Joe Miner Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Actually, you can either say Bush left with 10 trillion, and Obama is left with roughly 15 trillion. Or Bush left with 4 trillion, and Obama in his first term is left with 5 trillion. Comparing ALL the accumulated debt by all administrations Bush and prior only to the Obama administration's debt is disingenuous or - the direction I'm leaning, given that it's you - preternaturally stupid. And anyway...it's debt. Hence, a loan. Hence, not real money. Hence Bush and Obama ran up precisely no debt. But how many hammers do Bush and Obama have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 And that's not counting Obamacare. No, that's counting Obamacare as saving $123 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) Actually, you can either say Bush left with 10 trillion, and Obama is left with roughly 15 trillion. Or Bush left with 4 trillion, and Obama in his first term is left with 5 trillion. Comparing ALL the accumulated debt by all administrations Bush and prior only to the Obama administration's debt is disingenuous or - the direction I'm leaning, given that it's you - preternaturally stupid. except that i didnt. i said bush was only responsible for roughly 2.5 and obama 1... And anyway...it's debt. Hence, a loan. Hence, not real money. Hence Bush and Obama ran up precisely no debt. i said counterfeit money is not real, which is what the fed does. along with the fractional reserve system... wow... here is the question- 1- was it reasonable, regardless of his responsibility in spending, to leave with that much debt? 2- what was the context of the spending? also, the president is not solely responsible. especially for debt accumulated under a different president. but he or she is responsible for eventually lowering the debt, at least in the future or even present. this is why i said context. i personally would find it hard to blame obama for not reducing debt yet in a depression. no consumer spending, plus no corporate spending, plus no govt spending equals a disaster. and like i said, bowles simpson not passing is the fault of both parties. i stand corrected. but the fact remains, bush left with 10 tril, obama in his first term is left with roughly 5 tril... ( what they are actually responsible for spending wise, obama is 1 tril, i think the bush/cheney wars, tax cuts, and drug program all added half that amount, ie out of the additional 5 tril during the 8 years of the bush administration, i think its reasonable to say he created 2.5.) never reducing debt is another problem. its open for debate... leaving with a 10 tillion dollar debt, regardless of whether you are responsible seems problematic. there is also a question of if the spending or not solving the debt during that specific time was wise and justified? some might say the extra 1 trillion from obama and not cutting spending right now is justified but solving debt long term is. im open to that. i personally think bowles simpson was a good start. both parties failed in getting something done... ... even if bush is not responsible for all 10 trill, its still immoral to leave with that much debt considering the context. you can argue away at obama with bowles simpson. hes partly to blame. but you cant stop spending dramatically in a depression. and just like bush cant stop structural debt from clinton, obama cant stop structural debt from bush. YOU NEED THIS THING CALLED CONGRESS.... Edited June 20, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 i said counterfeit money is not real, which is what the fed does. along with the fractional reserve system... wow... here is the question- 1- was it reasonable, regardless of his responsibility in spending, to leave with that much debt? 2- what was the context of the spending? also, the president is not solely responsible. especially for debt accumulated under a different president. but he or she is responsible for eventually lowering the debt, at least in the future or even present. this is why i said context. i personally would find it hard to blame obama for not reducing debt yet in a depression. no consumer spending, plus no corporate spending, plus no govt spending equals a disaster. and like i said, bowles simpson not passing is the fault of both parties. ... even if bush is not responsible for all 10 trill, its still immoral to leave with that much debt considering the context. you can argue away at obama with bowles simpson. hes partly to blame. but you cant stop spending dramatically in a depression. and just like bush cant stop structural debt from clinton, obama cant stop structural debt from bush. YOU NEED THIS THING CALLED CONGRESS.... You just contradicted yourself in a blatantly obvious fashion, you !@#$ing dolt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 You just contradicted yourself in a blatantly obvious fashion, you !@#$ing dolt. are you on any medication? govt spending during a depression and govt spending during a normal business cycle is different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 are you on any medication? govt spending during a depression and govt spending during a normal business cycle is different. That's not the contradiction I was talking about, retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/06/14/president-obama-the-biggest-government-spender-in-world-history/3/ I know, I'm just being partisan. I found it a little weird that he titled this OP-ED what he did considering he didn't talk about government SPENDING in the entire thing. He talked about deficits which became so huge because of a decrease in tax REVENUES! Graph of Expenditures vs. Receipts These here are just terrible assumptions: In stark contrast, on our current course, under President Obama’s budget policies, federal debt held by the public rockets to 140% of GDP by 2030, 220%by 2040, and 320% by 2050, on its way to over 700% by 2080. That would undoubtedly create a Grecian style sovereign debt crisis for America before that point. How does this guy have a job writing for Forbes? Edited June 21, 2012 by fjl2nd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggieScooby Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 I found it a little weird that he titled this OP-ED what he did considering he didn't talk about government SPENDING in the entire thing. He talked about deficits which became so huge because of a decrease in tax REVENUES! Graph of Expenditures vs. Receipts These here are just terrible assumptions: How does this guy have a job writing for Forbes? Apparently Forbes has a need for political economists who can predict the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) That's not the contradiction I was talking about, retard. im not trying to be mean man, but you seem really erratic/weird in your posts. i think you should read the post again... seriously man, are you ok? Edited June 21, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 im not trying to be mean man, but you seem really erratic/weird in your posts. i think you should read the post again... seriously man, are you ok? And there's a very simple reason for that: other posters, I give serious responses. You, not so much. I'm not erratic...I'm entirely consistent. You're just too much of a clown to see it. And you still haven't found your contradiction, have you? Brilliant... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 And there's a very simple reason for that: other posters, I give serious responses. You, not so much. I'm not erratic...I'm entirely consistent. You're just too much of a clown to see it. And you still haven't found your contradiction, have you? Brilliant... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts