To our liberal friends

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Nor do I.. Whats the point? Taking the direction off Obama?

If, as has been claimed on here innumerable times there is no major areas of difference between the two parties in their approach to the big issues, then what is the point of complaining about it in such a way as to suggest that people should come to the defence of either side?

I'm not a Democrat, I didn't vote for Obama nor do I have no particular emotional investment in him, nor feel any need to defend him.

I do however find serious fault in your arguments - such as you presented in the OP which amount to a litany of hyperbole and lies.

There are certainly legitimate criticisms of Obama, yet a discussion of those isn't possible with the likes of you, Joe. Sorry to disappoint.

There is plenty of GWB to criticize as well - however my posts have more to do with the hypocrisy of those in power now than it is with those that were in power. I know you understand that, but you want to make it all about criticizing republicans.

No, Joe - you just posted this in your usual partisan fashion to start a partisan $hitfest (such is the way you perceive the world).

On the bolded - where have I done this?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The question was, what has Obama done that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

Well, from a fiscal and budget perspective, he won't be nearly as brilliant and impressive as the Gipper who managed to triple the national debt during just two terms - and that without any wars going on. He'll probably be almost as brilliant and impressive as W on that front who actually managed to swing the positive trend the national debt was on (so positive that the debt clock was turned off before he took office only to be switched on again right quick thereafter) and put it on a trajectory to more than double it over the course of a decade and actually doubling it during his two terms in office.

So, Joe, I'll give you that, the GOP still remains the most brilliant and impressive political force when it comes to recklessly racking up the national debt. Nobody will come even close.

Uh actually Obama has done worse.

Obama has already tripled or at least more than doubled the national debt? Is that what your crystal ball is telling you? Seeing that he's been in office not quite 10 months yet and seeing that his first FY just started a couple of weeks ago, I'd say the jury on how he is doing on the fiscal front is still out. Well, except for those - like yourself - that want to judge before any evidence can be presented.

Small minds...

So you're saying that the deficit going to 1 and half trillion is ok because the national debt is already 11 trillion. So technically he didn't triple the national debt... Your logic is idiotic.

Ah yes, nothing but silly rants left when your "case" falls flat. Small minds indeed if can't even master simple math which, quite obviously, you can't.

The fact of the matter is that the national debt was less than a trillion dollars when the Gipper took office and that he left with the national debt being just under 3 trillion. 1 * 3 = 3 - i.e. the Gipper tripled the debt in 8 years. The debt was 5 trillion when W took office and 10 trillion when he left. 5 * 2 = 10 - i.e. W doubled the debt in 8 years.

Those are the numbers. Refute them if you can but the mere fact that they are inconvenient for you and blow a big, fat hole into your ridiculous argument doesn't make them invalid.

Nonsense. Your argument is that the debt is so big now that its impossible for Obama to double or triple it because that would mean it will have to go to 20 trillion. So therefore he's off the hook for 1.5 trillion so far, and as Harry Reid just admitted coming up to 3 trillion after the healthcare BS is implemented.

No, my argument is that if we're going to be talking about multiplying the national debt then we should talk about multiplying the national debt.

But if you want to talk about how the national debt developed after WWII (during which period it was racked up to a whopping 121% of GDP), then we can talk about that, too. After WWII, the national debt - as a percentage of GDP - declined to as low as 32%. The debt to GDP ratio improved during 27 out of 35 fiscal years following the end of WWII

Now we're in 1981 when, you guessed it, the Gipper took the helm. The debt on GDP ratio then went onto a upward trend with the Gipper's first full year budget (FY 1982) all the way through the mid-point Clinton's first term where it peaked at 67% for FY 1995. Note that Clinton took over when the ratio was 66% - more than double what it was when the Gipper came to office.

During the latter part of Clinton's first and all through his second term, the debt to GDP ratio was brought back down to 57% - that's 6 out of 8 FY's under Clinton showing a declining trend in the debt to GDP ratio. These are also the only 6 years where the debt to GDP ration improved since the Gipper's first full budget year - FY 1982. In other words, in the last 27 years, the debt to GDP ratio worsened for all but 6 years and those 6 years had a Democrat in the White House.

We know that this trend didn't last very long once W took over. Literally with W's full budget year (FY 2002), the debt to GDP ratio ticket up and in just 8 years ended at about 90% (FY 2009 - the last budget that W submitted). It would be 85% if you take Obama's stimulus package out of consideration.

In real numbers:

Gipper: 1 trillion - 3 trillion (2 trillion)

H.W.: 3 trillion - 4.4 trillion (1.4 trillion)

Clinton: 4.4 trillion - 5.8 trillion (1.4 trillion)

W: 5.8 trillion - 12 trillion (6.2 trillion)

Debt incurred as percentage of GDP final year in office:

Gipper: 36%

H.W.: 21%

Clinton: 14%

W: 44%

So, don't sit there pretending that there's any fiscal responsibility to be had with the folks on the right of the aisle. The numbers show that there isn't.

That said, the current budget situation is very unsettling. I agree that we cannot continue on this trend. The long and short of it is that revenue sources will need to be explored and efficiencies realized. Health care reform has a lot of potential to this end and I hope that some of it will actually materialize. It's clear to anyone with a sound mind that the status quo is leading down a road of destruction - we can't continue to cut taxes hoping that this will somehow fix the budget. Or pretend that taxes won't have to be raised. It won't work.

Edited October 20, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog

[nowhereman 1]

So to summarize Joe is trying to illustrate the hypocrisy and shortcomings of Obama & the Democrats via partisan rhetoric and blatant propoganda.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So to summarize Joe is trying to illustrate the hypocrisy and shortcomings of Obama & the Democrats via partisan rhetoric and blatant propoganda.

It's not unlike Wile E Coyote painting a tunnel on the side of a cliff face.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The question was, what has Obama done that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

Well, from a fiscal and budget perspective, he won't be nearly as brilliant and impressive as the Gipper who managed to triple the national debt during just two terms - and that without any wars going on. He'll probably be almost as brilliant and impressive as W on that front who actually managed to swing the positive trend the national debt was on (so positive that the debt clock was turned off before he took office only to be switched on again right quick thereafter) and put it on a trajectory to more than double it over the course of a decade and actually doubling it during his two terms in office.

So, Joe, I'll give you that, the GOP still remains the most brilliant and impressive political force when it comes to recklessly racking up the national debt. Nobody will come even close.

Uh actually Obama has done worse.

Obama has already tripled or at least more than doubled the national debt? Is that what your crystal ball is telling you? Seeing that he's been in office not quite 10 months yet and seeing that his first FY just started a couple of weeks ago, I'd say the jury on how he is doing on the fiscal front is still out. Well, except for those - like yourself - that want to judge before any evidence can be presented.

Small minds...

So you're saying that the deficit going to 1 and half trillion is ok because the national debt is already 11 trillion. So technically he didn't triple the national debt... Your logic is idiotic.

Ah yes, nothing but silly rants left when your "case" falls flat. Small minds indeed if can't even master simple math which, quite obviously, you can't.

The fact of the matter is that the national debt was less than a trillion dollars when the Gipper took office and that he left with the national debt being just under 3 trillion. 1 * 3 = 3 - i.e. the Gipper tripled the debt in 8 years. The debt was 5 trillion when W took office and 10 trillion when he left. 5 * 2 = 10 - i.e. W doubled the debt in 8 years.

Those are the numbers. Refute them if you can but the mere fact that they are inconvenient for you and blow a big, fat hole into your ridiculous argument doesn't make them invalid.

Nonsense. Your argument is that the debt is so big now that its impossible for Obama to double or triple it because that would mean it will have to go to 20 trillion. So therefore he's off the hook for 1.5 trillion so far, and as Harry Reid just admitted coming up to 3 trillion after the healthcare BS is implemented.

They won't answer the questions because they know they are hypocrits.

Joseph - your list is full of it and you know it. Cite your sources and then lets break down each claim on that list. I noticed you didn't include the link, but even the original author of that list better have footnotes to each claim along with the sources if you want someone like me to even bother to argue with you about it. You'd never make it very far as a trial lawyer if this is how you'd argue your case - on hearsay. Fail.

Haha its funny how in order to win an argument with a liberal (based on their terms) you have to cite all sources for each claim (which liberals do not) and when you do cite the sources, they are attacked. You people are so braindead it isn't funny.

Joseph - I'd recommend taking a critical thinking course at your local college. You'll have a better understanding of how to access information rather than taking something for face value that has no reference or resource to validate those claims. You could also take just a basic writing class - they'd teach you that when you write something as factual, you are footnote those claims. This wasn't an essay or opinion piece. It was presented as a laundry list of "facts." I know why you accept them for face value as being true, but that's not an excuse for believing it. Come on....you're smarter than that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Oh I can only guess how he'll respond to that

[Spoom 8]

Dear OP,

I'm sorry, I don't answer long series of false dichotomies.

Better luck next time,

Spoom

Edited October 20, 2009 by Spoom

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

They won't answer the questions because they know they are hypocrits.

Let the deflection continue.

[nowhereman 1]

They won't answer the questions because they know they are hypocrits.

Let the deflection continue.

I always deflect nonsensical rhetoric, so I guess I'm guilty.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

The question was, what has Obama done that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

Well, from a fiscal and budget perspective, he won't be nearly as brilliant and impressive as the Gipper who managed to triple the national debt during just two terms - and that without any wars going on. He'll probably be almost as brilliant and impressive as W on that front who actually managed to swing the positive trend the national debt was on (so positive that the debt clock was turned off before he took office only to be switched on again right quick thereafter) and put it on a trajectory to more than double it over the course of a decade and actually doubling it during his two terms in office.

So, Joe, I'll give you that, the GOP still remains the most brilliant and impressive political force when it comes to recklessly racking up the national debt. Nobody will come even close.

Uh actually Obama has done worse.

Obama has already tripled or at least more than doubled the national debt? Is that what your crystal ball is telling you? Seeing that he's been in office not quite 10 months yet and seeing that his first FY just started a couple of weeks ago, I'd say the jury on how he is doing on the fiscal front is still out. Well, except for those - like yourself - that want to judge before any evidence can be presented.

Small minds...

So you're saying that the deficit going to 1 and half trillion is ok because the national debt is already 11 trillion. So technically he didn't triple the national debt... Your logic is idiotic.

Ah yes, nothing but silly rants left when your "case" falls flat. Small minds indeed if can't even master simple math which, quite obviously, you can't.

The fact of the matter is that the national debt was less than a trillion dollars when the Gipper took office and that he left with the national debt being just under 3 trillion. 1 * 3 = 3 - i.e. the Gipper tripled the debt in 8 years. The debt was 5 trillion when W took office and 10 trillion when he left. 5 * 2 = 10 - i.e. W doubled the debt in 8 years.

Those are the numbers. Refute them if you can but the mere fact that they are inconvenient for you and blow a big, fat hole into your ridiculous argument doesn't make them invalid.

Nonsense. Your argument is that the debt is so big now that its impossible for Obama to double or triple it because that would mean it will have to go to 20 trillion. So therefore he's off the hook for 1.5 trillion so far, and as Harry Reid just admitted coming up to 3 trillion after the healthcare BS is implemented.

No, my argument is that if we're going to be talking about multiplying the national debt then we should talk about multiplying the national debt.

But if you want to talk about how the national debt developed after WWII (during which period it was racked up to a whopping 121% of GDP), then we can talk about that, too. After WWII, the national debt - as a percentage of GDP - declined to as low as 32%. The debt to GDP ratio improved during 27 out of 35 fiscal years following the end of WWII

Now we're in 1981 when, you guessed it, the Gipper took the helm. The debt on GDP ratio then went onto a upward trend with the Gipper's first full year budget (FY 1982) all the way through the mid-point Clinton's first term where it peaked at 67% for FY 1995. Note that Clinton took over when the ratio was 66% - more than double what it was when the Gipper came to office.

During the latter part of Clinton's first and all through his second term, the debt to GDP ratio was brought back down to 57% - that's 6 out of 8 FY's under Clinton showing a declining trend in the debt to GDP ratio. These are also the only 6 years where the debt to GDP ration improved since the Gipper's first full budget year - FY 1982. In other words, in the last 27 years, the debt to GDP ratio worsened for all but 6 years and those 6 years had a Democrat in the White House.

We know that this trend didn't last very long once W took over. Literally with W's full budget year (FY 2002), the debt to GDP ratio ticket up and in just 8 years ended at about 90% (FY 2009 - the last budget that W submitted). It would be 85% if you take Obama's stimulus package out of consideration.

In real numbers:

Gipper: 1 trillion - 3 trillion (2 trillion)

H.W.: 3 trillion - 4.4 trillion (1.4 trillion)

Clinton: 4.4 trillion - 5.8 trillion (1.4 trillion)

W: 5.8 trillion - 12 trillion (6.2 trillion)

Debt incurred as percentage of GDP final year in office:

Gipper: 36%

H.W.: 21%

Clinton: 14%

W: 44%

So, don't sit there pretending that there's any fiscal responsibility to be had with the folks on the right of the aisle. The numbers show that there isn't.

That said, the current budget situation is very unsettling. I agree that we cannot continue on this trend. The long and short of it is that revenue sources will need to be explored and efficiencies realized. Health care reform has a lot of potential to this end and I hope that some of it will actually materialize. It's clear to anyone with a sound mind that the status quo is leading down a road of destruction - we can't continue to cut taxes hoping that this will somehow fix the budget. Or pretend that taxes won't have to be raised. It won't work.

Why are you whining?

So to summarize Joe is trying to illustrate the hypocrisy and shortcomings of Obama & the Democrats via partisan rhetoric and blatant propoganda.

Stop voting democrat.

[Spoom 8]

It's such a transparent attack as well. He titles it with such obvious sarcasm in saying "our liberal friends", and then instantly launches into Republican "attack-attack-attack" rhetoric. If we point out the flaws in this, we're "not answering his questions" (as if such stupid leading questions deserve an answer, even ignoring the tone he's taking when asking them).

No. I won't play your game.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

The question was, what has Obama done that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

Well, from a fiscal and budget perspective, he won't be nearly as brilliant and impressive as the Gipper who managed to triple the national debt during just two terms - and that without any wars going on. He'll probably be almost as brilliant and impressive as W on that front who actually managed to swing the positive trend the national debt was on (so positive that the debt clock was turned off before he took office only to be switched on again right quick thereafter) and put it on a trajectory to more than double it over the course of a decade and actually doubling it during his two terms in office.

So, Joe, I'll give you that, the GOP still remains the most brilliant and impressive political force when it comes to recklessly racking up the national debt. Nobody will come even close.

Uh actually Obama has done worse.

Obama has already tripled or at least more than doubled the national debt? Is that what your crystal ball is telling you? Seeing that he's been in office not quite 10 months yet and seeing that his first FY just started a couple of weeks ago, I'd say the jury on how he is doing on the fiscal front is still out. Well, except for those - like yourself - that want to judge before any evidence can be presented.

Small minds...

So you're saying that the deficit going to 1 and half trillion is ok because the national debt is already 11 trillion. So technically he didn't triple the national debt... Your logic is idiotic.

Ah yes, nothing but silly rants left when your "case" falls flat. Small minds indeed if can't even master simple math which, quite obviously, you can't.

The fact of the matter is that the national debt was less than a trillion dollars when the Gipper took office and that he left with the national debt being just under 3 trillion. 1 * 3 = 3 - i.e. the Gipper tripled the debt in 8 years. The debt was 5 trillion when W took office and 10 trillion when he left. 5 * 2 = 10 - i.e. W doubled the debt in 8 years.

Those are the numbers. Refute them if you can but the mere fact that they are inconvenient for you and blow a big, fat hole into your ridiculous argument doesn't make them invalid.

Nonsense. Your argument is that the debt is so big now that its impossible for Obama to double or triple it because that would mean it will have to go to 20 trillion. So therefore he's off the hook for 1.5 trillion so far, and as Harry Reid just admitted coming up to 3 trillion after the healthcare BS is implemented.

They won't answer the questions because they know they are hypocrits.

Joseph - your list is full of it and you know it. Cite your sources and then lets break down each claim on that list. I noticed you didn't include the link, but even the original author of that list better have footnotes to each claim along with the sources if you want someone like me to even bother to argue with you about it. You'd never make it very far as a trial lawyer if this is how you'd argue your case - on hearsay. Fail.

Haha its funny how in order to win an argument with a liberal (based on their terms) you have to cite all sources for each claim (which liberals do not) and when you do cite the sources, they are attacked. You people are so braindead it isn't funny.

Joseph - I'd recommend taking a critical thinking course at your local college. You'll have a better understanding of how to access information rather than taking something for face value that has no reference or resource to validate those claims. You could also take just a basic writing class - they'd teach you that when you write something as factual, you are footnote those claims. This wasn't an essay or opinion piece. It was presented as a laundry list of "facts." I know why you accept them for face value as being true, but that's not an excuse for believing it. Come on....you're smarter than that.

HAHAHA I was waiting for the critical thinking copout. I love you Guano.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

HAHAHA I was waiting for the critical thinking copout. I love you Guano.

And I was waiting for that reply. But the only reaction I can muster to it is

[Joseph & Ana 0]

They won't answer the questions because they know they are hypocrits.

Let the deflection continue.

I always deflect nonsensical rhetoric, so I guess I'm guilty.

Of the nonsensical liberal rhetoric

[one...two...tree 2,762]

HAHAHA I was waiting for the critical thinking copout. I love you Guano.

Are we going back to schoolyard antics or do you want to have real grown up discussion about this? I can respond either way, but I'll give you the opportunity to make your intentions clear.