Oh look at that... Forbes refutes you and all other republicans that bark that nonsense.
Rick Ungar, Contributor
Writing from the left on politics and policy.
Who cares the Forbes article pointed right back to Marketwatch? The original data was deeply flawed, who calls it true doesnt matter, because it isn't. My original comment stands:
Aren't you just in the source slamming mood tonight...
US President Barack Obama is the target of more than 30 potential death threats a day and is being protected by an increasingly over-stretched and under-resourced Secret Service, according to a new book.
You're quick. So quick in fact that you missed that I edited and changed the link to a Forbes story. Just because I new someone would complain about politifact.
You know what the problem with your sourcing is?
The Secret Service does not reveal the amount of threats on the President. Again, stop sourcing bullcrap.
You slam my sources... INCLUDING forbes and marketwatch yet offer nothing in return and expect readers to believe you as a more viable source than my links? Ain't it easy being the stone thrower instead of having to prove anything?
To get the results to come out that way you have to: ignore the fact that Obama signed the 2009 budget resolution--not Bush, ignore TARP spending but COUNT TARP repays, ignore the Stimulus, and push all military spending resolutions into 2009 rather than the ongoing that were passed after Obama enterered office.
Look at the numbers for Chrissakes. Its simple hocus-pocus for the low-information voter.
Everyone's lying right? :lol:
You refuted politifact as a source saying it's bias... didn't provide **** to prove it.
You refuted Forbes as a source saying the story was bias... didn't provide a source to prove it.
You refuted the book written about death threats on Obama by implying that it's all lies... and you didn't provide **** to prove it.
You are simply trying to take an easy angle of whining and bringing nothing.
CAN YOU NOT READ?!?
Let me know if you can refute that. Or you can go back to the original marketwatch thread on this site, as I remember there were about 3 of them. I pointed out what data was cherry picked and in what way, in which your response was to change your source? Refute what Im saying and I can have a conversation with you, but if you keep tossing out nonsense that I have already shown you that you have to warp figures to get the results you want...we dont have much to talk about.
Once again...the Secret Service does not release threat numbers in any capacity. Im not sure what you dont understand about that.
I gave you the exact methods that Marketwatch came about its data. Im not sure what you dont understand about that.
Im bringing facts, you are bringing gossip journalism to sell a book and biased sources that are using data to provide political cover, not uncover whats going on.
You're bringing unsourced bullcrap and depending on people to believe whatever the hell you type. I however, bring sources. Clever. That way you can throw stones while NOT living in your glass house.
The Weekly Standard: Obama Vs. Bush On Debt
In fairness, however, Obama can't rightly be held accountable for the 2009 budget, which he didn't sign...
Interesting... coming from the Weekly Standard. Refute that.
Jeffrey H. Anderson is a former professor of American government and political philosophy at the U.S. Air Force Academy and the director of the Benjamin Rush Society.
In his State of the Union address tonight, President Obama will reportedly issue a call for "responsible" efforts to reduce deficits (while simultaneously calling for new federal spending). In light of the President's expected rhetorical nod to fiscal responsibility, it's worth keeping in mind his record on deficits to date. When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).
To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama's presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.
In fairness, however, Obama can't rightly be held accountable for the 2009 budget, which he didn't sign (although he did sign a $410 billion pork-laden omnibus spending bill for that year, which is nevertheless tallied in Bush's column). Rather, Obama's record to date should really be based on actual and projected spending in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 (plus the $265 billion portion of the economic "stimulus" package, which he initiated and signed, that was spent in 2009 (Table S-10), while Bush's should be based on 2002-09 (with the exception of that same $265 billion, which was in no way part of the 2009 budgetary process).
How do Bush and Obama compare on closer inspection? Just about like they do on an initial glance. According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.
Obama, of course, has said the economy made him do it. But the average inflation-adjusted deficits through Obama's first two fiscal years will be more than ten times higher than the average inflation-adjusted deficit during the Great Depression. Even as a percentage of the gross domestic product, the average deficits in Obama's first two fiscal years will more than three times higher the average deficit during the Great Depression. The fact that Obama's deficits have, by any standard, more than tripled those of the Great Depression, cannot convincingly be blamed on the current recession.
And none of this even takes into account Obamacare, which the Congressional Budget Office says would increase spending by more than $2 trillion in its real first decade (2014 to 2023) — and which, even under very rosy projections, the CBO says would increase the national debt by $341 billion by the end of 2019.
It's not often that one gets to hear a call for "responsible" fiscal stewardship from someone whose deficit spending is outpacing President Bush's by more than $1 trillion a year — yet that's apparently what we'll get to hear tonight. But President Obama's actions tell another, far clearer, story about his commitment to deficit reduction.
To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama's presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.
And none of this even takes into account Obamacare, which the Congressional Budget Office says would increase spending by more than $2 trillion in its real first decade (2014 to 2023) — and which, even under very rosy projections, the CBO says would increase the national debt by $341 billion by the end of 2019.
It's not often that one gets to hear a call for "responsible" fiscal stewardship from someone whose deficit spending is outpacing President Bush's by more than $1 trillion a year — yet that's apparently what we'll get to hear tonight. But President Obama's actions tell another, far clearer, story about his commitment to deficit reduction.
We survived George W., this country can survive anything.:lol:Yeah, I for the life of me don't know what I am "surrendering".... Sounds more like a 5 year old, I keep wondering if the next words typed are going to call me a "big doody head" or something.....:mrgreen:
We survived George W., this country can survive anything.:lol:
Nonsense. When you continually mandate wage above its level of earned productivity, you make it non-competitive for the employer, and you benefit those elsewhere with lower labor costs. That is not an opinion, it is a dynamic fact.
The stupid is with the low-information Obamabots and liberals, who are blind to tomorrow.
Come, now, Eighty Deuce. You know as well as I do that regardless of how much an item may cost to produce, retailers can and DO mark-up the wholesale price of said iteam as little as 100%. Just look at theiPhone. It really doesn't cost that much to product the darn thing, but it retails for $199 and that's just for the low-end model. So, your argument that the mimimum wage is somehow an unearned cost of production is absord! If anything, businesowners will consider all other administrative costs in figuring payroll whether the minimum wage is raised or not.
Come, now, Eighty Deuce. You know as well as I do that regardless of how much an item may cost to produce, retailers can and DO mark-up the wholesale price of said iteam as little as 100%. Just look at theiPhone. It really doesn't cost that much to product the darn thing, but it retails for $199 and that's just for the low-end model. So, your argument that the mimimum wage is somehow an unearned cost of production is absord! If anything, businesowners will consider all other administrative costs in figuring payroll whether the minimum wage is raised or not.
We survived George W., this country can survive anything.:lol:
Mark Steyn: And I still don’t quite know how I did it, but it always fascinates me, because people are interested in demography at the micro level. Like if you talk to political consultants, they’ll say oh, well, the reason that this or that candidate has problems in the 12th Congressional district is because there’s been a decline of blue collar industry, and an influx of middle class soccer moms and all the rest of it. And they talk about demography in the micro sense like that. But they rarely address it in the big picture sense, which is that the basic reason why the Western world is broke and going out of business is that the baby boomers set up welfare programs that require traditional birthrates to support them. And if you have an upside down pyramid, upside down family tree, you basically are going out of business. In Greece, 100 grandparents have 42 grandchildren. So it’s not just that Greece is broke, but it’s a more basic question than that. Is it likely that the debts run up by 100 people can be paid off by 42 people? And I think we all know the answer to that.
Everyone's lying right? :lol:
You refuted politifact as a source saying it's bias... didn't provide **** to prove it.
You refuted Forbes as a source saying the story was bias... didn't provide a source to prove it.
You refuted the book written about death threats on Obama by implying that it's all lies... and you didn't provide **** to prove it.
You are simply trying to take an easy angle of whining and bringing nothing.
Do any of you guys care to prove anything you say or do you all just expect to take your word for it?
The problem with them is that they're
conservatives but have no idea why? It has no basis to it. They just "believe" in it. You can't open the mind of a religious fanatic and you can't open the mind of an ideologue.
Buy a gun; because the quickest way to a womens heart, is through her ribs.
BTW Rob, which source do you want to use? MarketWatch, Forbes opinion article or the Weekly Standard because according the Standard:
I dunno, seems like a picture of fiscal restraint to me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?