Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas


Thanks Tree29Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 4th, 2017, 01:07 PM   #41
Spud
 
foundit66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California
Posts: 5,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
Spending in Afghanistan was $107 billion in 2011 alone, yes Obama spent hundreds of billions on his failed surge that sent thousands of US troops to their deaths.

One of the glaring problems in your commentary is "hundredS of billions" is plural.
Ergo, $107 billion is repudiating the claim. And that's even ignoring the fact that there was a recurring cost that you keep wanting to blindly assign to Obama when it was set up by Bush who got us into this in the first place...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
You are showing why claiming that Obama reduced the deficit is an attempt at some mis-leading factoid. Government accounting is full of lies and tricks.
Your responses demonstrate nothing but claims. A refusal to comprehend the situation.

Obama DID reduce the deficit.
That is a fact.
It's not "lies and tricks".
"Lies and tricks" would be somebody (hint: you) trying to change the conversation by talking about "Debt Held By The Public" which grew for reasons OTHER THAN the budget deficit.

"Lies and tricks" would be the person (hint: again you) trying to proclaim something is false while never actually showing that.
Challenge for you to ignore: Can you show me any figures on the deficit which demonstrate Obama didn't reduce the deficit?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
Increasing the budget deficit from $468 billion to $1,500 billion and then reducing it to $558 billion isn't really decreasing the deficit is it.
You're rehashing old ground I've already covered. And you refused to address the point then. And I suspect you'll refuse to address the point now.
Also, some economists we consulted pointed out that the 2009 fiscal year was Obama’s first year in office, and so not necessarily a good starting point since he had little control over the spending in that year.
Obama did not create the 2009 budget. He had absolutely no hand in drafting or approving that budget.
Ergo, it's nonsensical to blame him for that year's $1.4 trillion deficit. That's what Bush left him with.

Obama's FIRST deficit was the next year which was lower. $1.294 trillion.

And even if we were to pretend that the $1.4 trillion deficit were his, the simple fact is Obama reduced the deficit afterwards.
It was $1.4 trillion in 2016.
In the following years, it was lower.

Obama LOWERED THE DEFICIT.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
Despite record tax revenues in 2016, we had to borrow $1.4 trillion, yet you are trying to pass that off as some sort of accomplishment.
Some more questions for you to ignore...

Did Obama set the tax values for 2016?
Did Obama set the budget for 2016?
WHAT PRESIDENT WAS involved in setting the tax values / budget for 2016?
I'll answer cause I expect you not to.
The answer is President Bush!
foundit66 is offline  
Old May 4th, 2017, 01:29 PM   #42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Katmandu
Posts: 5,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post

One of the glaring problems in your commentary is "hundredS of billions" is plural.
Ergo, $107 billion is repudiating the claim. And that's even ignoring the fact that there was a recurring cost that you keep wanting to blindly assign to Obama when it was set up by Bush who got us into this in the first place...



Your responses demonstrate nothing but claims. A refusal to comprehend the situation.

Obama DID reduce the deficit.
That is a fact.
It's not "lies and tricks".
"Lies and tricks" would be somebody (hint: you) trying to change the conversation by talking about "Debt Held By The Public" which grew for reasons OTHER THAN the budget deficit.

"Lies and tricks" would be the person (hint: again you) trying to proclaim something is false while never actually showing that.
Challenge for you to ignore: Can you show me any figures on the deficit which demonstrate Obama didn't reduce the deficit?



You're rehashing old ground I've already covered. And you refused to address the point then. And I suspect you'll refuse to address the point now.
Also, some economists we consulted pointed out that the 2009 fiscal year was Obama’s first year in office, and so not necessarily a good starting point since he had little control over the spending in that year.
Obama did not create the 2009 budget. He had absolutely no hand in drafting or approving that budget.
Ergo, it's nonsensical to blame him for that year's $1.4 trillion deficit. That's what Bush left him with.

Obama's FIRST deficit was the next year which was lower. $1.294 trillion.

And even if we were to pretend that the $1.4 trillion deficit were his, the simple fact is Obama reduced the deficit afterwards.
It was $1.4 trillion in 2016.
In the following years, it was lower.

Obama LOWERED THE DEFICIT.



Some more questions for you to ignore...

Did Obama set the tax values for 2016?
Did Obama set the budget for 2016?
WHAT PRESIDENT WAS involved in setting the tax values / budget for 2016?
I'll answer cause I expect you not to.
The answer is President Bush!
Funny I don't remember GWB submitting a budget with Obama's Stimulus spending and tax cuts? I don't remember GWB signing Obama's stimulus into law that contained tax cuts and stimulus spending that ballooned the FY2009 deficit?

Even with the unplanned TARP spending the FY2009 1st quarter deficit was $400 billion when Obama took office.

Why do you think that GWB should be charged with Obama's stimulus spending and tax cuts and the $106 billion that Obama signed in June of 2009 for his war mongering?


You need to work on your reading comprehension.

2009 - $56 billion
2010 - $94 billion
2011 - $107 billion
2012 -
2013 - $86 billion
2014 - $77 billion
2015 - $58 billion
2016 -

Which equals hundreds of billions.

The tax rates in 2016 were the same rates that Obama signed into law in 2012.

All of the GWB tax cuts expired in 2010 and the Democrats that controlled both houses of Congress resurrected them and Obama signed them into law.

Quote:
With the initiation of the Afghan
troop surge, costs grew to $56 billion in FY2009,
and $94 billion in FY2010, peaking at $107 billion in FY2011 (
Figure 3
).
As U.S. troop levels declined and Afghan forces have taken the lead in operations, U.S. costs
dropped to $86 billion in FY2013 and $77 billion in FY2014. The current FY2015 request is $58
billion for Afghanistan
Libertine is offline  
Old May 4th, 2017, 02:34 PM   #43
M(A)GA
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 23,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by right to left View Post
If professional liberals are wondering why they're the only ones praising Obama's job creation and other acclaimed successes, here's why most of the great unwashed masses are so ungrateful:


Obama Didn't Say What Kind of Jobs | The Economic Populist

And what kind of jobs are these:

All of the temp, part time and contract work that has made up most of the job growth being bragged about, just means an expansion of the insecure "precariat" class of workers. So, should it be much of a surprise when growing numbers of people do the unexpected during elections, like voting for the wrong candidate or not even bothering to show up at the polls?

Nobody will touch that. Skews or goober drops this bomb or starts this thread every month or so. Usually whenever huffpo or daily kos decides to run it again. Like the good little sheeple that they are they parrot it out w/o actually understanding what they are saying.

Good post though.
Sabcat is offline  
Old May 4th, 2017, 03:10 PM   #44
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Katmandu
Posts: 5,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
Nobody will touch that. Skews or goober drops this bomb or starts this thread every month or so. Usually whenever huffpo or daily kos decides to run it again. Like the good little sheeple that they are they parrot it out w/o actually understanding what they are saying.

Good post though.
Exactly, the reason Bernie Sanders would have defeated Hillary in the primaries if given a fair shake and the reason that Donald J Trump was elected is that working and middle class America was sick of getting pissed on and told that it was raining prosperity. America wanted an anti-establishment candidate and that is what they voted for.
Thanks from Sabcat and right to left
Libertine is offline  
Old May 4th, 2017, 03:26 PM   #45
M(A)GA
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 23,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
Exactly, the reason Bernie Sanders would have defeated Hillary in the primaries if given a fair shake and the reason that Donald J Trump was elected is that working and middle class America was sick of getting pissed on and told that it was raining prosperity. America wanted an anti-establishment candidate and that is what they voted for.
Sanders could have never survived the debates against anyone w/ the smallest understanding of economics. But he would have wiped the floor w/ Clinton as all of their talking points are emotional.
Thanks from Jimgorn
Sabcat is offline  
Old May 4th, 2017, 03:51 PM   #46
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Katmandu
Posts: 5,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
Sanders could have never survived the debates against anyone w/ the smallest understanding of economics. But he would have wiped the floor w/ Clinton as all of their talking points are emotional.
I don't see how Bernie could have won the election, but I was surprized that Trump did too, Bernie would have given Hillary a run for her money on a level playing field.
Thanks from Sabcat
Libertine is offline  
Old May 5th, 2017, 12:19 PM   #47
end capitalism now
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
Nobody will touch that. Skews or goober drops this bomb or starts this thread every month or so. Usually whenever huffpo or daily kos decides to run it again. Like the good little sheeple that they are they parrot it out w/o actually understanding what they are saying.

Good post though.
Thanks! This is why the Democratic Party is crumbling and should not expect they can be saved by Trump Disaster any more than their previous self-assurance that changing demographics would give them permanent Democratic majorities!

They decided they were going to win the White House, both houses of Congress..though not much was said about local government...without having to fight for their votes, aside from Trump Is Bad...Trump Is Bad! They planned in advance who their candidate would be..and what's most mind-boggling about that 2nd story I linked yesterday is that the Florida case shows the DNC lawyers not even denying the plaintiff's case of rigging and violating their own Party's constitution...just declaring that they have the right to do it and cheat their voters! Was it necessary? The (Democratic) Party has already been democratic in name only when it comes to presidential elections, since the corrupt, compensated bagmen and women who become Superdelegates become the thumb on the scales that prevents any populist insurgents from winning, by being 20% of the total votes cast at the Convention. I was surprised to read that some establishment Republicans start arguing for a similar system after Trump won their nomination!

The DNC rejected calls for reform(we're taking that corporate cash) still reject universal health care...a core issue for Democrats now, and are just hoping Trumpcare...if it happens will be so bad, everyone will forget about the dismal trajectory of Obamacare!

A New York cousin of mine...who was mostly quiet on politics in recent times, was one of the many Democrats who got excited about Sanders..... became a contributor....and later an organizer(she's retired now), but was totally disillusioned by what happened and is now looking around for one of the third parties to break through and become a force for change.
Thanks from Sabcat
right to left is offline  
Old May 5th, 2017, 12:26 PM   #48
end capitalism now
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
Sanders could have never survived the debates against anyone w/ the smallest understanding of economics. But he would have wiped the floor w/ Clinton as all of their talking points are emotional.
Says the libertarian! It was with rank and file voters that Sanders won his votes on economic issues. Libertarian candidates can only win in the Democratic Party if they lie about their intentions after taking office!

Sanders hit three key issues that have wide support and majority support with Democratic voters...just not with Democratic donors! Sanders was weak on foreign policy issues, and hence the disconnect, as the donor-sponsored candidates, like the Clintons and Obamas were barely able to bridge the gap between The Money and The Voters, and more than likely, today's majority of voters are so volatile and frustrated on a number of issues that it cannot be done again!
right to left is offline  
Old May 5th, 2017, 12:29 PM   #49
end capitalism now
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
I don't see how Bernie could have won the election, but I was surprized that Trump did too, Bernie would have given Hillary a run for her money on a level playing field.
The Dems have 20% undemocratic weighting advantage for establishment candidates. That's why Bernie couldn't have won..though if the DNC wasn't a corrupt piece of shit, the results would have been much, much closer!

Trump didn't have to deal with a superdelegate disadvantage...so, in all honesty, Democratic voters have to admit that their party is less democratic than the Republican Party!
Thanks from Sabcat
right to left is offline  
Old May 5th, 2017, 02:50 PM   #50
M(A)GA
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 23,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by right to left View Post
Says the libertarian! It was with rank and file voters that Sanders won his votes on economic issues. Libertarian candidates can only win in the Democratic Party if they lie about their intentions after taking office!

Sanders hit three key issues that have wide support and majority support with Democratic voters...just not with Democratic donors! Sanders was weak on foreign policy issues, and hence the disconnect, as the donor-sponsored candidates, like the Clintons and Obamas were barely able to bridge the gap between The Money and The Voters, and more than likely, today's majority of voters are so volatile and frustrated on a number of issues that it cannot be done again!
I know that but he cannot actually explain how any of his magic free programs would work. Did you see the debate between him and Cruze on healthcare after the election?

His proposals would have to w/stand public scrutiny. I do not believe that they could.
Sabcat is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas

Tags
$3k, class, created, economy, incomes, jobs, middle, million, obamacare



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Obamacare Full Frontal: Of 953,000 Jobs Created In 2013, 77%, Or 731,000 Are Part-Tim Uncle Han Current Events 5 August 2nd, 2013 11:05 AM
Remarks by the President on Jobs for the Middle Class, 07/30/13 The White House The White House 0 July 30th, 2013 01:40 PM
FACT SHEET: A Better Bargain for the Middle Class: Jobs The White House The White House 0 July 30th, 2013 08:10 AM
Remarks By The President On Strengthening The Economy For The Middle Class The White House The White House 0 February 16th, 2013 07:30 AM
Obama claims 5 million jobs created Truth Detector Current Events 63 October 27th, 2012 01:26 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.