Obama Submits Record 4.1 TRILLION Budget... 2.6 TRILLION in New Taxes

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:How difficult is it for you to understand that there are densely populated areas that vote overwhelmingly leftist? You have to know deep down somewhere that your point is just another example of you latching on to one tangent or indicator (talkingpoint) to fill in your desired belief. Your bias defies what you should be very good at considering your described education. You should be uniquely qualified to be objective and see breadth and scope.

Of course there are densely populated areas that vote overwhelmingly democratic.  What I'm saying is that - in spite of that fact - the phenomena of winning the popular vote but losing house seats is rare.  Prior to 2012, it had only ever happened one other time in US history.   My theory accounts for that fact and many others.  Yours doesn't account for any of the facts.

Fact # 1:  Prior to 2012, there has only ever been one other instance of a party losing the popular vote but yet gaining house seats.

Fact # 2:  In 2012, republicans won their third-largest house majority - in spite of losing the popular vote by 1.4 million.


Now, PkrBum, are you capable of putting this together on your own?  Which theory better explains what we're seeing?

Your theory:  Republicans won house seats because Americans rebuked the ACA.

My theory: Republicans won house seats because they gerrymandered districts, thus requiring less votes to win seats.

It seems that if your theory were correct, more americans would have turned out and voted for republicans.  But, in reality, the exact opposite is the case.  Note that more people voted for democrats by a 1.4 million vote margin, and yet that led to the third largest republican house majority in US history.

OK, PkrBum.   1 + 1 =  ???

Here is the topic:  Obama Submits Record 4.1 TRILLION Budget... 2.6 TRILLION in New Taxes.

Too true, Ole' Man Markle.  Too, true.

Speaking of which, what year is this budget for?  Do you know?

PkrBum wrote:Lol... nice piping hot bs pie. Obama has nearly (and still might) doubled the entire debt accumulated in history.

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:How difficult is it for you to understand that there are densely populated areas that vote overwhelmingly leftist? You have to know deep down somewhere that your point is just another example of you latching on to one tangent or indicator (talkingpoint) to fill in your desired belief. Your bias defies what you should be very good at considering your described education. You should be uniquely qualified to be objective and see breadth and scope.

Of course there are densely populated areas that vote overwhelmingly democratic.  What I'm saying is that - in spite of that fact - the phenomena of winning the popular vote but losing house seats is rare.  Prior to 2012, it had only ever happened one other time in US history.   My theory accounts for that fact and many others.  Yours doesn't account for any of the facts.

Fact # 1:  Prior to 2012, there has only ever been one other instance of a party losing the popular vote but yet gaining house seats.

Fact # 2:  In 2012, republicans won their third-largest house majority - in spite of losing the popular vote by 1.4 million.


Now, PkrBum, are you capable of putting this together on your own?  Which theory better explains what we're seeing?

Your theory:  Republicans won house seats because Americans rebuked the ACA.

My theory: Republicans won house seats because they gerrymandered districts, thus requiring less votes to win seats.

It seems that if your theory were correct, more americans would have turned out and voted for republicans.  But, in reality, the exact opposite is the case.  Note that more people voted for democrats by a 1.4 million vote margin, and yet that led to the third largest republican house majority in US history.

OK, PkrBum.   1 + 1 =  ???

Here is the topic:  Obama Submits Record 4.1 TRILLION Budget... 2.6 TRILLION in New Taxes.

Too true, Ole' Man Markle.  Too, true.

Speaking of which, what year is this budget for?  Do you know?

As you know all too well, in February of 2008 President Obama submitted the 2009 budget which called for a $450 BILLION deficit.  Democrats screamed wildly that budget was outrageous and the deficit HAD to be cut.

You also know that then Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi prevented the budget from coming up for a vote.  We endured all of 2008 without a budget being approved for 2009.  It was Lame Duck President Obama who signed the budget for 2009 in March of that year.

President Obama has clobbered the next president with an outrageous budget for 2017.

This obscene budget doesn't stand a prayer at being passed.

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:How difficult is it for you to understand that there are densely populated areas that vote overwhelmingly leftist? You have to know deep down somewhere that your point is just another example of you latching on to one tangent or indicator (talkingpoint) to fill in your desired belief. Your bias defies what you should be very good at considering your described education. You should be uniquely qualified to be objective and see breadth and scope.

Of course there are densely populated areas that vote overwhelmingly democratic.  What I'm saying is that - in spite of that fact - the phenomena of winning the popular vote but losing house seats is rare.  Prior to 2012, it had only ever happened one other time in US history.   My theory accounts for that fact and many others.  Yours doesn't account for any of the facts.

Fact # 1:  Prior to 2012, there has only ever been one other instance of a party losing the popular vote but yet gaining house seats.

Fact # 2:  In 2012, republicans won their third-largest house majority - in spite of losing the popular vote by 1.4 million.


Now, PkrBum, are you capable of putting this together on your own?  Which theory better explains what we're seeing?

Your theory:  Republicans won house seats because Americans rebuked the ACA.

My theory: Republicans won house seats because they gerrymandered districts, thus requiring less votes to win seats.

It seems that if your theory were correct, more americans would have turned out and voted for republicans.  But, in reality, the exact opposite is the case.  Note that more people voted for democrats by a 1.4 million vote margin, and yet that led to the third largest republican house majority in US history.

OK, PkrBum.   1 + 1 =  ???

Here is the topic:  Obama Submits Record 4.1 TRILLION Budget... 2.6 TRILLION in New Taxes.

Too true, Ole' Man Markle.  Too, true.

Speaking of which, what year is this budget for?  Do you know?

As you know all too well, in February of 2008 President Obama submitted the 2009 budget which called for a $450 BILLION deficit.  Democrats screamed wildly that budget was outrageous and the deficit HAD to be cut.

You also know that then Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi prevented the budget from coming up for a vote.  We endured all of 2008 without a budget being approved for 2009.  It was Lame Duck President Obama who signed the budget for 2009 in March of that year.

President Obama has clobbered the next president with an outrageous budget for 2017.

This obscene budget doesn't stand a prayer at being passed.

Wait, so you're saying that this budget is for 2017?  Well that's interesting.  I guess that means budgets are lagged by one year, aren't they?  Hmm.   And I guess that also means that 2009 was the final Bush budget, wasn't it?  

Interesting.  

Thank you, Ole' Man Markle.   Thank you for finally joining the grown-ups table and - in your golden years - finally coming to the realization that budgets are lagged one year.  You can now walk around with pride, knowing that you possess a level of budgetary knowledge that rivals that of a teenager currently enrolled in high school civics.

Better late than never.

Markle wrote:Perhaps you should have read my post.  Or...have someone read it to you who can.

As you know all too well, in February of 2008 President Obama submitted the 2009 budget which called for a $450 BILLION deficit. Democrats screamed wildly that budget was outrageous and the deficit HAD to be cut.

You also know that then Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi prevented the budget from coming up for a vote. We endured all of 2008 without a budget being approved for 2009. It was Lame Duck President Obama who signed the budget for 2009 in March of that year.

More?

Markle wrote:Sorry about the error.  President Bush presented the 2009 budget to congress February of 2008.

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:Sorry about the error.  President Bush presented the 2009 budget to congress February of 2008.

Thank you for standing corrected.