I also neglected to comment about the time bush lied about WMD's in Iraq, doesn't mean I'm fine with it. I just comment on Spicer because it because it is current and hilarious, if I was posting on a political thread at the time Obama was telling fibs I would laugh about it then too.
I'll answer your one question with another question because, well, that is annoying and that is how "liberals" roll.
So the question is, why does it matter where the weapons come from? If they came from Saddam, so what, if selling weapons is a crime then the US is the biggest criminal on the planet by far!
False statement. Selling weapons is not a crime and giving them to someone is not a crime either by definition. So, your statement/ question means nothing as it is under a false premise.
It matters a lot where the weapons came from because Saddam "did not have Chemical weapons" remember?
Don't read Breitbart. Apparently you do since you supposedly know what they are saying.
From Susan Rice:
We were able to find a solution that didn't necessitate the use of force that actually removed the chemical weapons that were known from Syria, in a way that the use of force would never have accomplished. Our aim in contemplating the use of force following the use of chemical weapons in August of 2013 was not to intervene in the civil war, not to become involved in the combat between Assad and the opposition, but to deal with the threat of chemical weapons by virtue of the diplomacy that we did with Russia and with the Security Council. We were able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile.
Read the 2nd to last sentence, it was Russia's deal. You just clarified what I said. Thank you Delta. Russia played us, as usual. Man you are something else. Water vapor.
Read the 2nd to last sentence, it was Russia's deal. You just clarified what I said. Thank you Delta. Russia played us, as usual. Man you are something else. Water vapor.
You don't read too well. They did it WITH Russia. Not Russia doing it alone. WITH!!! You also chose not to read that the the Obama administration VERIFIED that it happened. You are also choosing to ignore John Kerry's own interview which I posted for you.
When was the supposed timing of this weapons transfer between Iraq and Syria and what was the quantity?
If your point is to try and prove bush was right to invade iraq then good luck.
The transfer happened during during the UN inspection phase where Saddam was keeping inspectors out. Volume does not matter. Obviously it was enough to gas their own people more than once. Remember we supposedly were the ones to give Saddam the weapons in the first place so we had an idea of how much was there.
You can argue if it was the right call to go into Iraq. That can be independent discussion outside of gas weapons however I think it would point that Bush was not wrong about the existence of them.
Back to the beginning tho, where's the proof of these being Iraqi sourced WMDs? I see Delta's speculation to that effect, but is this something that is proven?
^^^LOL.
Syria and the Russians lied about giving up "ALL" the chemical weapons. Not Obama, not Kerry, Rice, whoever... Why try to blame it on Obama? or go back to Bush and WMD....? Would things be any different if Obama chucked 60 cruise missiles in 2013? At least we got 1300 tons of chems and destroyed 23 out of their 27 chemical manufacturing facilities. I think that may be a bigger win for the US than a $60 million missile attack. Syrians were using the airfield again the next day.
And BTW, yes Spicer is awesome entertainment...better than the schmuck from United airlines.
Back to the beginning tho, where's the proof of these being Iraqi sourced WMDs? I see Delta's speculation to that effect, but is this something that is proven?
I remember a report on it.
From an article:
One popular theory for what happened to them is that they were smuggled into Syria. In 2003, none other than James Clapper—who went on to be Obama's director of national intelligence—said this is what happened to Iraq's WMD:
The official, James Clapper Jr., a retired lieutenant general, said satellite imagery showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria, just before the U.S. invasion in March, led him to believe that illicit weapons material "unquestionably" had been moved out of Iraq.
"I think people below the Saddam-Hussein-and-his-sons level saw what was coming and decided the best thing to do was to destroy and disperse," Clapper, who leads the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, said at a breakfast with reporters.
He said he was providing a personal assessment. But he said "the obvious conclusion one draws" was that there "may have been people leaving the scene, fleeing Iraq, and unquestionably, I am sure, material."
^^^LOL.
Syria and the Russians lied about giving up "ALL" the chemical weapons. Not Obama, not Kerry, Rice, whoever... Why try to blame it on Obama? or go back to Bush and WMD....? Would things be any different if Obama chucked 60 cruise missiles in 2013? At least we got 1300 tons of chems and destroyed 23 out of their 27 chemical manufacturing facilities. I think that may be a bigger win for the US than a $60 million missile attack. Syrians were using the airfield again the next day.
And BTW, yes Spicer is awesome entertainment...better than the schmuck from United airlines.
So our leadership sold the public on their non action by saying they "verified" the weapons were destroyed. Of course they were not. Now you are going to tell me that we got all these other facilities and so many tons of chemicals destroyed based on who's word? Sounds like Obama's people did not do they very first thing in verifying and now you speak on their behalf that all this happened?
Interesting story you tell.
I am not worried about the air field bombing. It was a simple show of strength and that Trump is not BSing. It was not a shut down the whole operation type of strike. Punch them in the mouth and move on. If they wanted it shut down, the Rangers would have been on the ground.
but that leaves two dots unconnected: that THIS ATTACK used THOSE WEAPONS. That's what I'm asking about. Is there evidence of that?
There's certainly evidence that Syria had its own WMD program with help from the Russians.
This attack was a show of strength. Nothing more, nothing less. They gassed their people. We had to show we were mad about it and Obama told them not to cross the line. They crossed it and Trump punched them in the mouth for it. Show them that he is about that action boss. It sends a big message to Korea and so on. There were Russians on that base.
Not sure if the Russians gave them weapon's facilities. Not sure what that would do for the Russian's to do that considering what kind of a loose cannon that area is. I could see them giving Iran those weapons since they were fighting a defacto war with the US during the Iraq and Iran war.
This attack was a show of strength. Nothing more, nothing less. They gassed their people. We had to show we were mad about it and Obama told them not to cross the line. They crossed it and Trump punched them in the mouth for it. Show them that he is about that action boss. It sends a big message to Korea and so on. There were Russians on that base.
Not sure if the Russians gave them weapon's facilities. Not sure what that would do for the Russian's to do that considering what kind of a loose cannon that area is. I could see them giving Iran those weapons since they were fighting a defacto war with the US during the Iraq and Iran war.
Dood for being such an expert about this being Saddam's gas, you seem to be pretty willfully ignorant about known Russian assistance with chemical weapons production.
Good breakdown here about where they got the chems and why the USSR saw it as a good idea to export chem weapons to allies.
This sure does sound familiar, doesn't it? "The Kremlin saw gas as useful for allies fighting against insurgencies: For the countries that had actually used it in combat – Kampuchea, Laos, Afghanistan and Yemen - the authors conclude that the Soviet Union saw it as a way of “breaking the will and resistance of stubborn guerrilla forces operating from relatively inaccessible protected sanctuaries.""
The hypocrisy of the US being the gate keeper of who is allowed what weapons drives me mad. Why is it fine for the US to develop and sell WMDs to people they like but people they don't like get invaded and bombed for trying to develop the same things.
So your mayor is a judge? I'm not mistaken. Robbers would like the laws for theft to take a back seat to their desire to steal. But the law doesn't work that way and mayors have no legal authority to define what is and isn't illegal WRT state and federal laws. Now local ordinances might be a different matter. But the big question is exactly how do you think that muslims can put their desires before the legal system. Because that isn't a real thing, legally speaking. And when you are talking about making laws, you are "legally speaking".
Let me fill you in on something again pertaining to your law knowledge , mayors, politicians, and political activists , have plenty to say about the law and can write their own policies circumventing them . It happens daily all across the nation. There are also other key factors to laws you have seem to have glossed over that actually make the law work and have an effect . ............................ ENFORCEMENT.................., Simply having laws on the books means nothing. It's how those laws are selectively enforced in the courts that actually matter. .......... politicians, delegates, and activists play a pivotal role in how that works. This aspect doesn't. Need to be in any law book .
Dood for being such an expert about this being Saddam's gas, you seem to be pretty willfully ignorant about known Russian assistance with chemical weapons production.
Good breakdown here about where they got the chems and why the USSR saw it as a good idea to export chem weapons to allies.
This sure does sound familiar, doesn't it? "The Kremlin saw gas as useful for allies fighting against insurgencies: For the countries that had actually used it in combat – Kampuchea, Laos, Afghanistan and Yemen - the authors conclude that the Soviet Union saw it as a way of “breaking the will and resistance of stubborn guerrilla forces operating from relatively inaccessible protected sanctuaries.""
I would not call it willful ignorant. I simply have not looked into it. Syria used it. Trump punched them in the mouth. Easy as that.
Second is it brought up the old discussions of what was the report prior to the Iraq invasion on weapons leaving Iraq to Syria.
Your article is pretty interesting. The article does not say conclusively where they got the weapons though Russia, Germany and France had their hands in the cookie jar in the early 80's. It would not surprise me that they were involved as well. America has been hands off Syria for as long as I can remember.
The hypocrisy of the US being the gate keeper of who is allowed what weapons drives me mad. Why is it fine for the US to develop and sell WMDs to people they like but people they don't like get invaded and bombed for trying to develop the same things.
Let me ask you this.
Do you believe in evil? Is history written about evil empires trying to enslave others?
Who do you want to be the picker of winners and losers? Some entity ultimately has to be that group. There is always some two bit dictator trying to screw over others. Do you want the North Koreans to be that group? Russians? Chinese? Any number of Muslim led countries to be that group?
Do you believe in evil? Is history written about evil empires trying to enslave others?
A couple of things here... History is written by the winners so the losers are always labeled evil.
I do believe in evil. I think its evil to put more money into weapons and cut the funding going to the poor or this country. I don't think you believe that is evil. This makes "Evil" a relative issue, its all about the perspective.
I'm sure that if you could ask Hilter he would have said that the Jews were evil and that he was the good guy. He was VERY wrong about that but that was probably his point of view.
Instead of thinking in absolute terms of Good and Evil, or Democrat or Republican, think in the grey that the world is made of.
If our country was getting bombed by a much more powerful other country would you cave or would you grab your guns and try to pull off a Red Dawn scenario? Now that I think about Red dawn... from the cuban's perspective (I think it was the cubans that invaded) Patrick Swazy was
a terrorist that was killing peaceful tourists.
Do you believe in evil? Is history written about evil empires trying to enslave others?
Who do you want to be the picker of winners and losers? Some entity ultimately has to be that group. There is always some two bit dictator trying to screw over others. Do you want the North Koreans to be that group? Russians? Chinese? Any number of Muslim led countries to be that group?
Evil as in fairy tail evil like the devil? No.
Evil as in evil people who by the nature can only be destructive. No
Evil as in evil acts. Yes.
Take a look at your country's recent history, they have invaded more country's and killed more people in combat than all others combined since WW2. The self appointed moral champion of the world crown doesn't sit well on your head.
As an aside the tunnels you guys just blew up with the biggest bomb since the last time you dropped the biggest bomb in Nagasaki were built by Bin Laden using US money when he was a CIA stooge. Hypocrisy.
I would not call it willful ignorant. I simply have not looked into it. Syria used it. Trump punched them in the mouth. Easy as that.
Second is it brought up the old discussions of what was the report prior to the Iraq invasion on weapons leaving Iraq to Syria.
Your article is pretty interesting. The article does not say conclusively where they got the weapons though Russia, Germany and France had their hands in the cookie jar in the early 80's. It would not surprise me that they were involved as well. America has been hands off Syria for as long as I can remember.
Lemme get this straight, you're gonna say you haven't looked into the Russian deal with Syria but then spout off about Kerry?
A couple of things here... History is written by the winners so the losers are always labeled evil.
I do believe in evil. I think its evil to put more money into weapons and cut the funding going to the poor or this country. I don't think you believe that is evil. This makes "Evil" a relative issue, its all about the perspective.
I'm sure that if you could ask Hilter he would have said that the Jews were evil and that he was the good guy. He was VERY wrong about that but that was probably his point of view.
Instead of thinking in absolute terms of Good and Evil, or Democrat or Republican, think in the grey that the world is made of.
If our country was getting bombed by a much more powerful other country would you cave or would you grab your guns and try to pull off a Red Dawn scenario? Now that I think about Red dawn... from the cuban's perspective (I think it was the cubans that invaded) Patrick Swazy was
a terrorist that was killing peaceful tourists.
Interesting take. We won in WW2 and history writes that Hitler and his henchmen were evil. Are we wrong for writing that or you one of those David Duke/ Islamic fascists that believes the Germans were the good guys.
There were no war's won or lost, do you believe that Islamofascists chucking gays off roofs are evil? What about Joseph Stalin. He only murdered millions of his own country men. He was on the winning side with us. We certainly write that he was evil. You not believe in this people being evil?
Evil as in fairy tail evil like the devil? No.
Evil as in evil people who by the nature can only be destructive. No
Evil as in evil acts. Yes.
Take a look at your country's recent history, they have invaded more country's and killed more people in combat than all others combined since WW2. The self appointed moral champion of the world crown doesn't sit well on your head.
As an aside the tunnels you guys just blew up with the biggest bomb since the last time you dropped the biggest bomb in Nagasaki were built by Bin Laden using US money when he was a CIA stooge. Hypocrisy.
You avoided the question. Who do you want dictating the world you are going to live in? Those other cultures or who? You seem to live well enough in your British empire generated enclave. Do you want to be ruled by China? Russians? India? Iran? There is going to be some culture that picks a certain amount the winners and losers. Which do you want? Name your poison.
As far as war goes. Yep. The moral championship sits very well on our head thank you very much. If not for us, you would be in Japanese control. Wonder how slave labor camps would have worked for your family. They did not treat non Japanese too well.
I guess if the Japs did not get you, the Russians had a fair eye on that part of the world too.
I guess at the end of the day, you are like all the other spoiled little liberals here in America. You have had life so well from the sacrifice of so many others, that you really don't have to ponder a rough life and the evils of the world. That is why so many in the fly over country in America is rejecting liberalism.
Lemme get this straight, you're gonna say you haven't looked into the Russian deal with Syria but then spout off about Kerry?
I did not spout off about Kerry. Kerry spouted off about Kerry. I did not put my hand up his butt and flap his mouth for him like a sock puppet. He and Susan Rice were taking credit for a deal and claiming they verified it happened. In the mean time, the wimps did what wimps do. They back peddled and let a dictator do dictator things.
You see, hear is the deal. I absolutely expect the Russians to lie to us. If you don't then you are a stooge of the biggest kind. Matter of fact, I expect almost every country to lie to us. We are the worlds police unfortunately and we have a very slim set of countries acting in that fashion with us. The only countries that I even half way trust are England, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Israel. Even then we all spy on each other like it is a going out of business sale. I am sure there are other players that are trustworthy however Germany and France? Not so much. They were the ones buying Iraq oil behind our backs during the UN sanction time prior to the war. The french were testing anti aircraft systems against our planes in Iraq.
So where does that leave us. That leaves us to supposedly trust us, except we had our former president telling us that his inaction was due to a ficticious deal with two countries that we have only had negative relationships with since before WW2. His folks even doubled down and said that they verified this deal happened. Then the crap that Obama was caught whispering to Putin on a hot mic has to leave one to pause.
So yes, I am going to put Kerry, Rice and Obama in my crosshairs. We were supposed to trust them. The Russians..... nope, though I trust them more than any Islamic country.
I did not spout off about Kerry. Kerry spouted off about Kerry. I did not put my hand up his butt and flap his mouth for him like a sock puppet. He and Susan Rice were taking credit for a deal and claiming they verified it happened. In the mean time, the wimps did what wimps do. They back peddled and let a dictator do dictator things.
You see, hear is the deal. I absolutely expect the Russians to lie to us. If you don't then you are a stooge of the biggest kind. Matter of fact, I expect almost every country to lie to us. We are the worlds police unfortunately and we have a very slim set of countries acting in that fashion with us. The only countries that I even half way trust are England, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Israel. Even then we all spy on each other like it is a going out of business sale. I am sure there are other players that are trustworthy however Germany and France? Not so much. They were the ones buying Iraq oil behind our backs during the UN sanction time prior to the war. The french were testing anti aircraft systems against our planes in Iraq.
So where does that leave us. That leaves us to supposedly trust us, except we had our former president telling us that his inaction was due to a ficticious deal with two countries that we have only had negative relationships with since before WW2. His folks even doubled down and said that they verified this deal happened. Then the crap that Obama was caught whispering to Putin on a hot mic has to leave one to pause.
So yes, I am going to put Kerry, Rice and Obama in my crosshairs. We were supposed to trust them. The Russians..... nope, though I trust them more than any Islamic country.
WOAH WOAH. You want to talk about dishonesty as a Trump supporter? Get your card pulled bud.
You avoided the question. Who do you want dictating the world you are going to live in? Those other cultures or who? You seem to live well enough in your British empire generated enclave. Do you want to be ruled by China? Russians? India? Iran? There is going to be some culture that picks a certain amount the winners and losers. Which do you want? Name your poison.
As far as war goes. Yep. The moral championship sits very well on our head thank you very much. If not for us, you would be in Japanese control. Wonder how slave labor camps would have worked for your family. They did not treat non Japanese too well.
I guess if the Japs did not get you, the Russians had a fair eye on that part of the world too.
I guess at the end of the day, you are like all the other spoiled little liberals here in America. You have had life so well from the sacrifice of so many others, that you really don't have to ponder a rough life and the evils of the world. That is why so many in the fly over country in America is rejecting liberalism.
You have such a combative, fear driven view of the world I find it disheartening, if you are representative of America then world conflict is really the only outcome possible. Ironically you think that being a military bully is what keeping the world from exploding but really it is what is causing the conflict.
I don't agree the US saved us from the Japanese and Russia but that's fine, next time if you could just leave us to our own devices that would be great.
What i don't get is trump campaigned on becoming less involved in being the world police but now he is dropping the biggest bomb since WW2 on Syria, threatening to invade North Korea and picking a fight with China and Russia.
What i don't get is trump campaigned on becoming less involved in being the world police but now he is dropping the biggest bomb since WW2 on Syria, threatening to invade North Korea and picking a fight with China and Russia.
The MOAB was dropped in Afghanistan, not Syria. The smart bombs were dropped in Syria, And I don't believe Trump for one second, is ordering anything, maybe Putin ordered them,HaHaHa! But ,when you have wars and conflicts all over the world, it's easy to get them confused!
I guess Trump's lawyers may take a similar approach at some point. He's not really the "president" and can't be held accountable for his actions and words - it's simply a performance!
To be fair his performance on JRE was amazing. When he left the reservation and started raving about psychic vampires it was definitely some top notch performance art. The highlight was Rogan saying i think we f'd up, we got him too high.
And here it comes... Exxon makes the big ask for a sanctions waiver with Russia.... cha CHING. No wonder Trump appointed the ex-ceo his secretary of state (pictured here with his buddy Putin a few years back in his CEO days)
First 100 days done. Economy seems to be going pretty well. Government logistics so far a fail, repealing obamacare was a collosal stuff up. International relations in uncertain waters. Will be super interesting how they will balance the books with a low company tax rate, increased military spending and the pressure put on the social spending. Also if the gains to business will trickle down to the employees. Overall going better than i expected.
^^thats pretty funny. To be fair, after re-adjusting the playing rules the GOP got a judge too. There were also a few player substitutions in the white house, a couple forced recusals and a handful of investigations ongoing. Overall, going better than I expected.
When DC comics had Lex Luthor become president of the United States, Lex sold Lexcorp to avoid conflict of interest, making Trump LITERALLY less ethical than a comic book super villain.
This should get things going . Didn't hear a peep from the left when there guy was pulling funds based on something "subjective" , yet Trump is pulling funding based on Constitutional and Immigration law and he's the devil.
Like I said it's fine when they do it but , cry like babies when he does . You have the snowflake confused. If you think CA federal courts are any representation of this country youre severely mistaken. Again the double standard and hypocracy run strong with the left .
If you actually stop and read, you might learn something. Or you can just continue to be like Grant and think that complex policy (not to mention the separation of powers inherent in the issue) can be boiled down to a tweet.
If you actually stop and read, you might learn something. Or you can just continue to be like Grant and think that complex policy (not to mention the separation of powers inherent in the issue) can be boiled down to a tweet.
If you actually stopped and read the law, understood how it was written, and how it's selectively enforced for political gains rather then getting your views and opinions from news articles and the media your mind would explode
Again where was all your crying , whining , and daily posts when your guy Obama was doing the exact same things. ? I am sure you were out protesting or burning down college campuses and inner cities to get your opposition across.
The article (one of a few I've read on the topic) explains the law and why Trump doesn't have the standing to defund as he's attempting to do. Not everyone agrees of course, which is why it'll go to the court. Let's see what your buddy Gorsuch thinks.
Well he needs to start defunding something because the books are about to get lopsided real quick, revenue is about to go down by $550 billion and defence spending about to go up by $50 billion. Isn't the biggest problem with Obama that he spent more than he collected? On the face of it Trump is going to be much worse.
The article (one of a few I've read on the topic) explains the law and why Trump doesn't have the standing to defund as he's attempting to do. Not everyone agrees of course, which is why it'll go to the court. Let's see what your buddy Gorsuch thinks.
The article you claim as gold has many inferences and one sided opinions that scew it like only the NY Times does to play off opinions as facts . It completely ignores the other interpretations and arguments that turn that into dribble, but hey if you wanna take it as fact be my guest . Run with it
Well he needs to start defunding something because the books are about to get lopsided real quick, revenue is about to go down by $550 billion and defence spending about to go up by $50 billion. Isn't the biggest problem with Obama that he spent more than he collected? On the face of it Trump is going to be much worse.
Don't worry. He's got an 8yr window to blame his predecessor according to the lefty playbook
perhaps companies will have more motivation to report truthfully and accurately instead of pursuing loopholes to avoid the current crippling policies?
grow in size without fear, increase stock strength, discourage evasive efforts, and a boom will result that will result in tons of jobs, turning the job market into a "buyers" market instead of the current "sellers" market that is affecting every class.
That's the idea that has repeatedly caused deficit spending to increase under republican presidents. Surely you've seen the numbers. Massive increases in deficit spending under both Reagan and Bush. Now Trump is poised to raise deficit spending after a decline under Obama. Cue the people who don't understand that the deficit creates the debt.
While your statement that Obama's deficit is going down is correct on face , what you fail to disclose is that his yearly numbers of the actual deficits are extremely higher than previous presidents as well. If your racking up record deficits but they're going down, you really aren't accomplishing anything positive are you? It sounds good to tote the "deficit is going down " line , but when you look at the actual deficit amount numbers more closely it reveals a much different picture.
That guy he claimed created this mess, well he didn't institute much to correct it. In fact his number are almost identical at the end of the day to the same man hecand his party party condem daily in regards to deficit numbers . At the end of the day Obamas were just as bad when presented in complete package. Not some scewed one dimensional bar graph. ................so while your pretty bat graph makes it seem like Obama actually did well, The deficit increased 56 percent....................Things that make you go hmmmmm.
Don't worry. He's got an 8yr window to blame his predecessor according to the lefty playbook
haha cuz we never heard "it's Clinton's fault" during the Bush admin...
Quote:
Let's post the full graph, something's a bit off here.
Let's also take a look at the budgeting process... Article I, Sections 7 and 9 vest Congress with the power of the purse. so it ain't like deficit spending happens solely because of a spendthrift in the oval.
GOP presently has control of WH and both sides of Congress. If the will to bring deficit spending to zero were REAL it could happen tomorrow. Now's the time to stop blaming the other guys and show us how it's done.
While your statement that Obama's deficit is going down is correct on face , what you fail to disclose is that his yearly numbers of the actual deficits are extremely higher than previous presidents as well. If your racking up record deficits but they're going down, you really aren't accomplishing anything positive are you? It sounds good to tote the "deficit is going down " line , but when you look at the actual deficit amount numbers more closely it reveals a much different picture.
That guy he claimed created this mess, well he didn't institute much to correct it. In fact his number are almost identical at the end of the day to the same man hecand his party party condem daily in regards to deficit numbers . At the end of the day Obamas were just as bad when presented in complete package. Not some scewed one dimensional bar graph. ................so while your pretty bat graph makes it seem like Obama actually did well, The deficit increased 56 percent....................Things that make you go hmmmmm.
"Extremely higher"? The numbers that you posted showed that Bush had over a trillion dollar deficit when he left office. Since 2013 (again using the numbers that you posted), the deficit under Obama was, on average, half of that. Why do you think it's okay to be downright deceitful when you post? Do you think the GOP is going to send you some sort of award for lying?
It's clear you don't understand how to read and understand the numbers Wes and I both posted. Let me break it down for you. Busch didn't leave office according to those numbers with the 1.16 trillion dollar deficit and Obama isn't leaving office with a 441 billion dollar balance total. Those numbers are not a "rolling " total each year. Those numbers are the amount of debt ACCUMULATED each year So to further explain that you need to add each year and then get your totals. Which give you Busch being accountable for 3.293 Trillion under his tenure, a 57% increase overall to where he started. Obama is leaving with a 6.75 Trillion Dollar Deficit total, accumulate under him , with a 56% increase from where he started. That's even charging his massive bailout programs to Busch. Which could be argued should be charged to him. I didn't even go there, because here, because I am providing factual data. Using the exact data Wes linked to again prove he's the one painting the DECEITFUL numbers you speak of.
Again. I am not lying , nor am I pulling numbers out of my rear end as you claim. It's quite simply the opposite. Unfortunately you're the one here who doesn't understand how to interpret the simple data laid in front of you .
All you did was just tell wake77 what he already knows. Obama did not leave with a $6.75T deficit total. That is a nonsensical claim because deficit doesn't accumulate. Assuming you have the numbers correct he left with an additional $6.75T in federal debt. It's an important distinction because lowering the deficit it is the only way to reduce accumulated debt.
What good is factual data if you don't understand the meaning of it? Claiming that deficit accumulates is analogous to claiming that speed accumulates as you drive down the road.
The real irony here is that the right harped on debt accumulation and then elected a President who's policy appear to be raising deficit spending, hence increasing the rate of accumulated debt. The right is living a fantasy that you can just elect someone who can immediately balance the budget. Trump proved you wrong. And that should give you an idea of how hard it is to reduce deficit spending. But given that the market is strong and we should be deescalating our war behavior after 15 years of war, you have to wonder why Trump would be making moves to increase the deficit.
Don't wonder too hard though. Because Trump has a whole litany of lies that he told to get elected.
Before "We'll put Hillary in jail", After "Nobody cares about that"
Before "We'll build a wall and Mexico will pay", After "The wall is a metaphor"
Before "We'll repeal the ACA day one", After "who knew healthcare was so hard"
Before "China is manipulating currency and killing us", After "China isn't manipulating currency and they are great"
Before "NAFTA is toast", After "Better to keep it than repeal"
Before "Imported Chinese goods will be taxed 45%., After "I love China"
"The real irony here is that the right harped on debt accumulation and then elected a President who's policy appear to be raising deficit spending, hence increasing the rate of accumulated debt."
Sure your don't want to rephrase that question? To be more accurate I should have said the rate of accumulation of debt. Bottom line.... rate = deficit
"The real irony here is that the right harped on debt accumulation and then elected a President who's policy appear to be raising deficit spending, hence increasing the rate of accumulated debt."
Sure your don't want to rephrase that question? To be more accurate I should have said the rate of accumulation of debt. Bottom line.... rate = deficit
"deficit doesn't accumulate."
My apologies as I did infact use/ correlate the wrong term there in my original response after posting the numbers I chose to discuss. My original comment was in regards to debt/ deficit . Wes linked the deficit graph and in my head I was using the debt argument to make my point. That obviously was my mistake for using the improper term.
Not sure how I did that as I for sure understand that deficit and debt are completely different. The deficit definitely doesn't accumulate. You both are correct here and I deserved to be labeled an idiot for using the wrong term in my response.
My focus was strictly on debt and that measurement to judge how implemented policies are failing. My argument is Obama has spent significantly more money( almost double ) and got less of a return. How is that an indication of solid policy ?
So there you have it. Swat slipped up and acknowledges it, take a screenshot because it doesn't happen often .
While your statement that Obama's deficit is going down is correct on face , what you fail to disclose is that his yearly numbers of the actual Debt are extremely higher than previous presidents as well. If your racking up record yearly Debts but they're going down, you really aren't accomplishing anything positive are you? It sounds good to tote the "deficit is going down " line , but when you look at the actual Debt amount numbers more closely it reveals a much different picture.
That guy he claimed created this mess, well he didn't institute much to correct it. In fact his number are almost identical at the end of the day to the same man hecand his party party condem daily in regards to deficit/debtnumbers . At the end of the day Obamas were just as bad when presented in complete package. Not some scewed one dimensional bar graph. ................so while your pretty bat graph makes it seem like Obama actually did well, The debt increased 56 percent....................Things that make you go hmmmmm.
This is why looking at the deficit is important. It gives a much better picture of what is going on in the economy over time. It wouldn't be nearly as useful to simply look at the total debt over eight years. There is a reason why the deficit ballooned at the end of Bush's term. Both republicans and democrats agreed that the country was in trouble and significantly increased spending to address those problems. It is the deficit that shows the spending vs revenue trends over the course of Obama's presidency. He took a deficit of over $1T and reduced it to basically where it was before the economic crisis hit. Without greater detail and an in-depth analysis, which none of us can or will do, it's impossible to judge Obama with any reasonable degree of certainly on spending.
What really tells the tale is action. If Trump came into office and immediately balanced the budget then we would be able to accumulate economic data to show if balancing the budget is feasible without dire consequences. Instead Trump's policy ideas indicate he will increase deficit spending. There is no economic data to support the idea that his drastic tax cuts will be offset by new revenue. IOW the whole argument about Obama spending too much and we need a President who will fix the budget has been shot down by the President the same people lodging these complaints elected. Not really surprising when we already knew that a reduction in spending was difficult. Also not surprising as we come to find out that Trump made many empty promises and even acted surprised that running America is a harder job than he expected.
One has to even question who Trump has an advisor that is capable of making any intelligent decisions that wouldn't be crafted in self interest for the wealthy. Making Kushner and Ivanka his advisors is certainly bizarre as neither have even been known to put forth any policy ideas in front of the public. Basically we would know no less about them if they never appeared in public.
"You both are correct here and I deserved to be labeled an idiot for using the wrong term in my response."
No you don't deserve to be labeled an idiot. You paid attention to what was being said, realized a correction was in order, and responded in a way that further discourse was fruitful. It's this kind of exchange that allows us to work together on the things we agree about. Which are much greater than they seem once all the sarcasm and insults are done away with.
There is no way that I can say that the rate Obama reduced the deficit was ideal. But it's important to understand that if the complaint was it was too little too late, then another President is elected by those expressing that sentiment and the deficit goes up, then he was elected on the basis of false information and assumptions.
Yes, we can agree that the right won their victory WRT getting a conservative judge on the SC. And they achieved a victory in getting the govt to deny the existence of human contribution to global warming. And possibly getting the govt to fund sending their kids to private school. But none of these things really change the big picture.
You mention showing the curve of Obamas tenure and the way he was able to bring that curve back down to something more
Manageable. However , his curve is no onger projected to be trending downward. I'll grant you the data shows it was somewhat stabilizing, so some policies he implemented are obviously working properly. What those policies are , are clearly debatable. However lets take into account previous presidencies. That stabilization point ( flat part of the curve ) was much lower. So while he was able to reign some things in so to speak , he reins it down to a place which still "levels" at significantly higher yearly debt on average. The curve also indicates that number average is back on the rise once again. So I think we can agree "more of the same " would clearly be the wrong direction.
the numbers are working? lol. GDP is doing great eh? job market is thriving? how about welfare recipients? food stamps?
look at ALL the various market indicators
So while he was able to reign some things in so to speak , he reins it down to a place which still "levels" at significantly higher yearly debt on average. The curve also indicates that number average is back on the rise once again. So I think we can agree "more of the same " would clearly be the wrong direction.
The federal budget deficit is about the same as the trade deficit. IOW the govt is now borrowing about the same as society is sending out of the economy. One has to wonder if it's possible to reduce govt deficit spending below the amount we export out of our economy.
We can all agree that it appears debt will continue to rise if Trump makes the unprecedented tax cuts he claims he will.
the numbers are working? lol. GDP is doing great eh? job market is thriving? how about welfare recipients? food stamps?
look at ALL the various market indicators
It's one thing to state the problems the data shows. It's another to know how to implement change that fixes those problems. We've switched parties in the executive office but nothing has changed WRT policy ideas. You might be able to point to some low hanging fruit that comes from allowing corps to pollute the environment more and produce some positive economic change. But IMO that is just going to be a drop in the bucket.
If Trump's policies accelerate the concentration of wealth at the top, I think there is going to be a lot more welfare and a lot less tax revenue.
We can all agree that it appears debt will continue to rise if Trump makes the unprecedented tax cuts he claims he will.
Definitely not in agreement , I don't subscribe to the fact less tax equals more debt.
I've seen and been a part of numerous scenarios in which more tax actually equates to less income and more Debt
Taxes are not one aspect item. They're probably the single most delicate issue in my opinion to balance and implement. So much money involved on the proper execution of their implementations or retractions . Too many variables in each unique situation to make any correlation without knowing the exact details
Linear Mode
