He's responsible for it not being much, much larger.
Pensacola Discussion Forum
Go to page : 1, 2, 3
Snark Spigot wrote:He's responsible for it not being much, much larger.
colaguy wrote: When President Obama was elected the DEBT was $10T. Now it's over $18T. You do the math.
boards of FL wrote:Markle wrote:boards of FL wrote:Markle wrote:boards of FL wrote:PkrBum wrote:Pfft... bush2 left about half of the bailout to obama and then obama tacked on another 250b stimulus.
It's amazing how much you can ignore to believe what you wish so desperately to believe... that's useful idiotism fer ya.
You just tried to sweep Bush II's worst budget year into the Obama column and now you're throwing out phrases like "useful idiotism."
Bush inherited perenniel surpluses and turned that into a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit. Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit and we have since seen that slashed by nearly 70%. And here you are suggesting that Bush II was better in terms of fiscal management while throwing out terms such as "useful idiotism."
I would argue that your post represents the height of "useful idiotism."
Your desperate effort to revise history is getting old.
You seem to forget semi-retired President Obama signed the largest economic stimulus ($831 BILLION) in February 2009.
Saying that President Obama cut the deficit is as useful as teats on a bull!
As you well know too, there was never, ever a surplus during the years of President Clinton.
What appeared to be a surplus was the SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE withholdings which are now deposited into the general fund.
We have seen the most rapid rate of deficit reduction since WWII. Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit and we're now projected at a $468 billion dollar deficit for 2015. Do you understand what the phrase 'cut the deficit' actually means? Because it appears as if you do not.
Which number is larger, Markle? Which number does the alligator eat?
$1.4 trillion or $468 billion?
As you know, and love to live in denial, is the FACT that Nancy Pelosi prevented the 2009 budget from ever being brought to a vote. Semi-retired President Obama signed that budget in March of 2009 after adding a TRILLION DOLLARS to it in February with his failed Stimulus.
The last budget of President Bush was 2008 and reached $454,798,000,000. Still less than the last budget of President Obama. After six and a half years, he has yet to reach the highest deficit of President Bush.
You are a delightful foil!
You are objectively wrong. Seriously. You're trying to argue against and objective fact here. You're correct insofar as when the budget was singed into law. You're wrong insofar as Bush's last budget was 2008. Bush's last budget was the 2009 budget. This is a fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Don't you just love semi-demented poster Markle's efforts at damage control? He can't allow any writing on this forum that that faults Republicans.... He must split hairs to make sure all the dirt remains on the Democrats. LOL!
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Don't you just love semi-demented poster Markle's efforts at damage control? He can't allow any writing on this forum that that faults Republicans.... He must split hairs to make sure all the dirt remains on the Democrats. LOL!
Markle wrote:boards of FL wrote:Markle wrote:boards of FL wrote:Markle wrote:boards of FL wrote:PkrBum wrote:Pfft... bush2 left about half of the bailout to obama and then obama tacked on another 250b stimulus.
It's amazing how much you can ignore to believe what you wish so desperately to believe... that's useful idiotism fer ya.
You just tried to sweep Bush II's worst budget year into the Obama column and now you're throwing out phrases like "useful idiotism."
Bush inherited perenniel surpluses and turned that into a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit. Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit and we have since seen that slashed by nearly 70%. And here you are suggesting that Bush II was better in terms of fiscal management while throwing out terms such as "useful idiotism."
I would argue that your post represents the height of "useful idiotism."
Your desperate effort to revise history is getting old.
You seem to forget semi-retired President Obama signed the largest economic stimulus ($831 BILLION) in February 2009.
Saying that President Obama cut the deficit is as useful as teats on a bull!
As you well know too, there was never, ever a surplus during the years of President Clinton.
What appeared to be a surplus was the SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE withholdings which are now deposited into the general fund.
We have seen the most rapid rate of deficit reduction since WWII. Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit and we're now projected at a $468 billion dollar deficit for 2015. Do you understand what the phrase 'cut the deficit' actually means? Because it appears as if you do not.
Which number is larger, Markle? Which number does the alligator eat?
$1.4 trillion or $468 billion?
As you know, and love to live in denial, is the FACT that Nancy Pelosi prevented the 2009 budget from ever being brought to a vote. Semi-retired President Obama signed that budget in March of 2009 after adding a TRILLION DOLLARS to it in February with his failed Stimulus.
The last budget of President Bush was 2008 and reached $454,798,000,000. Still less than the last budget of President Obama. After six and a half years, he has yet to reach the highest deficit of President Bush.
You are a delightful foil!
You are objectively wrong. Seriously. You're trying to argue against and objective fact here. You're correct insofar as when the budget was singed into law. You're wrong insofar as Bush's last budget was 2008. Bush's last budget was the 2009 budget. This is a fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget
NO budget was signed by President Bush in 2008 for the fiscal year 2009. Semi-retired President Obama signed the 2009 budget after adding the $1 TRILLION stimulus.
PkrBum wrote:Oh... the old demonize and dehumanize the opponent to silence tactic. How very original of you comrade.
Thank you for your contribution... very useful.
PkrBum wrote:No... it's subjective.
boards of FL wrote:PkrBum wrote:Oh... the old demonize and dehumanize the opponent to silence tactic. How very original of you comrade.
Thank you for your contribution... very useful.
It's not as if there is anything to argue between Markle and I. 2009 was a Bush budget. That is an objective fact.
One does not disagree with objective facts. They are ignorant of them. Once the objective fact has been laid out, there is really no further argument that I need to make; hence the Werther's Original post.
How else do you respond to someone who wants to argue over an objective fact such as today's date? Particularly when their ignorance is politically motivated?
I treat stupid people like stupid people.
Go to page : 1, 2, 3
Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Latest 2015 Budget Estimates Point to a Sixth Consecutive Year of Deficit Reduction
Similar topics
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|