.

I dont speak Gibberish. Sorry.

Since my post was cogent and in English, your problem seems to be that it's English you struggle with, not gibberish. But I like how you think I "missed the goal" with a point you don't understand. It reveals your inability to judge opinions. To a feeble mind like yours, that which you cannot understand is simply wrong.

Your post was filled with errors, inaccuracies, and fallacies. There is no arguing with garbage.
I am sorry you are too stupid to undertstand this. Maybe stick to something you know. Like popular TV shows.

Rabbi will you ever admit you have no idea what you are talking about?

As soon as I have no idea what I am talking about I will. So far that hasnt happened.
What about you?
Every day a troll thread based on a fallacy unsupported by fact. Arent you embarassed in the least?

 

[Billy000]

Hmm, debt was $5.6T when Bush took over.
Debt was $10T when Obama took over.
It is over $17T now.
Bush added less than 5 trillion dollars in eight years.
Obama added 7 trillion dollars in six years.
Looks like Obama wins Biggest Spender of All Time award.

What was Billy Nothing bleating about?

You rightards are too funny. Bush hands Obama a broken economy with a trillion dollar deficit and here you are complaining Obama's increased the debt too much. Had Bush handed Obama a $17 billion deficit like Clinton handed Bush, perhaps then Obama would have added only $5 trillion to the debt like Bush did.

Was there some point there? Somethign your feeble brain is trying to express? Because that post was a total fail.

Woooooosh!

That was the sound of the point sailing clear over your head.

No. Whoosh is the sound of a ball missing its goal. Sort of like all your posts.

Cries the rightard who admitted he couldn't understand my post.

I dont speak Gibberish. Sorry.

Since my post was cogent and in English, your problem seems to be that it's English you struggle with, not gibberish. But I like how you think I "missed the goal" with a point you don't understand. It reveals your inability to judge opinions. To a feeble mind like yours, that which you cannot understand is simply wrong.

Your post was filled with errors, inaccuracies, and fallacies. There is no arguing with garbage.
I am sorry you are too stupid to undertstand this. Maybe stick to something you know. Like popular TV shows.

Rabbi will you ever admit you have no idea what you are talking about?

As soon as I have no idea what I am talking about I will. So far that hasnt happened.
What about you?
Every day a troll thread based on a fallacy unsupported by fact. Arent you embarassed in the least?

I'm embarrassed for you that when you know you lost an argument, you handle it like a little girl.

 

[jasonnfree]

I'll believe Obama's overspending has anything to do with restoring economic health when I see him cutting it to bring the budget back into balance. I mean, we ARE recovered now, right? It's never taken this long to recover from a recession before.

We have never had a recession this big that hit so fast. We lost 8 million jobs in 9 months.

Sounds sensible but you're not dealing with sensible people remember.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm embarrassed for you that when you know you lost an argument, you handle it like a little girl.

Nah, you didnt just make that up, right?
Is there anything you can get right here, Billy? Or is it all just a figment of your imagination?

 

[Billy000]

I'm embarrassed for you that when you know you lost an argument, you handle it like a little girl.

Nah, you didnt just make that up, right?
Is there anything you can get right here, Billy? Or is it all just a figment of your imagination?

Well it would definitely be for the best if you were simply a figment of my imagination. You are certainly not smart of enough to be Jewish.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The typical USMB conservative response so far.

Wait.... You think your OP was different in that regard?

How about you just address the specific info in the thread? Otherwise, why bother?

I did. Took all of 6 words. You failed to respond.

That kind of simplicity and dodging is why you are a Rightwinger.

Your inability to effectively respond to what I said is why you're a useful idiot.

 

[g5000]

Food stamp program grew by how many billions?

I think you conveniently forgot quite a bit.

See? When people say Republicans hate poor people, I just have to disagree. It is obvious Republicans love poor people. They make so many of them!

Speaking of conveniently forgetting quite a bit, the food stamp program grew because of...anyone?...anyone?...Bueller? Because of the economic crash. Maybe you heard about it. It was in all the papers.

SNAP spending as a share of GDP was stable in fiscal years 2012 and 2013 and is on track to fall substantially in 2014 and thereafter. Government data show that spending on SNAP (formerly food stamps) fell slightly as a share of GDP in 2012 and 2013 and is expected to fall by 9 percent in 2014.[1]

SNAP Costs Falling, Expected to Fall Further ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


Here is some more material for you to consider: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/04-19-SNAP.pdf

The number of people receiving SNAP benefits increased
by almost 50 percent between fiscal years 2001 and 2005
and even more rapidly (by 70 percent) between fiscal
years 2007 and 2011. During that latter period, spending
on SNAP benefits grew by about 135 percent. The
increase in the number of people eligible for and receiving
benefits between 2007 and 2011 has been driven
primarily by the weak economy. That increase was
responsible for about 65 percent of the growth in
spending on benefits between 2007 and 2011. About
20 percent of the growth in spending can be attributed
to temporarily higher benefit amounts enacted in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(ARRA). The remainder stemmed from other factors,
such as higher food prices and lower income among beneficiaries,
both of which boost benefits.

So there was a 50 percent increase in Bush's first term. Followed by a 70 percent increase for the period including his second term and the first two years of Obama's first term.

Between 1990 and 2011, the number of SNAP participants
increased during periods of relatively high
unemployment (see Figure 1). Even as the unemployment
rate began to decline from its 1992, 2003, and
2010 peaks, decreases in participation typically lagged
improvement in the economy by several years. For
example, the number of SNAP participants rose steadily
from about 20 million in the fall of 1989 to more than
27 million in April 1994—nearly two years after the
unemployment rate began to fall and a full three years
after the official end of the recession in March 1991. The
number of people receiving SNAP benefits began to
climb again in 2001 and continued to grow until 2006,
more than two years after the unemployment rate began
to decline and well after that recession ended (in November
2001). The number of participants temporarily
leveled off in 2006 and 2007 until the unemployment
rate began to rise sharply in 2008. Participation then
started to grow quickly and has continued to increase
since then.

So we find that is entirely normal for SNAP participation to increase for many years beyond the last recession.

The primary reason
for the increase in the number of participants was the
deep recession from December 2007 to June 2009 and
the subsequent slow recovery; there were no significant
legislative expansions of eligibility for the program during
that time.

Considering the Bush Recession was the greatest crash since the Great Depression, none of these figures being cited for the years following that crash should be the least bit surprising now that we have much more context in which to consider them.

 

[hadit]

I'll believe Obama's overspending has anything to do with restoring economic health when I see him cutting it to bring the budget back into balance. I mean, we ARE recovered now, right? It's never taken this long to recover from a recession before.

We have never had a recession this big that hit so fast. We lost 8 million jobs in 9 months.

Oh, I'm well aware of the meme that Obama must be protected against all criticism of every kind at all costs. In fact, I am also absolutely certain that the economy will once again become the responsibility of the current president when the the Republican is inaugurated in 2017. Had Obama been more concerned about this calamity that you claim we have never had so bad instead of ramming through Obamadon'tcare, we might have had a real recovery. The bottom line remains, this is the slowest recovery we've ever had.

 

[Faun]

Your post was filled with errors, inaccuracies, and fallacies. There is no arguing with garbage.
I am sorry you are too stupid to undertstand this. Maybe stick to something you know. Like popular TV shows.

Feigning bullshit doesn't help you either. There were no "errors, inaccuracies, or fallacies" in my post. You already made it clear that you don't understand it. Blaming me for your inability to comprehend the obvious is just another one of your long list of failures.

 

[rdean]

I'll believe Obama's overspending has anything to do with restoring economic health when I see him cutting it to bring the budget back into balance. I mean, we ARE recovered now, right? It's never taken this long to recover from a recession before.

We have never had a recession this big that hit so fast. We lost 8 million jobs in 9 months.

Oh, I'm well aware of the meme that Obama must be protected against all criticism of every kind at all costs. In fact, I am also absolutely certain that the economy will once again become the responsibility of the current president when the the Republican is inaugurated in 2017. Had Obama been more concerned about this calamity that you claim we have never had so bad instead of ramming through Obamadon'tcare, we might have had a real recovery. The bottom line remains, this is the slowest recovery we've ever had.

Seems to me protecting people from bankruptcy is good for the economy. Unless you are a Republican. Then it's "let them die".

 

[The Rabbi]

Your post was filled with errors, inaccuracies, and fallacies. There is no arguing with garbage.
I am sorry you are too stupid to undertstand this. Maybe stick to something you know. Like popular TV shows.

Feigning bullshit doesn't help you either. There were no "errors, inaccuracies, or fallacies" in my post. You already made it clear that you don't understand it. Blaming me for your inability to comprehend the obvious is just another one of your long list of failures.

I dont understand errors, inaccuracies and fallacies. Most smart people don't. Then there's you.
Give it up. You've been pwned here. Try a different thread.

 

[Avatar4321]

Because it makes your guy look bad and incompetent?

Or do you think that somehow because Republicans have been fiscally irresponsible at times, that Obama should be excused?

Or do you think that our fiscal policies are irrelevant?

 

[hadit]

I'll believe Obama's overspending has anything to do with restoring economic health when I see him cutting it to bring the budget back into balance. I mean, we ARE recovered now, right? It's never taken this long to recover from a recession before.

We have never had a recession this big that hit so fast. We lost 8 million jobs in 9 months.

Oh, I'm well aware of the meme that Obama must be protected against all criticism of every kind at all costs. In fact, I am also absolutely certain that the economy will once again become the responsibility of the current president when the the Republican is inaugurated in 2017. Had Obama been more concerned about this calamity that you claim we have never had so bad instead of ramming through Obamadon'tcare, we might have had a real recovery. The bottom line remains, this is the slowest recovery we've ever had.

Seems to me protecting people from bankruptcy is good for the economy. Unless you are a Republican. Then it's "let them die".

Isn't it better to have a robust, growing economy with a strong demand for labor so more people can take care of themselves without worrying about economic devastation? Take note, Obamadon'tcare will not reduce bankruptcies and will not reduce medical costs. I know the president promised that it would save families a lot of money on premiums, but it hasn't, nor will it.

And why you want Republicans to just die, I couldn't imagine.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'll believe Obama's overspending has anything to do with restoring economic health when I see him cutting it to bring the budget back into balance. I mean, we ARE recovered now, right? It's never taken this long to recover from a recession before.

We have never had a recession this big that hit so fast. We lost 8 million jobs in 9 months.

Oh, I'm well aware of the meme that Obama must be protected against all criticism of every kind at all costs. In fact, I am also absolutely certain that the economy will once again become the responsibility of the current president when the the Republican is inaugurated in 2017. Had Obama been more concerned about this calamity that you claim we have never had so bad instead of ramming through Obamadon'tcare, we might have had a real recovery. The bottom line remains, this is the slowest recovery we've ever had.

Seems to me protecting people from bankruptcy is good for the economy. Unless you are a Republican. Then it's "let them die".

Isn't it better to have a robust, growing economy with a strong demand for labor so more people can take care of themselves without worrying about economic devastation? Take note, Obamadon'tcare will not reduce bankruptcies and will not reduce medical costs. I know the president promised that it would save families a lot of money on premiums, but it hasn't, nor will it.

And why you want Republicans to just die, I couldn't imagine.

No, it isnt better. If this country were filled with hard working independent people they wouldnt vote for bigger and bigger handouts to layabouts. And Democrats would never get elected.

 

[Faun]

I'll believe Obama's overspending has anything to do with restoring economic health when I see him cutting it to bring the budget back into balance. I mean, we ARE recovered now, right? It's never taken this long to recover from a recession before.

We have never had a recession this big that hit so fast. We lost 8 million jobs in 9 months.

Oh, I'm well aware of the meme that Obama must be protected against all criticism of every kind at all costs. In fact, I am also absolutely certain that the economy will once again become the responsibility of the current president when the the Republican is inaugurated in 2017. Had Obama been more concerned about this calamity that you claim we have never had so bad instead of ramming through Obamadon'tcare, we might have had a real recovery. The bottom line remains, this is the slowest recovery we've ever had.

I see ... so you're under the illusion that the deeper the recession, the quicker we should recover? And that the causes of the recession have little to do with the recovery?

Oh, and which Republican do you think will beat Hillary in 2016?

 

[Faun]

Your post was filled with errors, inaccuracies, and fallacies. There is no arguing with garbage.
I am sorry you are too stupid to undertstand this. Maybe stick to something you know. Like popular TV shows.

Feigning bullshit doesn't help you either. There were no "errors, inaccuracies, or fallacies" in my post. You already made it clear that you don't understand it. Blaming me for your inability to comprehend the obvious is just another one of your long list of failures.

I dont understand errors, inaccuracies and fallacies. Most smart people don't. Then there's you.
Give it up. You've been pwned here. Try a different thread.

There's not enough room in cyberspace to document what you don't understand. But I like how you declare victory over something you don't understand. Doing so reveals you have absolutely no clue of what you're speaking about.

 

[hadit]

I'll believe Obama's overspending has anything to do with restoring economic health when I see him cutting it to bring the budget back into balance. I mean, we ARE recovered now, right? It's never taken this long to recover from a recession before.

We have never had a recession this big that hit so fast. We lost 8 million jobs in 9 months.

Oh, I'm well aware of the meme that Obama must be protected against all criticism of every kind at all costs. In fact, I am also absolutely certain that the economy will once again become the responsibility of the current president when the the Republican is inaugurated in 2017. Had Obama been more concerned about this calamity that you claim we have never had so bad instead of ramming through Obamadon'tcare, we might have had a real recovery. The bottom line remains, this is the slowest recovery we've ever had.

I see ... so you're under the illusion that the deeper the recession, the quicker we should recover? And that the causes of the recession have little to do with the recovery?

Oh, and which Republican do you think will beat Hillary in 2016?

How long are you going to keep buying into the story that no matter how long it takes to recover, it's because the recession was just the worst ever, that no one saw anything that bad? Basically, that's what you have set up here. You can excuse Obama's lackluster performance because, no matter what he does, "it was just so horrible, so awful, there's no way he could make it better". Of course, that will cease the moment another Republican takes office. Then, suddenly, it will be his responsibility.

As for who will beat Hillary, in a sane world, Skippy the Wonder Dog could beat her.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'll believe Obama's overspending has anything to do with restoring economic health when I see him cutting it to bring the budget back into balance. I mean, we ARE recovered now, right? It's never taken this long to recover from a recession before.

We have never had a recession this big that hit so fast. We lost 8 million jobs in 9 months.

Oh, I'm well aware of the meme that Obama must be protected against all criticism of every kind at all costs. In fact, I am also absolutely certain that the economy will once again become the responsibility of the current president when the the Republican is inaugurated in 2017. Had Obama been more concerned about this calamity that you claim we have never had so bad instead of ramming through Obamadon'tcare, we might have had a real recovery. The bottom line remains, this is the slowest recovery we've ever had.

I see ... so you're under the illusion that the deeper the recession, the quicker we should recover? And that the causes of the recession have little to do with the recovery?

Oh, and which Republican do you think will beat Hillary in 2016?

Not the quicker, idiot. The stronger the recovery. Except for this one.
What Obama s Growth Recession Is Stealing From Your Wallet - Forbes

What you think you know about economics would fill a library. What you actually know wouldnt fill a cheerio.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'll believe Obama's overspending has anything to do with restoring economic health when I see him cutting it to bring the budget back into balance. I mean, we ARE recovered now, right? It's never taken this long to recover from a recession before.

We have never had a recession this big that hit so fast. We lost 8 million jobs in 9 months.

Oh, I'm well aware of the meme that Obama must be protected against all criticism of every kind at all costs. In fact, I am also absolutely certain that the economy will once again become the responsibility of the current president when the the Republican is inaugurated in 2017. Had Obama been more concerned about this calamity that you claim we have never had so bad instead of ramming through Obamadon'tcare, we might have had a real recovery. The bottom line remains, this is the slowest recovery we've ever had.

I see ... so you're under the illusion that the deeper the recession, the quicker we should recover? And that the causes of the recession have little to do with the recovery?

Oh, and which Republican do you think will beat Hillary in 2016?

How long are you going to keep buying into the story that no matter how long it takes to recover, it's because the recession was just the worst ever, that no one saw anything that bad? Basically, that's what you have set up here. You can excuse Obama's lackluster performance because, no matter what he does, "it was just so horrible, so awful, there's no way he could make it better". Of course, that will cease the moment another Republican takes office. Then, suddenly, it will be his responsibility.

As for who will beat Hillary, in a sane world, Skippy the Wonder Dog could beat her.

Anyone could beat Hillary because she's not going to run.

 

[Faun]

I'll believe Obama's overspending has anything to do with restoring economic health when I see him cutting it to bring the budget back into balance. I mean, we ARE recovered now, right? It's never taken this long to recover from a recession before.

We have never had a recession this big that hit so fast. We lost 8 million jobs in 9 months.

Oh, I'm well aware of the meme that Obama must be protected against all criticism of every kind at all costs. In fact, I am also absolutely certain that the economy will once again become the responsibility of the current president when the the Republican is inaugurated in 2017. Had Obama been more concerned about this calamity that you claim we have never had so bad instead of ramming through Obamadon'tcare, we might have had a real recovery. The bottom line remains, this is the slowest recovery we've ever had.

I see ... so you're under the illusion that the deeper the recession, the quicker we should recover? And that the causes of the recession have little to do with the recovery?

Oh, and which Republican do you think will beat Hillary in 2016?

How long are you going to keep buying into the story that no matter how long it takes to recover, it's because the recession was just the worst ever, that no one saw anything that bad? Basically, that's what you have set up here. You can excuse Obama's lackluster performance because, no matter what he does, "it was just so horrible, so awful, there's no way he could make it better". Of course, that will cease the moment another Republican takes office. Then, suddenly, it will be his responsibility.

As for who will beat Hillary, in a sane world, Skippy the Wonder Dog could beat her.

Is there a reason you didn't answer the question? Are you under the illusion that the deeper the recession, the quicker the recovery?

And your notion that a dog becoming president is your idea of sanity is quite revealing.