A Graph Of America`s Current Finances [Pic]

Submitted by: 5cats 6 years ago in

Remember when Obama promised to NOT increase the deficit? I do.
There are 246 comments:
Male 303
Well they just need to increase the debt ceiling so we can see those red bars go even lower. Evil conservatives wont let us borrow more money. It`s not like there will be any repercussions from borrowing so much, might as well print another 100 billion.
0
Reply
Male 766
lots of new pockets lined at our expense,
war does that
0
Reply
Male 1,803
How the hell do you stack up that sorta deficit so fast...
0
Reply
Male 17,511
MichaelBored: Obama signed the 2009 budget into law and here is Video to prove it.

Obama promised that he would not sign a budget with `earmarks` in to, but reneged on that promise. If Obama`s campaign tactic is to continue to blame GW Bush then he will loose in 2012.
0
Reply
Male 543
hey obscure....doesn`t the pres have the power to bring our troops home? Isn`t that the reason for the big spending?
0
Reply
Male 1
Anyone here that is complaining about the "Obama Budget" ever read the constitution, or take civics in school? The debt is all in the hands of congress. The president has NO ability to spend money that is not budgeted by the congress. The only thing the president can do is veto a bill with spending if it. There could not be those numbers without a two year extension of unpaid tax cuts, unpaid for medicare prescription drug programs (with no negotiating), two wars, and a military action. The congress can always say no money for X, so anything that lasts for more then current funds allow for is in the congresses hands. The congress has authorized and demanded in bills that the government do things for years in advance, then now they are going refuse to pay for what they authorized, demanded. BTW authorized often really is demanded as in it is a law that we must buy something 4 years from now.

So how about we call this the US Congress for the last 10 years budget fias
0
Reply
Male 206
OK....this is a rather obvious point, but the president that was responsible for the the FY09 budget was Bush, not Obama, and that the FY10 budget deficit was indeed smaller than FY09.

0
Reply
Male 4,290
ATL1EN: Abbreviating racial slurs is not any less racist than just typing the whole thing out.
This ban is not permanent only because you`ve been around for 350-odd posts without showing signs of racism before, so I can only assume this is a completely unacceptable moment of stupidity that you will doubtless rectify when you come back.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@ATL13N
0
Reply
Male 622
One Big Ass Mistake America OBAMA--- NO dratING poo. YOU NIGS ARE STUPID FOR ELECTING HIM. MOST peopel who voted for obama were black and have never reg to vote ever in their life and just voted b/c he was black. GOOD dratING JOB
0
Reply
Male 52
fyi, what appears as success was mostly just market bloating and was doomed to fail, and had almost nothing to do with Bush. And we are actually still facing repercussions of decisions made before this chart even starts.
0
Reply
Male 794
fyi, it takes policies couple of years to show their true effect, clinton success was not only clinton success but also the prez before him, bush`s BS is still affecting obama today, and the policies implimented under obama will not be seen until 2 years from now, plus its not one man that runs the country, that is why we have congress one man does not run the country and he can neither change its outcome, plus promises stay promises people say $hit to get elected, bush did not make everything come true when he was president either and taxes will need to be raised if we want out of this slump thats the unfortunate truth, now the republicans wont do it since they want to have their person in office next couple of years and the rest of the country will suffer for it for years to come
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Nor would we `smuggle` any weapon like that out of a country, we`d attempt to destroy it by other means, rather than risking our very best of the best.[/quote]

That`s they`re there for Crakr, minimum (almost none) civilian casualties minimum cost. Destroy a nuclear weapon sans mushroom cloud? DEVGRU operatives DO have training in nuclear engineering.

[quote]A good example of that was the Stuxnet virus/worm that destroyed most of Iran`s cyclotrons recently.[/quote]

There were no fatalities from that incident.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: We can no longer afford to be complacent when it comes to those countries that threaten us and our friends. Nor would we `smuggle` any weapon like that out of a country, we`d attempt to destroy it by other means, rather than risking our very best of the best.

A good example of that was the Stuxnet virus/worm that destroyed most of Iran`s cyclotrons recently.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
...and IF it did happen we could send in soldiers like DEVGRU (Seal Team 6 if you prefer) to smuggle said weapon out of Iraq.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote"> if Saddam had got nukes and attempted to use them or give them to terrorists to use[/quote">


A very big IF as this non-liberal article will point out.
0
Reply
Male 950
we`re doomed.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: As opposed to risking TENS OF THOUSANDS of civilian lives, both in Israel and here in the US, if Saddam had got nukes and attempted to use them or give them to terrorists to use.

It`s the same risk we are running with Iran with Ahmadinutjob as their president.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
I`m saying there was no justification for sending in entire corps risking THOUSANDS of civilian lives at all.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
As for nuclear weapons in Iran that`s in rampant speculation right now. It would be troubling if they did though.
0
Reply
Male 1,010
Clinton did good yes but it was Reagan who installed Greenspan, and Clinton who kept him. But who can really blame them? Back then, "The Maestro" was worshiped like a god and criticizing him would be suicide.

Not Clinton nor Bush did anything to stop Wall Street turning into a casino.

Bush just cut taxes and started pouring money into Iraq, and let jobs flag to China. GWB poured a lot of water into the boat, but he did not make the hole.

We need to go away from investment bankings. Europe too. It used to be illegal for banks to speculate with people savings and debts. There was a very important reason for that. Banks should stick to lending.

First of all the US must get it`s export going again. Used to be half the stuff we had here in EU was made in the US. And go back to capitalism. As of today, it`s anarchy. If not, increasing spending to keep the economy going, will be like peeing your pants to keep warm.
0
Reply
Male 151
Clinnnnnntoooonnnnnn
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Gotta love how you are so willing to give Saddam Hussein, a mass murdering genocidal bastard[/quote]

I`m not saying he wasn`t, but to say he had yellowcake uraniam to make nuclear warheads based on his character alone is again, a HIGHLY circumstantial assertion.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: Yeah sure, Just as the Iranians built `only` a research reactor then imported piece-by-piece parts to build bigger reactors and cyclotrons, supposedly for peaceful purposes.

If you believe Iran too only wants peaceful nuke technology, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Gotta love how you are so willing to give Saddam Hussein, a mass murdering genocidal bastard, a pass and still vilify GW Bush as being worse than him.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Batmanners: So what you mean is that you would hate the US no matter what, Nice to now. Btw, You do know that Canada is part of NATO and heavily participated in anti-soviet bloc exercises right ?

You do also know that there are Canadian forces in Afghanistan ? and that they helped topple Saddam Hussein with the US right ?

So, little brother to the north, I suggest that if you are going to curse the USA that you are cursing your own country as well.
0
Reply
Male 358
To everyone arguing that WMDs did not exist:
Most of you were 10yrs old so I doubt you were watching CNN covering the convoys of trucks leaving Iraq and going into Syria weeks before the invasion.
CNN basically let the world know the exact date it would happen and announced exactly what we would be looking for.
The scumbag Julian Assange, who most of you seem to hail as a hero, has already released the documents that prove Iraq moved everything into Syria.
As for the 18-29yr old Bush haters who were more interested in Zordon giving the power rangers their new mission while these world events were happening, you should get your facts straight before you say anything, you tend to sound like programmed robots just repeating a recording.
Just to let you know, I had plenty of work during all 8yrs of the Bush administration. Now,not so much. It`s hard to provide services when everyone is on welfare.
0
Reply
Male 2,862
HEADLINE: Obama not as good at hiding true figures as Bush.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Furthermore @CrakrJak

The Iraqis prior to the Gulf War DID actually build a research reactor which which was approved by our own govt but was blown up by the Israelis not long thereafter. Note I said "research" as in "not in any way involved in WMD production".
0
Reply
Male 4,004
@Crackrjak

Does the US have nuclear weapons? Yes? My argument stands.

Even when they claim to have gotten rid of every nuclear weapon, I will still think they have some. I don`t think the US has been playing the nice card long enough to be able to get rid of its nukes and feel safe. Ergo, my argument stands. (Basically the US is the main boss at the end of Reservoir Dogs if it gets rid of its nukes)
0
Reply
Female 158
Tax more!
0
Reply
Male 371
I don`t care what anyone says Bill Clinton was a great president
0
Reply
Male 4,290
US Ambassador: [quote]This resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.[/quote]

UK Ambassador: [quote]We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12.[/quote]
0
Reply
Male 4,290
CJ: [quote]Kofi Annan`s son was involved in the `oil for food` scandal that was revealed after the invasion. Of course Kofi himself didn`t want the invasion, he knew how bogus the `oil for food` deal for Iraq was and didn`t want it revealed.[/quote]

5Cats: [quote]Kofi Annan (through his son) was getting millions in kickbacks from Saddam, (oil for food, lmao!)of course he`d say anything to keep the money comming! [/quote]

Yes, but this comment was a year after the invasion, when it was already too late to stop it, and easily checked. Plenty of other legal minds, such as the UK Attorney General, advised that the invasion breached international law.

And as I said, specific assurances were given at the time that resolution 1441 would not and could not be used to justify invasion - see next post.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@sl4d3


That`s a horrible misconception the left has about the "rich".
0
Reply
Male 1,629
it`s possible that these numbers are somewhat accurate. although its almost certainly caused by the changes bush made on his way out.
0
Reply
Male 17
People seem to not like the rich...with good reason.

But something tells me that they don`t want to give away their money so easily (like in taxes).

The poor can`t provide enough tax to fix this....

I have a fun solution! Why not tax the Church (I say church, but really mean all religious institutes)? I`m pretty sure the property tax alone could bring the US out of this debt in a few years. Besides, if religious institutions want to dictate laws and policy, maybe they should pay their admission price (taxes) like everyone else.
0
Reply
Male 32
Rich people are money black holes. If they don`t let go of their money, they`ll hoard it to themselves. Easy fix is to forcibly take their money through taxes.
0
Reply
Male 358
I guess it`s time to collect the billions of dollars the U.S. lent other countries from the 50`s to the 90s that was never paid back.
It seems we are wonderful when we dole out cash but suddenly become the evil empire when it`s time to pay it back.
0
Reply
Male 75
I blame Bush.
0
Reply
Male 500
shoulda stuck with clinton.
0
Reply
Male 89
"Okay so, I get a bonus based on the cash available to my company. I`m going to take out several billion dollars worth of loans that will be due in five years."
"What happens when the loans come due?"
"Not my concern, since I`m being forced into retirement in four years. Gonna suck for the next guy though."
0
Reply
Male 439
Who`s the greatest President of our generation? Read the graph.
0
Reply
Female 77
Maybe it`s because he has to fix all Bush`s mistakes. Bush`s very, very expensive mistakes.
0
Reply
Male 40,728
Wise Choice for VP there @Squirlz - get the female vote AND the weirdo vote too! (lolz!)

"It could be worse, it could be raining!"
*cue sfx*

@drips: this graph looks truthful and accurate. "fair" and "balance" have zero to do with it. Yeesh!
0
Reply
Male 904
This graph looks fair and balanced.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
I think the solution here is obvious: NYAN CAT 2012. (Not sure who to put in the VP spot, though. Hmmmmm. How about Shark Girl?)
0
Reply
Female 1,324
Remember when the other presidents promised to do other things but rarely ever followed through, at least successfully?

I do.

Get over it, it could be worse.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
almightybob1: Kofi Annan`s son was involved in the `oil for food` scandal that was revealed after the invasion. Of course Kofi himself didn`t want the invasion, he knew how bogus the `oil for food` deal for Iraq was and didn`t want it revealed.
0
Reply
Male 254
you realize that the bush years don`t include the wars in afghanistan and iraq, at ALL? not to mention the financial meltdown of `08 that his lack of regulation brought on. drating morons.
0
Reply
Male 2,384
cant we all just agree that we are fu cked?
0
Reply
Male 170
This is useless this does not represent the national debt (the current political issue) this is -US Federal Budget Deficit- which is the difference in the total amount spent by congress and the revenue received by the IRS. The only thing that this graph suggests is that The current administration is collecting less taxes than the previous administrations which is exactly what the GOP wants so why is everyone bitching?
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]@almightybob1: are the numbers compounded weekly at creditcard rates?[/quote]
I don`t know, but I doubt it. Why would it be? That would be a very unusual way of measuring it. It would probably be compounded annually at the rate of inflation.

[quote]@mastaroshi: banhammer please? [/quote]
Huh, not sure how I missed that. Thanks, on it.

[quote]The UN Passed a resolution allowing willing nations to use force to enforce the Cease-fire. THUS the USA and others had permission from the UN to re-invade. Simple.[/quote]
That`s not what it says, and not what was proposed when the resolution was passed. Considering you linked to the Wikipedia article, I`m surprised you missed the quotes from the US and UK ambassadors in the "Security Council votes" section, where they both said

[quote]If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12.[/quote]
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@5Cats: From "Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn`t Square with Reality" by Brian Montopoli:

[quote]Meanwhile, following that initial tax cut, Reagan actually ended up raising taxes - eleven times. That`s according to former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson, a longtime Reagan friend who co-chaired President Obama`s fiscal commission that last year offered a deficit reduction proposal.

"Ronald Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes," historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan`s diaries, told NPR. "He knew that it was necessary at times. And so there`s a false mythology out there about Reagan as this conservative president who came in and just cut taxes and trimmed federal spending in a dramatic way. It didn`t happen that way. It`s false."[/quote]
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Regardless Reagan could`ve still said `NO`.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
ahem:

[quote">The President vowed to protect entitlement programs (such as Medicare and Social Security) while cutting the outlays for social programs by targeting "waste, fraud and abuse." [/quote">

[quote">Although inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 5.1% in 1982, a severe recession set in, with unemployment exceeding 10% in October, 1982 for the first time in forty years. The administration modified its economic policy after two years by proposing selected tax increases and budget cuts to control rising deficits and higher interest rates.[/quote">

2 years later meaning:
Dems controlled Houses
GOP controlled Senate

There was also the Highway Revenue act of 1982

Article
0
Reply
Male 40,728
UN Resolution 1441

Sry @Squrlz, but really, read that. The UN said it was OK, @Cajun, @davy et al are blowing smoke.

"Iraq`s breaches related NOT ONLY to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the KNOWN construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait" - from Wiki. Emphesis added.

@Cajun I listened to the MSM bash Reagan for YEARS and after his policies were proven right? They were silent. Again don`t forget that the Congress was taken by Dems in his second term and THEY (Congress I mean) hiked the taxes. Of course he signed it, but I recall several "vetos" along the way.
0
Reply
Male 40,728
Kofi Annan (through his son) was getting millions in kickbacks from Saddam, (oil for food, lmao!)of course he`d say anything to keep the money comming!

The UN Passed a resolution allowing willing nations to use force to enforce the Cease-fire. THUS the USA and others had permission from the UN to re-invade. Simple. What Koffi has to say about it is opinion, nothing more.

Saddam funded terrorists. He had torture prisons, seperate ones for men, women AND children! There were 3-4 mass graves numbering nearly 100K each of the victems.

Meanwhile Obama`s attacking a nation for "threatening to harm it`s own citizens" while the "peace movement" sits silently and does nothing. Nice!

Meanwhile another nation DOES actually harm it`s own citiznes, for months now, and Obama does nothing! Really Nice!
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]It`s called Reaganomics[/quote]

What are you referring to?

Reagan raised taxes twice after cutting them once. He also cut defense spending and blocked an effort by HIS OWN PARTY to cut social security.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@5Cats: You`re meowing up the wrong tree if you think you need to tell me Obama`s war policies are misguided.
0
Reply
Male 40,728
@Jamie76: You mean the first bailout, which the Dems wrote and Bush signed, or the SECOND bailout which the Dems wrote and Obama signed? There were two, dude.

[quote]@CrakrJak: Are you suggesting that the U.S. should wage war against any country that *might* be planning to do something wrong?[/quote]
@Squrlz4Sale: Like invade Libya for example? Without Congressional permission as required by the US Constitution? Like that? lolz! (hint: Obama`s doing that right this minute, eh?)

@mastaroshi: banhammer please?

@almightybob1: are the numbers compounded weekly at creditcard rates? That graph says the tax cuts are bigger than the cost of 2 wars! Bullcrap. Also: money in people`s pockets = more spending = more tax revenue. It`s called Reaganomics and it powered the US economy back to life after Carter`s 20% inflation almost destroyed it.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Saddam was funding terrorists and paying the families of suicide bombers.[/quote]

Interesting you should mention that because 50% Hamas funding actually came from Saudi Arabia at the time. Hezbollah in particular recieved a boatload of munitions from Iran. So was Iraq a supporter of West Bank terrorism, perhaps, but certainly not the biggest one.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@CrakrJak: Thanks; I see where you`re coming from. Not sure that I agree, but at least I understand your position.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Whoops, copy-paste fail. That last post was of course in response to this:

[quote]Nooo @davymid, The UN re-invaded Iraq because of years of violation of the cease-fire agreement, m-kay?[/quote]
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote] If the shoe fits.[/quote]

A very big IF mind you.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]@Almightybob1, that graphic is the 2nd biggest pile of bull I`ve seen today! (@Tekinette`s post being the biggest, eh?) Heaven forbid people should be allowed to keep their own money! [/quote]
The UN did not invade and did not give its backing to the Coalition invasion. In fact the UN Secretary General at the time, Kofi Annan, said in 2004 that the Iraq war was illegal.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: If the shoe fits.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Squrlz4Sale: I never made that claim, The answer is No.

Saddam Hussein was a special case, for many reasons other than him wanting to make WMDs to destroy America and Israel with. Had he squired nukes he would`ve used them, He was a menace to not only his own countrymen but his neighbors as well. Saddam was funding terrorists and paying the families of suicide bombers. The world is much better off now that he is gone.

There are other despots in the world, but they are either supported by other countries that we don`t want to war with or have the potential of being overthrown by opposition within their own country.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Your opinion would mean something 5Cats, If you weren`t Canadian.[/quote]
I`d like to think us foreigners should still be able to chip in on these issues madest. Especially when it`s to do with the economy, since all of our financial infrastructure is inextricably linked worldwide now.

[quote]@Almightybob1, that graphic is the 2nd biggest pile of bull I`ve seen today! (@Tekinette`s post being the biggest, eh?) Heaven forbid people should be allowed to keep their own money! [/quote]
Which part of the graph do you disagree with? The calculated and projected figures on the cost of the wars and the cost of lost tax money? Because they`re fairly simple accounting calculations, nothing really debatable.

Or the implication that, although nobody really likes having to pay taxes, a tax cut is actually not always a good idea?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@Crakr

What is THAT supposed to mean?
You`re trying to discredit me based on my stance, among with other logical fallacies `dude`.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@CrakrJak: Are you suggesting that the U.S. should wage war against any country that *might* be planning to do something wrong? I`m not being facetious here; it`s just the only way I`m able to interpret your train of thought regarding Iraq.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: [quote]Ad Hominem[/quote]

Now you`re just deflecting.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]You`re denying the logic of it because you hate GW Bush[/quote]

Ad Hominem
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: [quote]If we go by your logic anyone with a bong could convicted on smoking MJ when it was just a collector`s item.[/quote]

There are laws against owning them, It`s called drug paraphernalia and carries a sentence and fine not unlike the charge of possession of marijuana itself.

You`re denying the logic of it because you hate GW Bush, not because you actually think Saddam was innocent that`s called relativism.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
The assertion that yellowcake was going to be used to make WMDs based on Saddam`s character alone is a HIGHLY circumstantial assertion.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Sorry Crakr "all other factors" weren`t eliminated.

If we go by your logic anyone with a bong could convicted on smoking MJ when it was just a collector`s item.

Even Sherlock Holmes knew he had to PROVE his case before any conviction was made.

No nuclear warhead, no WMDs. Period.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: "Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes

Since there were no nuclear power plants, and 550 metric tons of yellow cake is much more than would ever needed for scientific research, then the only factor left is that it was meant to be used to make bombs.

Pretty simple logic really.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]I think you meant to use another word than `exonerating`, otherwise your sentence doesn`t make sense.[/quote]

Like you said yellowcake has multiple purposes, just because you can`t find a nuclear power plant (exonerating) does not mean there were any nuclear weapons produced.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: I think you meant to use another word than `exonerating`, otherwise your sentence doesn`t make sense.
0
Reply
Male 319
apbadogs I actually didn`t know who controlled congress at the time, and I don`t care. I was ECSTATIC when we had a balanced budget. THRILLED!

I`m what you call a `bad-poster`, and I`ll admit it. I don`t pay attention to much of what was said before me, and I usually don`t check back to see if someone has responded to me. I just say my two cents and move on. And this thread is so crazy I don`t know what I`m doing here. Mods must have fun with ones like this.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Since it`s clear he had no nuke power plants it`s pretty certain what he was going to use it for and what it was meant to create, and that`s bombs.[/quote]

You`re generalizing. Lack of exonerating evidence doesn`t prove anything.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: [quote]YELLOWCAKE != WMD[/quote]

Shhhh, now calm down and breathe for a minute.

Now what is uranium used for ? Come on you can admit it, you know what it`s used for.

Two things, Making nuclear power rods for nuclear power plants, which Saddam had none, and for enrichment to make nuclear weapons.

Since it`s clear he had no nuke power plants it`s pretty certain what he was going to use it for and what it was meant to create, and that`s bombs.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Another thing to point out:

ALSO produced before Gulf War.

See a pattern here?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote] 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium[/quote]

For the last TIME!

YELLOWCAKE != WMD
0
Reply
Male 2,344
yea of course that deficit was already heading that way under bush and his policies had NO impact whatsoever on the deficit after he left office...

really people are you that stupid??? the deficit jumped due to the BAILOUT that BUSH et al created.

it was their bailout not Obama`s...Bush`s. Say it again, BUSH. thank you, you may now return to being stupid.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: Much more than just degraded old chemical weapons were found, I`m guessing you didn`t read the link about the 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium.

0
Reply
Male 10,855
By WMDs of course I mean nothing biological or nuclear.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]heavily degraded it was practically impossible to launch them from a remote location.[/quote]

Okay THAT`s an overstatement but I WILL point out that these munitions were, in fact, produced BEFORE the Gulf War. The rhetoric during the build up was "there was a massive clandestine WMD program", when in fact there were just a 5h17load of WMDs. That latter part IS the rhetoric now.
0
Reply
Male 418
Any way yea figger, that president`s a ........... im not allowed to say the next word, but i think u get my point, obama isnt fit to run nap time let alone a country
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Politics will never improve until people stop treating parties like sports teams.[/quote]
Most sensible comment in the whole thread.

[quote]Nooo @davymid, The UN re-invaded Iraq because of years of violation of the cease-fire agreement, m-kay? I`ve utterly proven this already BUT you`re a kool-aid gulping libtard and see what the MSM tells you and nothing more.[/quote]
The UN didn`t invade Iraq, America and it`s coalition did, against vast overwhelming international will. And your country, Canada, was not part of that farcical invasion for a very good reason, and I applaud them for it. But yeah, you`re right, I`m just a kool-aid gulping libtard that watches too much MSM. I`ll decline to insult you in return.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Saddam had WMDs even if the US military were to line them up in a parade right in front of you.[/quote]


Oh yes several hundred chemical munitions which were so heavily degraded it was practically impossible to launch them from a remote location. What a threat that was it even justified sending in an entire corps as opposed to a highly trained Spec Ops strike team.

[quote]Saddam had two years to smuggle the WMDs out of Iraq into Syria, which Israel blew to tiny, radioactive pieces a few years ago.[/quote]


Uh no reactors != WMDs.
0
Reply
Male 47
yeah i`m a liberal and a democrat but i didn`t want obama as president...i still feel he hasn`t done much but hang out with the celebs
0
Reply
Male 17,511
madest: Denying the evidence of your own eyes now I see. I don`t think you would believe Saddam had WMDs even if the US military were to line them up in a parade right in front of you.

You are so committed to your liberal ideology, that nothing gets through your thick skull, even when I show you overwhelming evidence.

Keep on with your liberal delusions and you`ll eventually end up like Keith Olbermann did, naked in a bathtub crying, during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, refusing to go to work. But even that event didn`t change him, and no evidence I produce to show you will either.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
tedgp: The so called "News" you are getting is quite literally an ocean away from the truth.

The republicans did not initiate the `birther issue`, Hillary Clinton did and she brought the question up in the 2008 democrat primary debates.
Phil J. Berg has since been lambasted and falsely accused by Obama supporters for his actions.

This over $4 trillion dollars in spending is all on Obama, and the democrat held congress of 2008-2010, he signed those bills into law and that is FACT, no matter how your European media outlets have tried to spin it in his favor.
0
Reply
Male 256
Hello? America? HI! This is China, Russia, Australia and the rest of the gang. We want our ******* money back now. You don`t have it? No problem. My kids will beat up your kids for it."
0
Reply
Male 40,728
Which Obama video got removed?

China Debt

WTF Win The Future?

The first one is just plain FUNNY! The second one should be watched by ALL the Obama defenders, m-kay?
0
Reply
Male 40,728
[quote]GWB launched a retaliation attack on a country that had f*ck all to do with it.[/quote]
Nooo @davymid, The UN re-invaded Iraq because of years of violation of the cease-fire agreement, m-kay? I`ve utterly proven this already BUT you`re a kool-aid gulping libtard and see what the MSM tells you and nothing more. Ditto for @Batmanners. Double Ditto for @Paddy215.

Also: Saddam had two years to smuggle the WMDs out of Iraq into Syria, which Israel blew to tiny, radioactive pieces a few years ago.

[quote]The republicans constantly refuse to do what is needed to get the AMerican Economy back on track.[/quote]
Hey @tedgp! How did the minority Repubs do THAT exactly? Since the Dems had a lock on both houses from 2008 - 2010, eh? The rest of your posts make even less sense. Be quiet boy, adults are speaking!
0
Reply
Male 358
@tedgp:
If you knew how the government of the United States worked then you would know the only power the president has is the power of veto and to nominate a supreme court justice. The president and congress can talk about the economy all they want but the treasury department calls all the shots.You would not be blind to the fact that putting the blame on a president is nothing but political propaganda and therefore would keep your mouth shut. I have not seen you make any legitimate points to this discussion except for the "I know you are, but what am I?" shoolyard attitude. But it`s O.K. people like you are the reason idiots gain power.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(continued)

So why is it the case that if you Google "Clinton surplus myth" you get about 100 returns directing you to conservative websites and blogs, all declaring the surplus never existed? Because some of the money being taken in was earmarked for the Social Security program: it was money collected to deliver on a future promise of payments and thus, to some minds, should never have been counted in the surplus.

The conservative position on this is inconsistent. If conservatives want to say that there was no surplus during the Clinton years, that implies they believe the Social Security funds are sacrosanct. Yet these same conservatives want to see large cuts in Social Security now in order to reduce the deficit. That`s having it both ways: either the Social Security money is separate from the budget or it’s not.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
The level of acrimony and disinformation is so high in this thread, I hesitate to step into it. That said, I feel compelled to respond regarding the Clinton budget surpluses.

Yes, the Clinton budget surpluses were real. How do I (and the CBO) define a surplus? More money coming in than going out. How do I (and the CBO) define a deficit? More money going out than coming in. During the latter years of Clinton`s presidency, the U.S. government was collecting more money than it was paying out. That`s an undeniable fact.

(continued next post)
0
Reply
Male 40,728
[quote]@5Cats: We get it... you hate Obama.[/quote]
Not really @osirisacend - I hate his politics, policies and personality. Oh wait! I do hate him, lolz! Why care? Because he`s destroying the USA and thus Canada too.

[quote]Hey 5Cats.. I have some advice for you.[/quote]
Hey @RyanF701 - I have some news for you: I do not post anything! I suggest, the Mods post it. If I suggested 100 kitten pictures in a row, none would be posted, m-kay? The IAB mods agree that LEARNING SOMETHING about the MOST important news in the USA just MIGHT relieve your boredom.

[quote]Could you have done any better? No. - @fiveanthems[/quote]
[quote]Actually, as long as 5Cats didnt like to fellate bankers he would have done better. - @viperjason[/quote]

Lolz! I`ll TRY to read and be quite now...
0
Reply
Male 1,216
Oh look, bush started the debt problem in your country! Who knows; maybe this wouldn`t happen if there wasn`t debt in the first place. Can you president?
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Your opinion would mean something 5Cats, If you weren`t Canadian.
0
Reply
Male 40,728
* Oh "dear" el oops!
0
Reply
Male 40,728
[quote] the bush tax cuts that represents about 56% of the debt... The Obama stimulus is about 6% of the debt and the Medicare Part D about 2%...[/quote]
Oh dead, can`t even get off the front page without @Tekinette making the FUNNIEST post ever! lolz! Do you mean "deficit" 1.4 trillion, or "debt" 14.3 trillion. Either way, tax cuts are just that, they allow people to KEEP THEIR OWN MONEY and spend it, thus driving the economy, m-kay?

@Almightybob1, that graphic is the 2nd biggest pile of bull I`ve seen today! (@Tekinette`s post being the biggest, eh?) Heaven forbid people should be allowed to keep their own money!

Gha! can`t even begin to point out all the idiocy of @tedgp`s ranting...
0
Reply
Male 40,728
Yay! 141 comments to read!
It`s easy to predict who will say what, but you never know, hope springs eternal & all that!

Main point: Obama PROMISED over and over to NOT raise the deficit. He promised to match ALL increases in spending with cuts elsewhere. He blasted Bush again and again for "wreckless over-spending".

AND he had big majorities in both the House & Senate.

Worst. President. Ever!
0
Reply
Male 10,440
... there is just too much BS on this thread (can you tell where it`s coming from?), I`ll stick to one thing:

[quote] Just some of Saddam`s WMDs [/quote]
Those don`t look like WMDs

Yellowcake uranium is not a weapon.
0
Reply
Male 322
More claims of a Clinton surplus. Do liberals even bother fact-checking before believing the hype? Seriously, it takes 5 minutes to see it`s all smoke and mirrors. So sad.
0
Reply
Male 535
well you gotta keep the recession in the back of your head. it probably would have been a lot worse if he didn`t do anything about it. also wow, look how well bill clinton did!
0
Reply
Male 4,902
Im still bored, this is an entertainment site, Keep the f*cking politics out!
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Thank you CJ, Nobody but you understood what WMD`s were. How could we survive without your Einstein like knowledge.
PS: There were no WMD`s found in Iraq no matter your protestations to the contrary.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
I do understand how governements work. I also understand how economies and the mishandling of economies work.

You and crackr have yet to put forth any legit argument based in fact towards the points i, and others on this forum have made. Instead, you try to "read between the lines" and argue about somethign that wasnt really said, in a vain attempt to try and look knowledgeable.

But it`s ok. People like yourself and crackr are part of the reason why economies fail.
0
Reply
Male 358
If your so concerned with how our economy affects the rest of the world then I suggest you stop drinking the Kool-Aid of political propaganda and do some studying on how our government actually works. I would suggest beginning with the United States treasury department.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
@monsterzero. You do realize that whatever happens to your economy has a HUGE knock on effect around the world right?

I hope you have a vague idea at least.
0
Reply
Male 358
@tegp:
You obviosly don`t "*Know a lot more than what you have seen from a random news reporter on tv". If you did you would know about the Glass-Steagal act that was instilled by president Roosevelt to protect the country from another depression. You would also know that this act was waived by president Clinton and president Bush tried to reinstate the act four times to save the economy but all his attempts were blocked by the democratic majority in congress. As for the rumors about Obama being from Kenya and not having a birth certificate, they were started not by republicans but by Hillary Clintons supporters when she ran against him in the democratic primaries. Now that the shoe is on the other foot and the republican majority in congress is blocking Obamas feeble and useless attempts to make himself look good before an election, people like you (who apparently don`t even live in the United States)get their panties in a bunch.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
apbadogs
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
7 Posts Sunday, July 17, 2011 6:03:00 AM
Couple things to point out to some posters here:
1. They are now the Obama Tax Cuts. He re-upped them, he owns them.
2. With the stroke of Obama`s "stimulus" pen he spent (wasted) almost as much as the combined cost of the 2 wars.

---------------

Please tell me you were home schooled....
0
Reply
Male 1,509
"Ahhh nothing like a good troll in the morning to awaken you. Strange if I look at the historical perspectives at the said bureau, I don`t see the same numbers ... Oh well ..."

Funny. 5 minutes on the same website and I see exactly the same numbers. You didn`t look very well.
0
Reply
Male 25
Couple things to point out to some posters here:
1. They are now the Obama Tax Cuts. He re-upped them, he owns them.
2. With the stroke of Obama`s "stimulus" pen he spent (wasted) almost as much as the combined cost of the 2 wars.
0
Reply
Male 25
November_Rai
Oh look, Clinton balanced the budget. But he was such a terrible president
****
You do know who controlled Congress when that happened, right?
0
Reply
Male 273
Yeah let`s blame Obama for the great recession, the huge defence increased spendings and the bush tax cuts that represents about 56% of the debt... The Obama stimulus is about 6% of the debt and the Medicare Part D about 2%...

Let`s not blame the previous president that turned a surplus federal spending into a debt while at the same time having a collapse in revenues and a rise in unemployment which simply doubled under Bush...
0
Reply
Male 237
Ahhh nothing like a good troll in the morning to awaken you. Strange if I look at the historical perspectives at the said bureau, I don`t see the same numbers ... Oh well ...

And nothing like a good political debate in the morning with people who got hooked bait and sinker against said troll...

<3 you IAB. *eats popcorn* *tries to recover from hangover*
0
Reply
Male 3,285
As for the hilary Supporter, I suggest you read up a little more on him ;)


Also, i will say it again. When it was proven that the republicans were wrong about Obama beign from africa or whatever, they tried to change it to other things. The media caught hold, tried to pass what the republicans were saying off as fact, and the public believed it.

This isnt fantasy or wishful thinking. This ACTUALLY happened. You can try and defend your comments as much as you want crackr. The Facts laid out in history speak for themselves. It`s just that you choose to ignore them and try to convince people that YOU are right, and everything that happened was a conspiracy against republicans.

Both political parties in the US are a mess. However, no matter how you choose to defend one side or the other, the fact remains that it WAS the republicans that caused the current deficit, and theyre still intent on destroying the economy just because they have something again
0
Reply
Male 3,285
*Know a lot more than what you have seen from a r andom news reporter on tv
0
Reply
Male 3,285
Define "true surplus" because every single economic analyst disagrees with you. As for your 2nd statement You must go around blind, believing whatever propaganda is thrown about. The republicans who have the final decision currently on any tax rise etc, WILL NOT LET OBAMA DO ANYTHING to get the economy back on track. That is why the deficit is piling higher and higher. Add to that that when bush left, most economic analysts were in full agreement that the economy was about to collapse, and guess what, it did. Leading to an almost world wide recessions.

I suggest you lay off FOX News and go buy a tinfoil hat, because it`s obvious who have almost no knowledge of what is happening in front of you, and when called out, you start to try and sound "intelligent" ( and i use that word loosely), in a vain attempt hoping people will stop replying so you gain the last word.

Unfortunatley for you, a LOT of people happen to know a hell of a lot more tha
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Squrlz4Sale posted a good graph, worth embedding:


0
Reply
Male 17,511
tedgp: The US hasn`t had a true `Surplus` of funds since before the civil war, If you`ve heard otherwise then you`ve been told a half-truth (which is a lie spun to sound true).

Bush was only president for 8 years, NOT 10, Obama has been president for over 2-1/2 years now, He owns this economic mess we are in because he`s signed the bills that increased spending by over $4 trillion dollars, That`s four times what GW Bush signed in spending bills.

[quote]Remember, this is the same political group that said Obama was from the middle East or wherever, then when proved wrong, said he didnt have a valid birth Certificate[/quote]

I guess it would surprise you to know that it was a Hillary Clinton campaign supporter, Phil J. Berg, that initiated the first search for Obama`s birth certificate, he has never been a republican.

It is you sir that is severely misinformed, I suggest that you are the one needing to do some fact checking.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
*comeback, but shut up, take the time to research and you will see that its not lies, it is actually what has happened, and is still happeneing right now.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
@CrackrJak

Lets see. During the last 10 years, Bush and the republicans took you from a surplus into a deficit.

The democrats tried to help by allowing the republicans to raise taxes slightly and do what they NEEDED to do to lessen the impact of the defecit towards Americans.

Enter Obama after bush. He inherited one of the biggest sefecits since the Depression. The republicans constantly refuse to do what is needed to get the AMerican Economy back on track. They then try to tell the media and put out propeganda saying it`s all obama`s fault. ( Remember, this is the same political group that said Obama was from the middle East or wherever, then when proved wrong, said he didnt have a valid birth Certificate).

Not much the current Governement can do when theyre stalled at every turn by a political party intent on destroying the country simply because they hate the opposing party/president.

Now i know youre going to make some smartass comeb
0
Reply
Male 17,511
tommy2X4: I see you`ve been indoctrinated into believing socialism is a panacea, the cure to the evils of capitalism, am I right ?

You totally believe in `class conflict` as defined by Karl Marx in his book "The Communist Manifesto". I`m sorry to tell you this but there will always rich and poor because greed can not be exorcised from the human condition, the only difference is under what economic system that disparity will exist under, one with freedoms or those without.

The only system by which masses of people have risen from the crushing poverty, that you complain about, is where there is capitalism and free trade.
0
Reply
Male 319
Oh look, Clinton balanced the budget. But he was such a terrible president...
0
Reply
Male 17,511
tedgp: I`m afraid you`ve been told a rather biased and terribly liberal view of recent history.

The economy was doing fine until 9/11 happened, It took us awhile to recover from those blows. In 2005 housing auditors warned of the impending collapse in the housing market, the then democrat party dominated congress ignored the pleas for reform. Because they were ignored the housing market crashed in 2008 and instead of letting the banks fail that caused the problem, The congress and Obama rewarded the banks with bailouts.

Btw, The banks that got the best deals in the bail out were top campaign contributors to Obama during his election campaign, Some of which Are listed below with the amounts they gave to his campaign.

Goldman Sachs - $994,795
Citigroup Inc - $701,290
JPMorgan Chase - $695,132
UBS AG - $543,219
Morgan Stanley - $514,881
0
Reply
Male 3,477
I don`t believe this propaganda. The government is just a puppet for the rich. The two party system works together to keep the poor poor. In capitalism, when one gets rich, one gets poor. Period!
Wake up!
0
Reply
Male 1,678
Anyone who thinks the US found evidence to justify the Iraq war dhould be put down.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Batmanners: I`m guessing that you`ve never heard of the nuclear arms reduction treaty or the similar treaties regarding the disposal of chemical and biological weapons by both the US and Russia. Link 1 Link 2

I`ll forgive your ignorance this time, Next time do some research before you stick your foot in your mouth.
0
Reply
Male 1,678
Bush drats up economy, Obama hasn`t a baldoes how to clean it up, retards blame one or the other with no real evidence. Politics will never improve until people stop treating parties like sports teams.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
skypirate: I typed it correctly.

The problem exists here on IAB, If you add a link or image as well a quote, the quote command gets messed up. I don`t know why, Ask one of the mods or Fancy for the answer.
0
Reply
2,831
[quote">Pretty sure that "WMDs Discovered in Iraq: US Invasion Justified!" would have made world news.[/quote">


no, to quote is []...[/]

where in the first set of brackets you type `quote` the `...` is the copied text. in the in second set of brackets you type `quote` after the the forward slash.

no picking on you but i tired of seeing it done wrong
0
Reply
Male 5,413
I`m pretty it`s because Obama is cleaning up the mess which is why it`s still bad?
0
Reply
Male 4,004
The weapons found weren`t WMD`s, and the weapons that were found were known about.

Even so, what matters isn`t that the US went to war against a country that could`ve had WMDs... It`s that they themselves refuse to get rid of their own... douchebags.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
Remember when George Bush destroyed your economy and put you in record debt simply because he wanted to go to war? I do.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Davy: [quote">Pretty sure that "WMDs Discovered in Iraq: US Invasion Justified!" would have made world news.[/quote">

It did make world news, but few media outlets decided to pick it up, Why ? because no nukes were found. WMDs are not exclusively nuclear weapons, but I guess non-nuclear weapons just weren`t enough evidence to just justify the Iraq war, in liberal eyes, no matter how many people it freed, no matter the democratic elections, no matter that a bastard dictator and his evil sons were eliminated. Even finding his huge stockpile of yellow cake uranium wasn`t enough, Link, to get much news coverage.
0
Reply
Male 590
and um, davymid: still not sure what ANYTHING you`ve said actually has to do with the post above...
0
Reply
Male 590
um, i`m not a conservative, i said i hate george bush, and frankly, I think europeans just like Obama so much because he stepped on the gas pedal to our demise and now it`s like a race to see who can self destruct faster: the US or Europe... although if you think the US is in worse shape than Europe you`re again nothing more than a fact-denying, kool-aid drinking idiot
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Going assh*le now. It doesn`t really matter.

The US is f*cked, the US Dollar is going to be superceded by the Chinese Dong, or the Euro, or whatever. Doesn`t matter. Point is, America is f*cked. The writing was on the wall when GWB launched a retaliation attack on a country that had f*ck all to do with it.

And yet, the conservative right will still find a way to blame the libutards for the world going f*cked up.

In the words of I-A-B, Welcome your new overlords.
0
Reply
Male 590
davymid: it is funny how the media never cared about the poo we did find in Iraq.... it`s not surprising but it is a little weird - although it`s obvious that people only hear what they want to, because even when obama-scapegoating morons like you are presented with facts you simply regress to some stupid "blame george bush" meme and pretend that Obama isn`t bankrupting the US at a record rate (although you are from Europe so i`m not even sure why you care...)
0
Reply
Male 590
Wait, what? Got us out of a recession? We`re still headed towards a depression with unemployment that`s lasted a record period of time.

And yeah, Obama did take over a pooty budget.. .AND HE QUADRUPLED IT. HOW IS THAT ACCEPTABLE???? WHY ARE YOU SHEEP MAKING EXCUSES FOR OBAMA?!!!

Don`t you morons know when you`ve been sold a lie?! I don`t give a damn if Obama is the best looking, slickest talking, most benevolent president we`ve ever had - he IS spending us into oblivion. Why do you idiots deny that? This graph is about Obama`s spending... it`s not about the war, it`s not about Bush... it`s about the PREPOSTEROUS amount of money Obama has continued to spend.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]davy: I shown you evidence of Saddam`s hidden WMDs a long time ago, Of course you just dismissed that evidence, but it was still found buried and hidden away for possible future use.[/quote]
Must have missed the memo on that. Here`s me thinking all this time that GWB junior was just flexing his dick-muscles to impress his dad.

Pretty sure that "WMDs Discovered in Iraq: US Invasion Justified!" would have made world news. Except it didn`t, because it didn`t happen.

Crackrjak, I don`t even need to respond to these kinds of posts. With everything you write, you dig yourself deeper into people thinking you`re a twat. No help from me.
0
Reply
Male 4,004
Male 4,004
When did Bush apologize or hone up to anything?
0
Reply
Male 4,004
No, you guys defending Bush are morons.

Obama took over a budget that was plummeting to its death, and handed the sh*t sandwich to Obama, as the recession was beginning (don`t know if you remember, but the Bush administration was in denial of the recession).

Obama took care of getting the country out f recession, and he has. He promised to give nationwide medicare, and he has. He has done so many things that have gone unnoticed, and people still don`t like him.

America needs to realize the incredible amounts of work Obama has put in, and the good it has done for the nation.

Bush did absolutely nothing in his 8 years, except go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
EricWRN: [quote]I`m guessing you wouldn`t know since your clearly just another obama-scapegoating kool-aid drinking sheep[/quote]

Yeah, Right.

I never said Bush was perfect, mistakes were made but at least he apologized for them.

Obama won`t admit he`s made any mistakes and believes that he knows better than anyone else, including some of his own generals, aides, and cabinet members. He`s arrogant and throws fits when he doesn`t get his way, Sorry but that`s not how a real leader should act, that`s how teenagers act.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Just some of Saddam`s WMDs







So please stop with the false rhetoric Davy.
0
Reply
Male 590
yes, they`ve found plenty of WMDs in Iraq, just not in the quantities that Bush thought/ promised (but I`m guessing you wouldn`t know since your clearly just another obama-scapegoating kool-aid drinking sheep).... What the drat does that even have to do with Obama spending money? I hate George Bush and I don`t think we should have gone to Iraq and I don`t think we should be there now... that has nothing to do with this graph or the fact that Obama has already outspent Bush INCLUDING THE WARS
0
Reply
Male 17,511
davy: I shown you evidence of Saddam`s hidden WMDs a long time ago, Of course you just dismissed that evidence, but it was still found buried and hidden away for possible future use.

I guess you felt a diversion was necessary to point blame away from Obama, which is a common tactic these days, anytime someone actually zeroes in on Obama.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
vv Word, Eric. Word.

Say, found any of those pesky WMDs in Iraq yet? War ain`t cheap. Not by a long shot.
0
Reply
Male 590
haha, "a chart showing THE SOURCES of these deficits"!!! Are people REALLY still trying to convince themselves that it`s not Obamas fault? He`s SPENT more money than Bush!!! It`s OBAMAS FAULT. He hasn`t cut ANY of Bush`s programs, he`s INCREASED war spending and INCREASED spending on everything else as well!!! STOP fooling yourselves into thinking it`s not Obamas fault you drating sheep!
0
Reply
Male 820
[quote]Oh, and Aussieguy29, remember that the US is the only reason no one has come to take over your awful little desert island.

The US is the only reason no-one has yet invaded the "awful little desert island" called Australia yet?

Wow Viralshade, how delightfully, charmingly parochial of you. Bless.[/quote]

Wait..., I thought the reason nobody invaded Australia, is because Australia is the land where everything will kill you.

Oh wait...,
0
Reply
Male 186
Our debt is the totality of deficits and the interest we pay on servicing that debt. That has never gone down in, eh well...uh,I don`t know when.
0
Reply
Male 4,793
"we want clinton back "

Yes please.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] A chart showing THE SOURCES of these deficits is worth a thousand words. [/quote]
Ahh, that looks much more... reasonable. Anyway, why didn`t Obama push to end those tax cuts sooner?
0
Reply
Male 362
is this correct?
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@RotBottom: Not entirely sure where you`re coming from; I never suggested the Clinton budget surplus wasn`t a surplus. Who are you trying to convince?

That said, you`re focusing on an incidental (the tech boom of the 90s) and ignoring the single largest factor behind the surplus: the tax increases on the wealthy that Clinton pushed through in his first year in office.
0
Reply
Male 220
we want clinton back
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Oh, and Aussieguy29, remember that the US is the only reason no one has come to take over your awful little desert island.[/quote]
The US is the only reason no-one has yet invaded the "awful little desert island" called Australia yet?

Wow Viralshade, how delightfully, charmingly parochial of you. Bless.
0
Reply
Male 213
Answers to debt are not more debt (though the Chinese would say I`m wrong).

I`m curious though to see what would actually happen should the US default on a repayment, might start getting people in government respecting money again.
0
Reply
Male 718
More proof Obama should be in the Ghetto and not the WHITE HOUSE!
0
Reply
Male 100
When the drat is 1000 chars not 1000 chars?
0
Reply
Male 100
Clinton Surplus #2
Further, as computerization became incredibly cheap early into the Clinton administration, both Federal and State agencies through all levels and branches of government were encouraged to computerize as much as was possible, and in this argument consider thoroughly that the Clinton administration was engaged with the pending "Y2K bug" in early 1996, passing a law in 1998. Though laughable now, at the time it was a complete unknown with a significant divide among even the the most authoritative of computer experts.

So the specific encouragement of technology and the growth of the computer industries indicates clearly that the Clinton administration wasn`t entirely without influence and it was complete chance of timing.

Also, during the Clinton administration, there wasn`t open transfer of wealth from the many to the few, as there was in coming years. $600 toilet seats don`t really compare with the Bush43 prison and military industrial
0
Reply
Male 958
This poo is fake, drat the republicans!
0
Reply
Male 100
Squrlz -

The Clinton budget surpluses were absolutely valid.
There clearly was a budget, using any form of accounting in acceptable use before and after the "Clinton era", methods that I personally find detestable and under which occurs the very real theft of citizens` money that occurs. As rational humans who know the Fed has paid $100 for hammers and $600 for toilet seats. This occurs simply because it can in a bureaucracy and is a consequence of one.

These budget surpluses were heavily derived from the incidental boom of technology, which occurred under economic policies which encouraged job creation and new business development.

During the Clinton era, anyone can posit that the silicon valley boom was more Clinton`s luck than anything, and they`d be right. They`d also be the types to posit that Bush just happened to be President during 9/11.

So encouraging business practices, including some that transferred wealth from the ma
0
Reply
Male 3,745
oh look! a graph!

lets all not give a twat drat!!
0
Reply
Female 838
We should pay attention to the fact this is talking about the DEFICIT and not the DEBT
0
Reply
Male 6,227
Cuthere2, if you`re still online, I would enjoy discussing the Clinton budget surplus with you. Are you game?
0
Reply
Male 6,227
A chart showing THE SOURCES of these deficits is worth a thousand words.
0
Reply
Male 100
klamz has it absodratinglutely right. Go hit up copblock.org or the many people who videotape our "authorities" violating the law and already acting as though we live inside a police state.
Oh, wait, we do.
0
Reply
Male 809
all the problem with the budget were caused by Bush. You can try all you want to make it look like Obama did it, but it`s wrong and everyone knows it.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
Agreed with Ruffiana and RotBottom.

So many people who criticize our current administration do so without actually being informed on the matter. The past 4 years haven`t been perfect, mind you, but we`ve made it through a very rough patch in the *global* economy`s history with some pretty minimal damage, considering.

The amount that Obama has spent isn`t nearly as drastic as it has been claimed (see RotBottom`s posts for a fine explanation), but it can`t be denied that he believes in using the government`s spending power to jump-start the economy.

You know what? It WORKED. We`ve seen unemployment decline in the last few years. We`re starting to get back on our feet.

I feel like most of the population believes that it is within the president`s power to fix the economy immediately. It doesn`t work like that. The economy takes time to recover.
0
Reply
Male 688
It gets better when society collapses because the government can`t take care of them, the good news is with the trillions were spending on the military one of the main reasons were in a deficit each year once everything starts to collapse where already primed for a military dictatorship under the guise of democracy trying to put down civil unrest.

I suggest you live in a boat offshore for a rapid escape.
0
Reply
Male 100
Also, the link in my previous post refutes *all* of the supposed and claimed lack of surplus under Clinton. Using the appropriate math any conclusion can be arrived at. The simple fact of the matter is, under the same accounting methods that Papa Bush and those before him used, Clinton left office with a budgetary surplus.

Under the incredibly modified accounting practices of Bush Jr`s presidency, the deficit was being presented as nearly a full $1T less than it actually was, and TARP spending of $700B was simply not reported until 2010.
0
Reply
Male 208
1 kudos to Clinton, proves all a preZ needs to fix the budget is a good BJ. Bush, Yeah he started screwing it up, but hell, Obama cant blame bush for his crazy spending.
0
Reply
Male 100
A significant amount of documentation exists to illustrate the reason why the deficit, in reports, appears to vastly increase under Obama. However, in real assets and actual deficit, it has changed in a statistically similar way as all past administrations.

The stark reality here is that the Bush administration (and many others before theirs, but never to the same extent) hid the actual deficit with tactics ranging from simply not disclosing spending due to "National Security" factors to delaying when spending would actually hit records so that a significant part of their spending (like the $700B cash bailout of banks) would not hit the accounts until after the administration change.

A simplistic overview of some of the relevant facts of this can be read here
0
Reply
Male 506
Every administration has run a defecit since the 1940s and the debt has steadily increased since that time.

Blaming the current President for the debt is pure dellusion. Blaming this administraion alone for the current defecit is political posturing. It`s partially due to increased spending, partially due to ever increasing requirements of pre-existing social programs, partially due to being muddled in 2 oversea wars, and also due to a global economic collapse. More costs and less revenue.


The media starts hyping up the defecit and debt like it`s a new 3 year old crisis and everyone and their dog suddenly becomes dratin financial wizards with political science doctorates who know exactly what`s wrong and how to fix it. Most of which are dogma being spewed out of the mouths of talking heads on TV.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Cuthere.
"Once again, you fail to address the core fact of my statement"




Did the long post confuse you? I`ll simplify it: You use fuzzy math.
Looky graph. It pretty. It valid.

If you want to address the second post as if I *only* posted it go ahead, but don`t whine about how I haven`t addressed you.

I have.
0
Reply
Male 322
Viralshade: Great point. Those who blame Bushprefer to ignore who was in Congress/The House when pointing fingers.

As I`ve said many times before, both sides share responsiblity.
0
Reply
Male 420
Wow America. Four years of surplus in the last 30 years. No wonder your economy is so f`ed.

If I may make a comparison...
Australia - 13 years of surplus in last 30 years
New Zealand - 15 years of surplus in last 22 years
0
Reply
Male 322
Typo, was supposed to say Baal.
0
Reply
Male 322
Really Hal? Looks like your logic is breaking down there bud as not bring up anentirely different conversation is not "using math."

Sorry, once again you`ll have to do better. You`re attempting to deflect the facts here by derailing the conversation.

It seems you use this tactic a lot. I suppose that`s what you must resort to when you have nothing better.

Once again, you fail to address the core fact of my statement which is: The claimed surplus and economic prosperity CLAIMED by the liberals in this thread is nothing more than smoke and mirrors and intellectual dishonesty.

Your whine that I did not address "the other side" is irrellevant, as it was not the point I was making and has nothing to do with the core fact.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
P.S. I use method 1. Which is the most inconvenient for both Democrats and Republicans. I also think it`s the fairest measure.

Method 2, whilst valid, doesn`t give a realistic measure of what`s going on.

Just like say Republicans suddenly talking about "U6 unemployment" being "real unemployment". We have not used the the U6 number to represent unemployment in normal reporting, ever.

All of a sudden, we get Republicans talking about it. Why? It sounds worse.

Have a look at this. Only one year has the U6 measure. Why? Because for the last century, except now, we`ve been consistent.
0
Reply
Male 45
Oh, and Aussieguy29, remember that the US is the only reason no one has come to take over your awful little desert island.
0
Reply
Male 45
You guys do realize, that a huge part of the federal budget is Congress. You cant talk about the budget, from either political party, without taking into account which party had control of congress at that time.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Cuthere; It`s not a strawman, I`m stating openly:

You`re the one using fuzzy math by picking and choosing.

I`m not stating "you do it too", I`m stating "You do it".

You`re picking and choosing the most convenient figures.

If you want to measure the deficit there are two ways of doing it.

One: Clinton Had a Surplus, Barack doubled the deficit.
Two: Clinton did not have a Surplus, Barack added 10% to the deficit.

If you`re in the camp where you`re claiming the most convenient half of each mathematical choice for your side, you`re using two different measures to make your argument.

THAT is fuzzy math. It is inconsistent.

Unless you want to argue that you`re not actually talking about the figures first brought up. In which case it`s a simple strawman you`re using.
0
Reply
Male 322
Baal, so the extent of your argument is "the other side does it too?" So that`s what you resort to when you have nothing left. Pretty weak reply, please try again.

My point still stands regardless of how you wish to redirect the argument and create your man of straw.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
So to summarize:
"If you blame this term on Bush, you`re crazy. That`s history. That was 3 YEARS ago!"
"So... Bush had no impact?"
"No, that was Clinton."

Gotcha.

Maybe the answer is tax cuts. After all we`ve only been running that little experiment for 10 years, it adds billions to the national debt, and is by all accounts a complete failure in every respect, there are fewer jobs even discounting the 2008 recession.

Considering this seems to be the only Republican plan, quite frankly, you don`t have much to go on.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Crakr:
"mortgage lending practices that caused the housing crisis in the first place"

Except that you couldn`t properly pinpoint what those practices were and consistently mislead, as on every topic, with blaming tertiary participants as main contributors.

Cuthere:


Sure, claim it is "fuzzy math" if you want but it`s still the measure normally used. Changing the measure used only when it comes to your convenience is also, fuzzy math.

Like... say... oh I don`t know, the original graph. Have you complained about that yet? Have you vented your outrage at this graph`s fuzzy math? It uses the same math you`re arguing against after all.
0
Reply
Male 322
Another thing the Liberals are ignoring on here whist claiming that Clinton created some rosy, ideal economy.... Is that during his presidency started a recession! Yep check out the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, the 3rd quarter of 2000. The economy began to falter in March 2000, and officially hit a recession in late 2000 during Clintons final months in office.

But don`t let the facts get in the way of covering for the Democrats!
0
Reply
Male 322
Continued:

President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton`s. Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush`s tax refunds which were not part of Clinton`s last budget, that still means that Clinton`s last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton did not achieve a surplus and he didn`t leave President Bush with a surplus.

Source:
0
Reply
Male 322
More facts for those pushing the LIE that Clinton had a surplus:

In no year did the national debt go down nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero-let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton`s last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Continued:
0
Reply
Male 6
The first red bar should actually be a blue bar since the budget is done a year in advance
0
Reply
Male 4,902
And RyanF701 has won this debate
0
Reply
Male 496
Well this is wrong, as according to the actual statistics from the government GWB had left the country with a 1.7 trillion dollar debt in 2008, not the 400 billion claimed on this picture (which is cute, but ultimately incorrect and the image surfaced first on 4chan)
0
Reply
Male 469
Remember when presidents didn`t lie? Neither do I.
0
Reply
Male 68
Look at the track we were on until Bush got his hands on the country lol.
0
Reply
Male 1,595
Uh, yeah, we were kind of ATTACKED in 2001, causing a LOT of expenses that we are still not recovered from thanks to you know who.
0
Reply
Male 322
Show me the surplus in the officialstats please:

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
0
Reply
Male 17,511
almightybob1: I guess you have a myopic view of history, Obama as a community organizer,for ACORN, and then senator supported and voted for continuing the 100% mortgage lending practices that caused the housing crisis in the first place. Then he hired people involved in supporting the scandal, like Tim Geithner, Rahm Emanuel, and others for his cabinet team.

Not one of those bankers that profited from that mortgage housing collapse been persecuted for fraud, in fact Geithner made sure those involved were paid their bonuses out of the bailout money.

Obama is a bigger crook than Nixon ever thought of being.
0
Reply
Male 322
To those claiming there was a Clinton SURPLUS are deluded, and buying into the media lies. It was "fuzzy math" that has for 10 years now been proven wrong over, and over, and over. Anyone who claims CLinton had a surplus is clearly either ignorant of basic math, or failed to research even the most basic facts.
0
Reply
Male 12
Remember when Bush inherited the Clinton budget surplus? I do.
0
Reply
Male 11,739
Yes he did it all by himself. It wasn`t Congress or anyone else doing it. Just Obama. He has that power.

0
Reply
Female 4,084
if the government wasn`t run by morons who practiced deficit spending, we wouldn`t be in such a mess. try running a household using the deficit spending model; you`ll be living under a bridge in no time!
0
Reply
Male 17,511
madest: If the democrat plan to retain the WH is to keep blaming GW Bush, then the republicans have already won the WH back for 2012.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
What happened to 5Cats`s other post today, the Obama video?
0
Reply
Male 1,929
And that`s just yearly deficit, not cumulative debt.

Sorry chaps, but America`s little overspend after it`s not-being-negatively-affected-by-WWII -edness is coming to a close. Either everyone manages to spread their sh-t more evenly over Europe and China in due course, or America gets written of as a bad debt and this little financial cough recently gets overshadowed as being of f*ck-all interest to anyone a thousand years from now. The same way that barely anyone remembers the AD62 earthquake that knackered Pompeii.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
He didn`t completely lie, after all he did say he would give us change. What we are getting left with is pocket change, So in his twisted logic he didn`t lie to the American people.

Now he`s threatened to take away Veteran`s and Social Security checks, if he doesn`t get his way, daring lawmakers to "Don`t call my bluff".

Obviously he`s never played poker before because you never tell your opponent when you are bluffing.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Yes, because I`m sure the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, which kicked in around September 2008, had nothing to do with this and/or was Obama`s fault.
0
Reply
Male 5,163
5Cats a new IAB generation is born, will you be able to afford it?
0
Reply
Male 3,369
jwhalerfan said: "There are over 100,000 people out of work in Florida with Space Program cut, let`s ask them..."

*sigh*
What does Obama have to do with that?
0
Reply
Male 168
that`s a racist graph. It`s just showing the facts because obama is black.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Yeah this is the republican plan to win back the White House. Ignore the fact that GWB was a moron who ruined the world`s economy. Blame our financial situation on Obama. Actively block any legislation that could possibly help the country and hope that people are stupid enough to buy it.

Their actions are going to sweep them all out of office. Not Obama`s.
0
Reply
Male 3,369
Duckboy said: "Clinton`s reign was part of the lingering effects of Reaganomics left by Ronald Reagan and continued over by George H.W. Bush."

What do all three of those president have in common? They all raised taxes.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
*Sigh*

I retain my 100% batting rate at guessing which submissions were by 5Cats, from reading the description alone.
0
Reply
Male 662
I love stupid people in their 20`s that have no idea what they`re talking about. Clinton is the reason for how well we did in the 90`s. To give Reagan credit is beyond stupid. And that graph is wrong. What you don`t see is that the first two years of Obama`s presidency is Bush`s fault.
0
Reply
Male 220
Instead of defending Obama by deflecting and pointing fingers, please explain the things he has done to NOT inflate the deficit... or anything he has done, period.

There are over 100,000 people out of work in Florida with Space Program cut, let`s ask them...
(by the way, cutting the space program and paying China and Russia for seats on their flights is a wash...)
0
Reply
Male 812
Remember the time when US wasn`t plunged into a futile war? I sure don`t.
0
Reply
Male 3,645
WeePee, you can`t deny that the past election was primarily driven by race and sex.

Overwhelming first time black voters came out to vote for Obama.
0
Reply
Male 3,645
Clancy54, Clinton`s reign was part of the lingering effects of Reaganomics left by Ronald Reagan and continued over by George H.W. Bush. That, and I believe the legislation branch started off controlled by the G.O.P. at the beginning of Clinton`s reign, though I`ll admit I could be wrong on that and that I`m a it tired to actually look it up.

But the point is, Clinton did nothing for the economy, and probably for the country, except get laid in the oval office.
0
Reply
Male 612
@spaner
it has absolutely nothing to do with a black president. its about having a bad president that refuses to actually work with the house/senate.
0
Reply
Male 1,243
Isn`t this the economic downturn that affected the entire world and couldn`t be stopped? Man, some people will really scrape the barrel just because they have a black president, bet it`s the same people that believe in creationism.
0
Reply
Male 483
clancy54: It`s true he made our financial situation LOOK better, but the way he did it is what happened to the economy. Have you heard of the housing bubble? People who couldn`t afford houses or loans for them suddenly could get loans for them when Clinton passed legislation that allowed it. The housing market boomed and the economy took off. Problem was, when it came time to actually pay off all of those loans, those people that should never have gotten loans for houses couldn`t pay up. Basically, the country thought it was wealthier than it was, and now we have a surplus of empty houses no one can afford.
0
Reply
Male 955
woot, I got one, this is a fun game.
0
Reply
Male 1,182
clancy your like 13 finish middle school first please
0
Reply
Male 68
@fiveanthems
"Could you have done any better? No."
Actually, as long as 5Cats didnt like to fellate bankers he would have done better.
0
Reply
Male 83
@ IrishJesus

Clinton had the United States in its best financial situation ever. History will look at Clinton as one of the best financial managers of the country.
0
Reply
Male 2,216
Bush`s 12 trillion dollar wars are at fault for our economy.
0
Reply
Male 25,416
eeeeeeeeek
0
Reply
Male 65
[troll]F*ck them all, there were noone, but buttheads till Bill Clinton - a lot of deficit, 4 of his years - no deficit, even some surplus, then there was a moron/junkie for eight years - predictable deficit and now - a man without any political/economical experience, chosen only out of USA`s political correctness. Figures. (By the way, wasn`t Clinton the only Democrat during the above-mensioned time?)[/troll]
0
Reply
Male 49
5cats: Obama included the debt due to war to the deficit, and also had to increase spending to curb the massive recession we were left in. Is he without fault? No. Could you have done any better? No.
0
Reply
Male 32
Remember when administrative decisions had instantaneous affect on the economy? Neither do I. Bush`s inept and neglectful handling of the US economy was so severe that we`re still dealing with it. I also don`t recall Obama starting the longest US war to date, costing the country trillions in dollars. Your lack of long-term memory is both alarming and disturbing.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
Ruthless1990

You should care.

The world`s largest economy is in a country whose government is broke. It cannot possibly service its debts without serious improvements in both fiscal management and management of the economy (or better yet stepping aside from trying to manage it). That will have a negative impact on every one of us in the developed world.
0
Reply
Male 483
Obama didn`t dig this grave single handed. The housing bubble burst when he first started off, which wasn`t his fault. I may not agree with all his financial policies, but this hole we`re in started with Clinton, and arguably before.
0
Reply
Male 1
Obama isn`t responsible for the first of the big red lines. Bush years need to be shifted by one year. FY2009 starts in September 2008 and was submitted by his administration. Ditto for the last year of Clinton.
0
Reply
Male 2,486
Hey 5Cats.. I have some advice for you.

This is an entertainment website, what you are posting is not entertainment. You probably think you`re on some soapbox and everything you post negatively about Obama is just smashing apart his life and career.

Truth is, he doesn`t care, he doesn`t know you exist. We don`t care, we wish we didn`t know you exist. Stop posting stupid poo, you`re making yourself look like an idiot.
0
Reply
Male 101
@ruthless yeah you are in Europe why would you care? Why even waste time commenting that crap? Nobody cares what you think about America`s problems Eurotrash
0
Reply
Male 3,058
@5Cats: We get it... you hate Obama.

Why do you even care?
0
Reply
Female 3,001
omg, i nearly passed out from not caring
0
Reply
Male 4,902
Well I see 5Cats is getting his jabs in today
0
Reply
Male 1,832
Remember when politicians kept their promises? Me neither.
0
Reply
Male 40,728
Link: A Graph Of America`s Current Finances [Pic] [Rate Link] - Remember when Obama promised to NOT increase the deficit? I do.
0
Reply