• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrat Economics Work Great if You're: 1) In Congress; or 2) Aren't Human

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
By John Ransom
September 1, 2013


Don wrote: Just how many vacation days did President George W. Bush take during his reign? - Obama on Vacation: The $28,429,533.47 Man (Obama on Vacation: The $28,429,533.47 Man - John Ransom - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page 1)


Dear Comrade Don,

George W. Bush took vacations either at his own home in Texas or at his parents’ place in Kennebunkport. That’s not the same thing as flying off to South Africa on safari or touring Brazil or hanging at Martha’s Vineyard.

It’d be nice to see the Obamas go back to Illinois, back to Hyde Park for a vacation, and hey, it would lower their carbon footprint too.

But when exactly have liberals been a "do-as-I-do" kind of people?

The most consistent feature of liberal legislation is that it exempts them and their lobbyists, unions and corporate pals from the effects of the social engineering they foist on the rest of us.

Bush at least had the sense to hang up his golf bags and not play golf after 9/11.

Obama, on the other hand, avoids Chicago.

Perhaps that’s because he helped make Chicago the toilet that it’s become.

Whatever else you can say about Chicago, it’s a city that has been forged and refined by Democrats, like Obama.

When I was growing up there, the city at least functioned.

Today it’s just a shooting gallery. (Homicides -- Chicago Crime -- ChicagoTribune.com)

And why not?

Cook County produces wonderful legislators like Jan Schakowsky (D-Socialist) whose husband was convicted of bank fraud, and failure to withhold taxes; and – I think there is more shame in this- was honored in 2000 by the Democratic Socialists of America(Democratic Socialists of America) with the Debs Award with the note: “Your work and your life honors the memory of Eugene V. Debs, Norman Thomas and Michael Harrington and continues their legacy of struggle for social justice. For your dedication to the fight for a just society, the Debs - Thomas - Harrington Dinner Committee hereby presents to you its annual award on this 5th day of May, 2000.”

I guess bank fraud and socialism do go together. If you understand how one works, you probably have a great understanding of the other too.

Anyway, I wouldn’t want to go back and live in Chicago no matter how big a mansion I owned, especially if, like Obama, I lived in Hyde Park.

And it’s not likely I’d ever go back unless I went there to clean it up.


[Excerpt]

Read more:
Democrat Economics Work Great if You're: 1) In Congress; or 2) Aren't Human - John Ransom - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page full

Hmm..., how much did it cost the American tax payer each time G.W. Bush went to his ranch or Kennebunkport for a respite as compared to the extravagant Obama vacations?
 
[B said:
Wehrwolfen;1062261492]By John Ransom
September 1, 2013
[/B]


Don wrote: Just how many vacation days did President George W. Bush take during his reign? - Obama on Vacation: The $28,429,533.47 Man (Obama on Vacation: The $28,429,533.47 Man - John Ransom - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page 1)


Dear Comrade Don,

George W. Bush took vacations either at his own home in Texas or at his parents’ place in Kennebunkport. That’s not the same thing as flying off to South Africa on safari or touring Brazil or hanging at Martha’s Vineyard.

It’d be nice to see the Obamas go back to Illinois, back to Hyde Park for a vacation, and hey, it would lower their carbon footprint too.

But when exactly have liberals been a "do-as-I-do" kind of people?

The most consistent feature of liberal legislation is that it exempts them and their lobbyists, unions and corporate pals from the effects of the social engineering they foist on the rest of us.

Bush at least had the sense to hang up his golf bags and not play golf after 9/11.

Obama, on the other hand, avoids Chicago.

Perhaps that’s because he helped make Chicago the toilet that it’s become.

Whatever else you can say about Chicago, it’s a city that has been forged and refined by Democrats, like Obama.

When I was growing up there, the city at least functioned.

Today it’s just a shooting gallery. (Homicides -- Chicago Crime -- ChicagoTribune.com)

And why not?

Cook County produces wonderful legislators like Jan Schakowsky (D-Socialist) whose husband was convicted of bank fraud, and failure to withhold taxes; and – I think there is more shame in this- was honored in 2000 by the Democratic Socialists of America(Democratic Socialists of America) with the Debs Award with the note: “Your work and your life honors the memory of Eugene V. Debs, Norman Thomas and Michael Harrington and continues their legacy of struggle for social justice. For your dedication to the fight for a just society, the Debs - Thomas - Harrington Dinner Committee hereby presents to you its annual award on this 5th day of May, 2000.”

I guess bank fraud and socialism do go together. If you understand how one works, you probably have a great understanding of the other too.

Anyway, I wouldn’t want to go back and live in Chicago no matter how big a mansion I owned, especially if, like Obama, I lived in Hyde Park.

And it’s not likely I’d ever go back unless I went there to clean it up.


[Excerpt]

Read more:
Democrat Economics Work Great if You're: 1) In Congress; or 2) Aren't Human - John Ransom - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page full

Hmm..., how much did it cost the American tax payer each time G.W. Bush went to his ranch or Kennebunkport for a respite as compared to the extravagant Obama vacations?




I won't ever be going to your link at the far right Townhall .com website comrade Wehrwolfen

I don't have time to waste digging through the incoherent drivel that they dish out to the True Believers there.

But don't let that stop you from drowning yourself in it.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
 
By John Ransom
September 1, 2013


Don wrote: Just how many vacation days did President George W. Bush take during his reign? - Obama on Vacation: The $28,429,533.47 Man (Obama on Vacation: The $28,429,533.47 Man - John Ransom - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page 1)


Dear Comrade Don,

George W. Bush took vacations either at his own home in Texas or at his parents’ place in Kennebunkport. That’s not the same thing as flying off to South Africa on safari or touring Brazil or hanging at Martha’s Vineyard.

It’d be nice to see the Obamas go back to Illinois, back to Hyde Park for a vacation, and hey, it would lower their carbon footprint too.

But when exactly have liberals been a "do-as-I-do" kind of people?

The most consistent feature of liberal legislation is that it exempts them and their lobbyists, unions and corporate pals from the effects of the social engineering they foist on the rest of us.

Bush at least had the sense to hang up his golf bags and not play golf after 9/11.

Obama, on the other hand, avoids Chicago.

Perhaps that’s because he helped make Chicago the toilet that it’s become.

Whatever else you can say about Chicago, it’s a city that has been forged and refined by Democrats, like Obama.

When I was growing up there, the city at least functioned.

Today it’s just a shooting gallery. (Homicides -- Chicago Crime -- ChicagoTribune.com)

And why not?

Cook County produces wonderful legislators like Jan Schakowsky (D-Socialist) whose husband was convicted of bank fraud, and failure to withhold taxes; and – I think there is more shame in this- was honored in 2000 by the Democratic Socialists of America(Democratic Socialists of America) with the Debs Award with the note: “Your work and your life honors the memory of Eugene V. Debs, Norman Thomas and Michael Harrington and continues their legacy of struggle for social justice. For your dedication to the fight for a just society, the Debs - Thomas - Harrington Dinner Committee hereby presents to you its annual award on this 5th day of May, 2000.”

I guess bank fraud and socialism do go together. If you understand how one works, you probably have a great understanding of the other too.

Anyway, I wouldn’t want to go back and live in Chicago no matter how big a mansion I owned, especially if, like Obama, I lived in Hyde Park.

And it’s not likely I’d ever go back unless I went there to clean it up.


[Excerpt]

Read more:
Democrat Economics Work Great if You're: 1) In Congress; or 2) Aren't Human - John Ransom - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page full

Hmm..., how much did it cost the American tax payer each time G.W. Bush went to his ranch or Kennebunkport for a respite as compared to the extravagant Obama vacations?

Obama must be doing a pretty good job if your best shot at criticism of his administration is his vacation choices.
 
By John Ransom
September 1, 2013


Don wrote: Just how many vacation days did President George W. Bush take during his reign? - Obama on Vacation: The $28,429,533.47 Man (Obama on Vacation: The $28,429,533.47 Man - John Ransom - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page 1)


Dear Comrade Don,

George W. Bush took vacations either at his own home in Texas or at his parents’ place in Kennebunkport. That’s not the same thing as flying off to South Africa on safari or touring Brazil or hanging at Martha’s Vineyard.

It’d be nice to see the Obamas go back to Illinois, back to Hyde Park for a vacation, and hey, it would lower their carbon footprint too.

But when exactly have liberals been a "do-as-I-do" kind of people?

The most consistent feature of liberal legislation is that it exempts them and their lobbyists, unions and corporate pals from the effects of the social engineering they foist on the rest of us.

Bush at least had the sense to hang up his golf bags and not play golf after 9/11.

Obama, on the other hand, avoids Chicago.

Perhaps that’s because he helped make Chicago the toilet that it’s become.

Whatever else you can say about Chicago, it’s a city that has been forged and refined by Democrats, like Obama.

When I was growing up there, the city at least functioned.

Today it’s just a shooting gallery. (Homicides -- Chicago Crime -- ChicagoTribune.com)

And why not?

Cook County produces wonderful legislators like Jan Schakowsky (D-Socialist) whose husband was convicted of bank fraud, and failure to withhold taxes; and – I think there is more shame in this- was honored in 2000 by the Democratic Socialists of America(Democratic Socialists of America) with the Debs Award with the note: “Your work and your life honors the memory of Eugene V. Debs, Norman Thomas and Michael Harrington and continues their legacy of struggle for social justice. For your dedication to the fight for a just society, the Debs - Thomas - Harrington Dinner Committee hereby presents to you its annual award on this 5th day of May, 2000.”

I guess bank fraud and socialism do go together. If you understand how one works, you probably have a great understanding of the other too.

Anyway, I wouldn’t want to go back and live in Chicago no matter how big a mansion I owned, especially if, like Obama, I lived in Hyde Park.

And it’s not likely I’d ever go back unless I went there to clean it up.


[Excerpt]

Read more:
Democrat Economics Work Great if You're: 1) In Congress; or 2) Aren't Human - John Ransom - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page full

Hmm..., how much did it cost the American tax payer each time G.W. Bush went to his ranch or Kennebunkport for a respite as compared to the extravagant Obama vacations?

Obama must be doing a pretty good job if your best shot at criticism of his administration is his vacation choices.




If President Obama made it rain cookies, Wehrwolfen would be complaining about a milk shortage.

I guarantee you that after another Democrat moves into the White House in 2017 Wehrwolfen will be attacking that person 24/7 just like he is always slamming Obama now.

Wait and see.

Wehrwolfen is one of the guys who are speeding up the demise of the GOP with their hate and fear garbage.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
 
ny-times-52120302087.jpeg



999993_602192826488185_938347496_n.jpg
 
and Bush's vacations wouldnt be an issue if he didn't shirk his responsibilities when he was on vacation

"The revelation came this morning, when CIA Director George Tenet was on the stand. Timothy Roemer, a former Democratic congressman, asked him when he first found out about the report from the FBI's Minnesota field office that Zacarias Moussaoui, an Islamic jihadist, had been taking lessons on how to fly a 747. Tenet replied that he was briefed about the case on Aug. 23 or 24, 2001.

Roemer then asked Tenet if he mentioned Moussaoui to President Bush at one of their frequent morning briefings. Tenet replied, "I was not in briefings at this time." Bush, he noted, "was on vacation." He added that he didn't see the president at all in August 2001. During the entire month, Bush was at his ranch in Texas. "You never talked with him?" Roemer asked. "No," Tenet replied. By the way, for much of August, Tenet too was, as he put it, "on leave."

"And there you have it. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has made a big point of the fact that Tenet briefed the president nearly every day. Yet at the peak moment of threat, the two didn't talk at all. At a time when action was needed, and orders for action had to come from the top, the man at the top was resting undisturbed. "

While Bush vacationed, 9/11 warnings went unheard. - Slate Magazine
 
Obama must be doing a pretty good job if your best shot at criticism of his administration is his vacation choices.



If you think that's the best shot, you haven't been watching.
 



So, to be clear, there was absolutely no cost during the obama administration for either the Iraq or the Afghanistan wars?

No cost during the Obama administration for the 2nd HALF of the TARP funds that Obama spent all by himself or the 1st Half that he spent again after the banks repaid it?

No cost for the tax cuts that expired in the first year of the Obama administration that Obama signed into law?

No cost for the Medicare Drug Benefit that obama allows to continue?

Under Bush, in 8 years, the debt increased by about 5 trillion and under Obama for 4 years, the debt increased by about 6 trillion.

Bush spent money like a sailor on a three day leave and Obama spends money like a pimp with three days to live. I wouldn't trust either one with the rent money.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2012
 
and Bush's vacations wouldnt be an issue if he didn't shirk his responsibilities when he was on vacation

"The revelation came this morning, when CIA Director George Tenet was on the stand. Timothy Roemer, a former Democratic congressman, asked him when he first found out about the report from the FBI's Minnesota field office that Zacarias Moussaoui, an Islamic jihadist, had been taking lessons on how to fly a 747. Tenet replied that he was briefed about the case on Aug. 23 or 24, 2001.

Roemer then asked Tenet if he mentioned Moussaoui to President Bush at one of their frequent morning briefings. Tenet replied, "I was not in briefings at this time." Bush, he noted, "was on vacation." He added that he didn't see the president at all in August 2001. During the entire month, Bush was at his ranch in Texas. "You never talked with him?" Roemer asked. "No," Tenet replied. By the way, for much of August, Tenet too was, as he put it, "on leave."

"And there you have it. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has made a big point of the fact that Tenet briefed the president nearly every day. Yet at the peak moment of threat, the two didn't talk at all. At a time when action was needed, and orders for action had to come from the top, the man at the top was resting undisturbed. "

While Bush vacationed, 9/11 warnings went unheard. - Slate Magazine



I'm not sure what you are saying here.

Is the omission of the information from a report supposed to be more damning than refusing improve the security in Benghazi on 5 different requests, refusing to send aid when asked to help the folks being slaughtered, refusing to cooperate with the investigation and actively obstructing the investigation to reveal what actually happened?

Where was Obama and what was he doing when Ambassador Stevens was being killed?
 
I'm not sure what you are saying here.

Is the omission of the information from a report supposed to be more damning than refusing improve the security in Benghazi on 5 different requests, refusing to send aid when asked to help the folks being slaughtered, refusing to cooperate with the investigation and actively obstructing the investigation to reveal what actually happened?

Where was Obama and what was he doing when Ambassador Stevens was being killed?

there's your problem. You cant argue the point without referring to the "stand down" lies. And not only do you have to pretend President Obama didn't cooperate and obstructed the numerous Benghazi investigations, you have have to ignore that's exactly what bush did with 9-11. And you pretend "requests for security" is the same as the clear and specific warnings bush had to ignore to let 9-11 happen.

thanks for proving cons cant argue a point in an honest and intelligent fashion.
 
Under Bush, in 8 years, the debt increased by about 5 trillion and under Obama for 4 years, the debt increased by about 6 trillion.

Uh oh, narrative fail. Your link clearly shows debt broken down by Budget years (I post that link too). You're only supposed to post the contrived conservative charts of debt based on inauguration day. And Bush's last Budget ended 9-30-2009 so bush added 6 trillion to the deficit. You can quibble that 150 billion of that was the stimulus but it was necessary to end the Great Bush Recession. So I don't put it into President Obama's column. You can if you want.
 
Uh oh, narrative fail. Your link clearly shows debt broken down by Budget years (I post that link too). You're only supposed to post the contrived conservative charts of debt based on inauguration day. And Bush's last Budget ended 9-30-2009 so bush added 6 trillion to the deficit. You can quibble that 150 billion of that was the stimulus but it was necessary to end the Great Bush Recession. So I don't put it into President Obama's column. You can if you want.



You are wrong about that. Pelosi would not authorize the budget submitted by Bush. It ended at the end of his term plus a couple weeks in the first week of March, 2009. the funding for the government was handled by a continuing resolution that ran out in the first week of March, 2009. It covered only 3 of 12 government segments. Obama signed and was under was under his own budget or lack of one almost immediately from the start of his term.

Are you bragging about the fiscal conservatism of a guy that spent better than a trillion dollars over revenues every year of his first term?

Predictable History, Unpredictable Past: There was NO Bush FY2009 Budget
 
It covered only 3 of 12 government segments. Obama signed and was under was under his own budget or lack of one almost immediately from the start of his term.]

" wah wah its Pelosi's fault. Bush can never be held accountable" got it.

anyhoo, Bush signed 3 of the 12 Full year appropriations. He signed half year appropriations for the remaining 9 that ran out in March. President Obama continued the funding for the 9 with minimal increases. mmmm, maybe that's why Bush didn't do his job so cons could post their silly narratives. And read this slowly, the biggest cause of the Bush Deficits was revenue collapse.

Lets review the estimates and actual again for fy 2009. The Great Bush Recession is directly responsible for adding 1.1 trillion to the budget deficit. Bush asked for a 3.1 trillion dollar budget. Revenues were expected to be 2.8 trillion. Hence in early 2008, the FY budget deficit was estimated to be 300 billion (think tax cut). Bush's 3.1 trillion budget was perfectly inline with previous budget increases. Bush asked for 2.9 trillion in 2008 (his first with a dem congress) and he asked for 2.7 for 2007. His last with a republican congress.

Thanks to the Great Bush Recession and Tarp, the CBO revised the FY 2009 up 400 billion and revenues down 450 billion BEFORE PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK OVER. And look, spending came in around the estimate and revenue collapsed another 250 billion (remember recession increase costs and hurt revenue. Worst recession since the depression more so)

FY 2009_______________
Date of estimate___2/1/08___1/7/09___actuals
Total Revenues___2,817___2,357__ 2,105
Total Outlays____3,100___3,543___ 3,518

CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2008 to 2018 (2008)

CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019 (2009)

CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020 (2010)
 
Last edited:
" wah wah its Pelosi's fault. Bush can never be held accountable" got it.

anyhoo, Bush signed 3 of the 12 Full year appropriations. He signed half year appropriations for the remaining 9 that ran out in March. President Obama continued the funding for the 9 with minimal increases. mmmm, maybe that's why Bush didn't do his job so cons could post their silly narratives. And read this slowly, the biggest cause of the Bush Deficits was revenue collapse.

Lets review the estimates and actual again for fy 2009. The Great Bush Recession is directly responsible for adding 1.1 trillion to the budget deficit. Bush asked for a 3.1 trillion dollar budget. Revenues were expected to be 2.8 trillion. Hence in early 2008, the FY budget deficit was estimated to be 300 billion (think tax cut). Bush's 3.1 trillion budget was perfectly inline with previous budget increases. Bush asked for 2.9 trillion in 2008 (his first with a dem congress) and he asked for 2.7 for 2007. His last with a republican congress.

Thanks to the Great Bush Recession and Tarp, the CBO revised the FY 2009 up 400 billion and revenues down 450 billion BEFORE PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK OVER. And look, spending came in around the estimate and revenue collapsed another 250 billion (remember recession increase costs and hurt revenue. Worst recession since the depression more so)

FY 2009_______________
Date of estimate___2/1/08___1/7/09___actuals
Total Revenues___2,817___2,357__ 2,105
Total Outlays____3,100___3,543___ 3,518

CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2008 to 2018 (2008)

CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019 (2009)

CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020 (2010)



So Obama was responsible for 50% of the last year of the Bush deficit/first year of the Obama deficit.

I'm not trying to make excuses for anyone or anything. All I'm doing is correcting your mistaken revisionist history to actual.

Both of these guys were way out of line on the spending. Obama is worse than Bush, but neither has a record to brag about.

That you seem to be saying that Obama is some kind of a hero for his gross mismanagement is interesting and astonishing.
 
So Obama was responsible for 50% of the last year of the Bush deficit/first year of the Obama deficit.

.

well if you want to state your narrative that way, fine. So President Obama is responsible for 50 % of the predicted budget deficit of 300 billion. that's works for me. So Bush is responsible for 1.1 trillion dollar increase because of the recession and the rest of the original 300. So that puts Bush's responsibility at 1.25 trillion of the 1.4 trillion dollar deficit.

But I don't have to play word games. I can just post the facts. Bush's last Budget deficit was revised to 1.2 trillion before President Obama took over and increased to 1.4 trillion because revenue collapsed even more than estimated.
 
well if you want to state your narrative that way, fine. So President Obama is responsible for 50 % of the predicted budget deficit of 300 billion. that's works for me. So Bush is responsible for 1.1 trillion dollar increase because of the recession and the rest of the original 300. So that puts Bush's responsibility at 1.25 trillion of the 1.4 trillion dollar deficit.

But I don't have to play word games. I can just post the facts. Bush's last Budget deficit was revised to 1.2 trillion before President Obama took over and increased to 1.4 trillion because revenue collapsed even more than estimated.



All I did was look at the numbers in the fullness of time and state history as it actually occurred.

You are free to do whatever floats your boat. Whatever you want to say happened, it does not change that fact that Bush was a disaster and Obama is worse. Neither one balanced the budget. Both spent way too much. Neither was a responsible leader and both were/have been slaves to their constituencies at the expense of the good of the country.

If we don't get a decent President soon or a Congress to stop the one we have/will have, we are really and truly in the toilet. We probably already are. The rest of the world only needs to get their hand on the handle to flush.
 
All I did was look at the numbers in the fullness of time and state history as it actually occurred.

actually you were clearly misstating bush's contribution to the Nat'l debt and when I pointed it out you went on that silly "mean ole Pelosi, poor impotent George" spiel. And get this, not only was revenue destruction was the biggest cause of Bush's last deficit in 2009(pushing his contribution close to 6 trillion, it was the biggest cause of president Obama's budget deficits. that's why they are called the Bush Deficits.
 
actually you were clearly misstating bush's contribution to the Nat'l debt and when I pointed it out you went on that silly "mean ole Pelosi, poor impotent George" spiel. And get this, not only was revenue destruction was the biggest cause of Bush's last deficit in 2009(pushing his contribution close to 6 trillion, it was the biggest cause of president Obama's budget deficits. that's why they are called the Bush Deficits.



Wow!

Now you're saying that the Obama deficits are Bush's fault?

Is there nothing done by Obama that is actually the doing of Obama? Poor Barrack. He was born with a ready excuse in his mouth.

Your man must be annoyed that you have not yet had your lips surgically removed from his pitute. It must have a negative effect on his tee shot.
 
Wow!

Now you're saying that the Obama deficits are Bush's fault?

Is there nothing done by Obama that is actually the doing of Obama? Poor Barrack. He was born with a ready excuse in his mouth.

Your man must be annoyed that you have not yet had your lips surgically removed from his pitute. It must have a negative effect on his tee shot.

oh code, how do you overlook the revenue destruction from the Great Bush Recession? I knows it easy for you but how do you do it. Of course the 'conservative entertainment complex' never mentioned it when you were instructed to scream about the deficits. Lets look at that

Year__ Revenue__%
2000___2025___20.6%
2001___1991___19.5 (bush mailed out 40 billion in tax cuts)
2002___1853___17.6
2003___1782___16.2
2004___1880___16.1
2005___2153___17.3
2006___2407___18.2
2007___2568___18.5
2008___2504___17.5
2009___2105___15.1
2010___2162___15.1
2011___2302___15.4
2012___2449___15.8

Wow, an unprecedented 3 year drop on a nominal basis and an unprecedented 4 year drop as a % of GDP at the start. And notice that slight drop in 2008 and that massive drop in 2009. Yea, dang facts. And code, bush is responsible for his drop in revenues early in his admin, they were his tax cuts. And he's responsible for the massive drop late in his admin, it was his mortgage bubble and recession. And for some reason on 1/20/2009 you were instructed to scream about the deficit. Strange that the people instructing you to scream didn't mention the -8.9 % GDP or the 700,000 jobs lost a month. Odd don't you think? At some point you have to ask why your agenda needs you to not know what's going on.

Oh and I guess we are discussing your 'misstatements' about Bush's contribution to the Nat'l debt.
 
Its remarkable how the rewriters of logica and history forget who took office in January 2007, and how they control the purse springs with the presidents agreement? Yeah that little treet lefties always want to forget about - its like facts - they can't stomoch the real one's so they make up their own.
 
Uh oh, narrative fail. Your link clearly shows debt broken down by Budget years (I post that link too). You're only supposed to post the contrived conservative charts of debt based on inauguration day. And Bush's last Budget ended 9-30-2009 so bush added 6 trillion to the deficit. You can quibble that 150 billion of that was the stimulus but it was necessary to end the Great Bush Recession. So I don't put it into President Obama's column. You can if you want.

Let's see then. If the democratic argument is that massive government spending ended the recession and the recession ended in June of 2009 and you are going to put all that deficit spending on Bushs tab, then it was Bush and his policies that ended the recession, not Obama.
 
Let's see then. If the democratic argument is that massive government spending ended the recession and the recession ended in June of 2009 and you are going to put all that deficit spending on Bushs tab, then it was Bush and his policies that ended the recession, not Obama.

Let me add that the Bush tax cuts on September 30, 2001 were applauded by both those on the left and right as needed to stave off a possible recession..the recent catastrophe on 9/11 contributing to that possibility. Amazing the Keynesian left adding all those tax cuts to the deficit without taking account of the Keynesian multiplier effect. The left tends to oppose austerity measures now as detrimental, what was so different about 2001?
 
Its remarkable how the rewriters of logica and history forget who took office in January 2007, and how they control the purse springs with the presidents agreement? Yeah that little treet lefties always want to forget about - its like facts - they can't stomoch the real one's so they make up their own.

er uh Cal, code already posted the incredibly silly “mean ole Pelosi, poor impotent george” spiel. And cal, what facts did I make up? please attempt to be specific. and if I have to pick a group that lacks intestinal fortitude it would be the group that runs away from facts everytime I post them.

Let's see then. If the democratic argument is that massive government spending ended the recession and the recession ended in June of 2009 and you are going to put all that deficit spending on Bushs tab, then it was Bush and his policies that ended the recession, not Obama.

ah word games, what would cons do without them. And word games based on an imaginary argument no less. anyhoo, the democratic argument isn’t “massive govt spending” ended the Great Bush Recession. It was the stimulus. It added 150 billion in new spending to FY 2009. I hold bush responsible for the Great Bush Recession and drop in revenue. Did you somehow miss the revenue chart I posted? My posts are clear and straightforward, why do cons have to constantly “misparaphrase” what I say? oh yea, they cant argue the facts.

Let me add that the Bush tax cuts on September 30, 2001 were applauded by both those on the left and right as needed to stave off a possible recession..the recent catastrophe on 9/11 contributing to that possibility. Amazing the Keynesian left adding all those tax cuts to the deficit without taking account of the Keynesian multiplier effect. The left tends to oppose austerity measures now as detrimental, what was so different about 2001?

Oh no, please don’t tell me you are trying to sneak in the totally ludicrous and discredited “tax cuts pay for themselves” narrative. anyhoo keith, I’m not privy to the conservative folklore you believe as fact so you cant ask a question based on it. . You seem to be referencing dems changing their stance on austerity or something so please clarify your question. don’t repeat it, clarify it.
 
1020 days on vacation, ...that would be 3 years..not possible.

its funny you say that Ernst. You just said “I chose not to believe it”. That seems to be the typical conservative argument for everything. anyhoo, Bush had already been on vacation for 96 days before 9-11. so spending a 127 days a year on vacation isn’t really that unbelievable.

“Bush spent 487 days at Camp David during his presidency and 490 days at his Crawford, Texas ranch, a total of 977 days.

When you add the days President Bush spent at Kennebunkport, Maine, he spent a total of 1,020 days away from the White House — close to 3 years. At 1,020 days, Bush was close to being on vacation more days than President John F. Kennedy’s total days in office (1,036). “

Obama's Vacations? Of Any President, Bush Racked Up the Most | Politic365

And what made it an even bigger issue was bush ignored all the warnings of 9-11 to stay on vacation. I guess you could make the argument he would have ignored it whether he was on vacation or not.
 
Back
Top Bottom