The GOP Problem...in a Nutshell ( literally and figuratively)

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: The GOP Problem...in a Nutshell ( literally and figuratively)

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

     

     

    Here`s a fact:

    January 20, 2009      U.S. National debt = $9.7 Trillion

    February 13, 2013     U.S. National debt = $16.8 Trillion

    George Washington through George W. Bush (43 presidents) debt grows to $9.7 Trillion.  4 years of Obama debt grows by $7 Trillion.

    Disgraceful.

     

     

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    Do your research (honestly)

     

    Knew you couldn't.

    No wonder airborne yell at you so much. "Honest" research reveals that even if your 2 trillion tag for Obama is honest, the tag for Bush was far greater.

     

     

    Iraq: 800+ Billion, plus potentially up to another trillion through 2050 for vets, plus interest on all that debt service


    CBO, trusted when bad for Obama, hated when good for him, estimates long term cost at 1.7 trillion for Iraq. That was in 2007.

    Afghanistan: 600+ million

    Unfunded prescription: Between 400 and 600 billion over 10ish years, take your pick.

    "Initially, the net cost of the program was projected at $400 billion for the ten-year period between 2004 and 2013. One month after passage, the administration estimated that the net cost of the program over the period between 2006 (the first year the program started paying benefits) and 2015 would be $534 billion.As of February 2009, the projected net cost of the program over the 2006 to 2015 period was $549.2 billion"

    TARP: 25 billion or so, though perhaps more will be recovered.

    And of course, Tax cuts, a mortgage crisis (see my quote from Bush in 2002 "everyone must have a home" in the other thread), a financial crisis.......and trillions of revenue gets knocked out.


    Add in thousands of our soldiers dead, a hundred thousand civilians dead, far more maimed, the fact he kept his wars off the books.... and...well... you'll stat to see how awful Bush was.

     

     

    Obama stopped that and started to turn things around. We have a long way to go, no doubt. But he is by far not the "worst" president ever.

     

     To pretend all that stuff isn't still costing us money....disgusting. But expected.




     



    What`s "expected" is your denial of any Obama culpibility.  What`s "expected" is your avoidance of the FACTs.  Obamacare $1.8 trillion, stimulus $1 trillion, bailouts, financing of private companies, etc,etc,    Gotta love how 2000-2008 is "Bush`s fault",  2009-2013 is still "Bush`s fault", and I`m sure that 4 years from now, in your mind, it will still be "Bush`s fault".

     

    Who`s economy did Obama pick up on January 20, 2013?

     

     




     

     

    When have I denied the spending attributable to Obama? I never denied it. It's quite large. I'm just pointing out the damage done by the Bush admin is far larger.

    Sorry you hate reality.

     

    (QUOTE)

    No it isn`t.  Your numbers are way off and no two pundits, writers, analysts, or organizations have the same results.  No president in history has spent as much or created so much debt so quickly as Obama. 

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: The GOP Problem...in a Nutshell ( literally and figuratively)

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    I would not be bringing Ted Nugent anywhere.   Correct about Romney but, Obama won Hispanics by large margins, under -25 by large margins, single women and more specifically single mothers by large margins, and he won the under $30k per year income group.  He won all the inner-city votes but not the suburb votes (exceptions being the ultra-liberal states, CA, MA, NY, etc).  If the poster checks the voter demographics the truth will prove that the "stupid voters" (user99`s words) voted for the currnet occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Av.

     

     

    (Insert airborne`s racist rant here)

     



    The Hispanic vote is overblown - if Romney had split the Hispanic vote he might have picked up Florida.  It wouldn't have made a difference in states that overwhelmingly blue or red like California and Texas, and there weren't enough Hispanics in states like Ohio and Wisconsin to make much of a difference.

     

    Maybe Republicans can take voters away in some of these demographic areas, but let's face it - their strongest demographic is literally dying.  They're never going to win the white house this way - if they split off from the tea party, each faction would at least be representing their (purported) beliefs, instead of this ridiculous hybrid that has guys like Mitt Romney pretending to give 2 sh1ts about varmint hunting and abortions.

     

     

     



    Sounds like you would rather have a bunch of illegal, taker, uneducated, lazy, dumb, fools, choosing your president?

     

     




     

    I'd say the 40 and younger crowd have a greater stake in the future of the country than the 70 and over crowd.

     

     



    I would too.  The problem is they are uninformed.  Not so much age 30-40 but, large percentages  of the 18-30 age group are getting their news from Comedy Central and Saturday Night Live.  You want them responsible for the future of America?  I don`t.  

     

     

     




     

    There are uninformed voters on both sides.  I don't see Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh as a step up from Jon Stewart and Seth Meyers.

     



    Interesting point.  You won`t find an entire voting block in polling data saying they "get their news" from Limbaugh or Hannity though.  They may be listening (or watching) for entertainment purposes or shock value but they are getting their news from reliable sources.  Remember, these were actual polls and exit polls taken for the under 30 crowd.  Over 60% of these very same people, as recently as Nov /2012, believed that Mrs Palin actually said "I can see Russia from my house".   That`s just sad (and a little scary).

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: The GOP Problem...in a Nutshell ( literally and figuratively)

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    "I can see Russia from my house".



    She said one can see Russia from land here in Alaska.

     

     

    As an f'ing justification for claiming she had foreign policy experience...

     

     

    See why your zinger doesn't work?




    Hey stupid, IT`S A TRUE STATEMENT!

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: The GOP Problem...in a Nutshell ( literally and figuratively)

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    Your numbers are way off




     

    Based on what? The fact that you want them to be?

    I confirmed them across several sources. I'm not going to waste time with someone who thinks lying is a method of argument.




    Please show them!  You have yet to show ANYTHING but your opinion and some Rachel Maddow-type MSNBC guesstimates.  And, "lying"?  Coming from you?  One of the biggest liars here?  A delusional lib-moonbat?

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: The GOP Problem...in a Nutshell ( literally and figuratively)

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    Your numbers are way off

     

     

    Based on what? The fact that you want them to be?

    I confirmed them across several sources. I'm not going to waste time with someone who thinks lying is a method of argument.

     

     




     

     

    There are thousands of articles, estimates, sources, for these costs and none are correct.

     


    Yep, that's quite the fact-based argument we've come to expect from the wingnuts.

    "Everyone is wrong but me, because I say so"

    It's right up there with; "I've met 2 people in (insert any state or country here) so I know better than any comprehensive study done by any legitimate research group."

     

     

    It's just plain ridiculous.

     




    OK so where`s your factual data?   I`m guessing you have proof that Obama saved the economy and made things better?

    Post it.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: The GOP Problem...in a Nutshell ( literally and figuratively)

    "....keep the focus on the facts..."

     

    Didn`t you post this?    Good, here`s the facts: (again)

    Jan 20, 2009            debt $9.7 trillion

    Jan 20, 2013            debt $16.8 trillion

     

    FACTS!

     

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: The GOP Problem...in a Nutshell ( literally and figuratively)

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    OOoo oooo ....i can copy paste too!

     

    Iraq: 800+ Billion, plus potentially up to another trillion through 2050 for vets, plus interest on all that debt service


    CBO, trusted when bad for Obama, hated when good for him, estimates long term cost at 1.7 trillion for Iraq. That was in 2007.

    Afghanistan: 600+ million

    Unfunded prescription: Between 400 and 600 billion over 10ish years, take your pick.

    "Initially, the net cost of the program was projected at $400 billion for the ten-year period between 2004 and 2013. One month after passage, the administration estimated that the net cost of the program over the period between 2006 (the first year the program started paying benefits) and 2015 would be $534 billion.As of February 2009, the projected net cost of the program over the 2006 to 2015 period was $549.2 billion"

    TARP: 25 billion or so, though perhaps more will be recovered.

    And of course, Tax cuts, a mortgage crisis (see my quote from Bush in 2002 "everyone must have a home" in the other thread), a financial crisis.......and trillions of revenue gets knocked out.


    Add in thousands of our soldiers dead, a hundred thousand civilians dead, far more maimed, the fact he kept his wars off the books.... and...well... you'll stat to see how awful Bush was.

     

     

    Obama stopped that and started to turn things around. We have a long way to go, no doubt. But he is by far not the "worst" president ever.

     

     To pretend all that stuff isn't still costing us money....disgusting. But expected.

     

     

     

     

     

    Seriously...  jmel got about ten times stupider and ten times more dishonest since the name change. Weird.




    Not one of these "opinions" is fact-based.  Got sources? Links?  These are your (lying) opinions.  And btw, even if you provide.....ah-hem, LOL..............'sources" there are THOUSANDS counter-punching and destroying your ....ah-hem....."opinions".

    Tell the freakin truth will you!

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: The GOP Problem...in a Nutshell ( literally and figuratively)

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    Your numbers are way off

     

     

    Based on what? The fact that you want them to be?

    I confirmed them across several sources. I'm not going to waste time with someone who thinks lying is a method of argument.

     

     




     

     

    There are thousands of articles, estimates, sources, for these costs and none are correct.

     


    Yep, that's quite the fact-based argument we've come to expect from the wingnuts.

    "Everyone is wrong but me, because I say so"

    It's right up there with; "I've met 2 people in (insert any state or country here) so I know better than any comprehensive study done by any legitimate research group."

     

     

    It's just plain ridiculous.

     

     




     

    OK so where`s your factual data?   I`m guessing you have proof that Obama saved the economy and made things better?

    Post it.

     




     

    GDP:

    baby-Bush last months in office

    4th qtr 2008 = - 9%

    Most recent affirmed numbers for Obama

    3rd qtr 2012 = + 3.1%

    That's a 12% positive turnaround.

    Unemployment:

    When Obama took office the country was losing 785,000 jobs a month

    Now we are consistently adding 130,000 per month

    Almost a 1 million position swing to the positive.

     

     




    How was Q4`s GDP?

    And who had super majorities from Jan 2007 to Jan 2011?

     

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: The GOP Problem...in a Nutshell ( literally and figuratively)

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    who had super majorities from Jan 2007 to Jan 2011?



    The question alone proves you aren't worth speaking to.

     

    What a dishonest and downright ret@rded thing to try to use as a red herring.




    So, in your blind, clueless, little world, congress doesn`t exist?  Oooops, well, unless it`s the "obstructionist Republicans" with their small majority in the House, right?

    So far, what we have from you, in 2 threads, is EXACTLY where we started and what you base your entire pathetic existence on.  The same thing that the 52%-low information-gimme free stuff-Comedy Central voters base their sad lives on...................'BUSH`S FAULT"

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: The GOP Problem...in a Nutshell ( literally and figuratively)

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    Your numbers are way off

     

     

    Based on what? The fact that you want them to be?

    I confirmed them across several sources. I'm not going to waste time with someone who thinks lying is a method of argument.

     

     




     

     

    There are thousands of articles, estimates, sources, for these costs and none are correct.

     


    Yep, that's quite the fact-based argument we've come to expect from the wingnuts.

    "Everyone is wrong but me, because I say so"

    It's right up there with; "I've met 2 people in (insert any state or country here) so I know better than any comprehensive study done by any legitimate research group."

     

     

    It's just plain ridiculous.

     

     




     

    OK so where`s your factual data?   I`m guessing you have proof that Obama saved the economy and made things better?

    Post it.

     




     

    GDP:

    baby-Bush last months in office

    4th qtr 2008 = - 9%

    Most recent affirmed numbers for Obama

    3rd qtr 2012 = + 3.1%

    That's a 12% positive turnaround.

    Unemployment:

    When Obama took office the country was losing 785,000 jobs a month

    Now we are consistently adding 130,000 per month

    Almost a 1 million position swing to the positive.

     

     

     




     

    How was Q4`s GDP?

    And who had super majorities from Jan 2007 to Jan 2011?

     

     

     




     

    Reading comprehension problem or just ignorant of how GDP is calculated?

    The initial estimate is revised 2 more times in the following months as more data is compiled.

    The last affirmed numbers we have is 3rd qtr 2012.

    Sorry, but I don't run in the speculation circles you wingnuts like to frequent.

     

    And by-the-by, the Dems had a supermajority for less than a year.

    Unless of course you'd like to just throw Brown's tenure into the trashbin of history....




    Oh yah...............can`t forget that one vote.  Go figure, a guy that voted half the time with the moonbats and those same moonbats were so stupid they voted him out.

    We`re in a recession goof-ball.  Your president sux!

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: The GOP Problem...in a Nutshell ( literally and figuratively)

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

     

    "....keep the focus on the facts..."

     

    Didn`t you post this?    Good, here`s the facts: (again)

    Jan 20, 2009            debt $9.7 trillion

    Jan 20, 2013            debt $16.8 trillion

     

    FACTS!

     

     

     




     

    Ummm, here's some facts from WSJ that you refuse to acknowledge.

     

    - In the 2009 fiscal year - the last of George W. Bush's presidency - federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

    - In fiscal 2010 - the first budget under Obama - spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

    - In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

    - In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

    - Finally in fiscal 2013 - the final budget of Obama's term - spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO's latest budget outlook.

    Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It's in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget. What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year.

     


     

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=1

     

     




     

    Crickets....



    first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress

    Ask you again as you seem to avoid this crucial FACT, Who had super majorities from Jan 2007?

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: The GOP Problem...in a Nutshell ( literally and figuratively)

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    Oh yah...............can`t forget that one vote.  Go figure, a guy that voted half the time with the moonbats and those same moonbats were so stupid they voted him out.

    We`re in a recession goof-ball.  Your president sux!

     




     

    Heh, heh, heh... too freakin funny.

    Here you are charging WDYWN with posting 'opinions' and yet you have no problem just spouting off some ridiculous "we're in a recession" bullcrap.

    Freakin hilarious!!!!

    I see you have a problem with definitions, eh barbie?

     



    2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP.  Just had one.  On our way to another.  Let me guess................Bush`s fault, right?

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: The GOP Problem...in a Nutshell ( literally and figuratively)

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    who had super majorities from Jan 2007 to Jan 2011?



    The question alone proves you aren't worth speaking to.

     

    What a dishonest and downright ret@rded thing to try to use as a red herring.

     




     

    So, in your blind, clueless, little world, congress doesn`t exist?  Oooops, well, unless it`s the "obstructionist Republicans" with their small majority in the House, right?

    So far, what we have from you, in 2 threads, is EXACTLY where we started and what you base your entire pathetic existence on.  The same thing that the 52%-low information-gimme free stuff-Comedy Central voters base their sad lives on...................'BUSH`S FAULT"

     





     

    Like I said. That you pointed to supermajorities proves you aren't worth speaking to. You aren't interested in debate. You're just ranting based on made up bullsh!t. Go away.



    So, because you smoked dope and listened to Slash instead of attending High School Civics 101 and Introduction to Government, I should "go away"?

    Try a practical understanding of how government works and lose your insane ideological blinders and maybe you can have an honest conversation.  Or, stick to your "Bush`s fault" BS. It works well for you.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: The GOP Problem...in a Nutshell ( literally and figuratively)

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

     

    "....keep the focus on the facts..."

     

    Didn`t you post this?    Good, here`s the facts: (again)

    Jan 20, 2009            debt $9.7 trillion

    Jan 20, 2013            debt $16.8 trillion

     

    FACTS!

     

     

     




     

    Ummm, here's some facts from WSJ that you refuse to acknowledge.

     

    - In the 2009 fiscal year - the last of George W. Bush's presidency - federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

    - In fiscal 2010 - the first budget under Obama - spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

    - In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

    - In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

    - Finally in fiscal 2013 - the final budget of Obama's term - spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO's latest budget outlook.

    Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It's in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget. What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year.

     


     

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=1

     

     




     

    Crickets....

     



    first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress

     

    Ask you again as you seem to avoid this crucial FACT, Who had super majorities from Jan 2007?

     




     

    Hey spanky, why do you continually post Innauguration day when it has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

     

     



    Jan 1 2007 is the day the DEMOCRAT super majorities took over both houses after winning the Nov 2006 mid-terms.

    When the Q-Tip hits your brain stop pushing.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share