Originally Posted by Guest

One thing for sure, you can't baffle close minded individuals. There was nothing in my post that you referred to that should be considered baffling.

Social security is a socialist program. Under your definition of socialism, we are lazy. I don't think that I am lazy. How about you, are you lazy? Tagging all people with the lazy tag, because of a few to justify a warped view is something that you have to expect from the lazy politicians, who only want to criticize, condemn, and complain, and never offer an alternative to anything. If they do offer an alternative, it is one they know their opponent will never accept. You can add mean to the lazy in describing these politicians.

The USA will never become a socialist country. What ever happened to the socialist/communist countries that we fought wars against? Germany, and Japan seem to be doing just fine now. We fought the Korean War against China. Now, what is our capitalist country doing, sending millions of jobs there. Sounds like big business isn't worried about socialism/communism. We have socialist programs, but we aren't anywhere close to a socialist country, given the truth definition of "socialism".

The economy is the major item people want to address in the next presidential election. It is the middle class that is yelling the loudest. We do have a better life style than countries in Europe with more socialist programs than ours. However, our lifestyle has been slipping, since the 70's. Trickle down nonsense doesn't work. Tax cuts that favor the upper class makes the national debt worse for no good reason. Flat tax is a simple fix for simple minded people.

You throw the word "slaves" out there to demean people. Why don't you use something more acceptable like "welfare moms"?

Yes, "close minded" is a term I would describe your posting.
I can tell that you are a Democrat/liberal from your taking the typical extreme position......"Social Security is a socialist program."
Germany doing well? You are going to endorse Germany as your example? That's pretty funny. I've been there, have you? Japan is doing well? Good luck on that one. Lived there twice, and I'll take America any day.
Tax cuts do NOT make the national debt worst. You are not very well informed on that matter. Tax cuts have improved the economy and increased tax revenues as a result of the better economy. Do some research before making off-hand comments like that.
You make comments like "simple minded people" and then want to chastise ME for using the word slaves? That is very humorous, as well as ludicrous. If you are one of those PC types, then you are in the wrong place. Sensitive people that want to cry about PC comments can kiss my PC as.. Is that PC enough for you? And I am saying that in an affectionate manner...

Just last week my party helped passed a big budget busting spending bill that you sure as hell cannot blame on Obama. Most on this forum will disagree but so called conservatives are every bit as responsible as democrats for the crippling debt. It is not surprising we cannot have an honest discussion on social security. This group is easily confused with facts.

Originally Posted by Guest

Is this statement a joke? All I've ever heard Obama do is blame someone. When has he EVER taken responsibility for ANYTHING? Oh, and I stand by my previous post. The $10 trillion being added to the debt during his "reign" belongs to him -- He owns it. It will be his legacy and only accomplishment.

And that's the fact Jack!!!

Originally Posted by Guest

Is this statement a joke? No, you are a joke. Answer the two questions that I asked. 27 days into his presidency the national debt went up. 769 billion dollars,. What did Obama do during those 27 days that increase the debt that much?

Oh, so in your eyes, Obama is ONLY responsible for adding an additional $9.231 trillion to the national debt and not the $10 trillion claimed by the press. Either way he is still an incompetent political hack!

Obama is the most expensive political experiment in U.S. history. No one can deny that. The figures prove it.

Originally Posted by Guest

Just last week my party helped passed a big budget busting spending bill that you sure as hell cannot blame on Obama. Most on this forum will disagree but so called conservatives are every bit as responsible as democrats for the crippling debt. It is not surprising we cannot have an honest discussion on social security. This group is easily confused with facts.

Conservatives had to pass that budget or cripple their chances at electing a Republican president this time around. Obama NEVER signs anything he doesn't wish to sign and holds the country hostage until he gets his way. Even if he has to use E.O. to get his way. He is as petulant as a spoiled child, and can't leave D.C. fast enough.

Originally Posted by Guest

Oh, so in your eyes, Obama is ONLY responsible for adding an additional $9.231 trillion to the national debt and not the $10 trillion claimed by the press. Either way he is still an incompetent political hack!

I have a degree in accounting. Math, and common sense aren't a problem for me. The national debt for Obama clock starts running on 10/1/09, and not 1/20/09. Answer the question, what did Obama do in the first 27 days of his presidency that the national debt had to increase by 700 billion dollars? What did Obama do that caused the Great Recession 2008/2009? If you can't answer these simple questions, you are not being honest.

Here is the math that Republicans refused to accept, because it doesn't fit their warped belief, spread by the Republican media, that Obama has doubled the national debt.

National Debt 9/30/09 was 11,909, and the debt n 9/30/15 18,150. That is an increase of 6,241 trillion.

National debt on 9/30/01 was 5,807, debt on 9/30/09 was 11,909. That is an increase of 6,102 trillion.

Bush increase in eight years is $6,102 trillion Obama increase in six years is 6,241 trillion. Neither is very good, but Obama will not double the national debt during his eight years.

If Obama is an incompetent hack, what was "W"? I think that "W" was a decent president that was surrounded by total jerks, that made his presidency one of the worse in the history of this country.

Originally Posted by Guest

I have a degree in accounting. Math, and common sense aren't a problem for me. The national debt for Obama clock starts running on 10/1/09, and not 1/20/09. Answer the question, what did Obama do in the first 27 days of his presidency that the national debt had to increase by 700 billion dollars? What did Obama do that caused the Great Recession 2008/2009? If you can't answer these simple questions, you are not being honest.

Here is the math that Republicans refused to accept, because it doesn't fit their warped belief, spread by the Republican media, that Obama has doubled the national debt.

National Debt 9/30/09 was 11,909, and the debt n 9/30/15 18,150. That is an increase of 6,241 trillion.

National debt on 9/30/01 was 5,807, debt on 9/30/09 was 11,909. That is an increase of 6,102 trillion.

Bush increase in eight years is $6,102 trillion Obama increase in six years is 6,241 trillion. Neither is very good, but Obama will not double the national debt during his eight years.

If Obama is an incompetent hack, what was "W"? I think that "W" was a decent president that was surrounded by total jerks, that made his presidency one of the worse in the history of this country.

As Dana Carvey would you say, "Aren't you special".

Originally Posted by Guest

As Dana Carvey would you say, "Aren't you special".

He's special OK. And he manipulates numbers and money JUST LIKE the gov. Lots of smoke and mirrors, and little substance.

He also neglects to mention that until the last two years of Bush's presidency, Bush's deficits were only in the billions. The last two years were totally Democrat congressional majority. And who holds the purse strings?

Originally Posted by Guest

He also neglects to mention that until the last two years of Bush's presidency, Bush's deficits were only in the billions. The last two years were totally Democrat congressional majority. And who holds the purse strings?

Am I special? Using the three people that responded to my post, I am special. Why, because I am honest.

Is anyone of the three honest? If you are answer the following question, "What did Obama do in his first 27 days of his presidency that he should be tagged with the 699 billion in national debt increase?" If I am playing with numbers, that should be a very easy question to answer.

While you are at it, take a look at the national debt at the end of the government's fiscal year.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2015

Every year the national debt under "W" increased over 500 billion dollars. Since when is 500 billion a small number?

Unlike you three, I do look at the events of the time that had a lot to do with the national debt increase, and not blame "W" as if was a free spending liberal. The wars, and the great recession had a lot to do with the increase of national debt under Obama, whether you like it or not.

Originally Posted by Guest

Am I special? Using the three people that responded to my post, I am special. Why, because I am honest.

Is anyone of the three honest? If you are answer the following question, "What did Obama do in his first 27 days of his presidency that he should be tagged with the 699 billion in national debt increase?" If I am playing with numbers, that should be a very easy question to answer.

While you are at it, take a look at the national debt at the end of the government's fiscal year.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2015

Every year the national debt under "W" increased over 500 billion dollars. Since when is 500 billion a small number?

Unlike you three, I do look at the events of the time that had a lot to do with the national debt increase, and not blame "W" as if was a free spending liberal. The wars, and the great recession had a lot to do with the increase of national debt under Obama, whether you like it or not.

In an earlier post, I ceded you the $769 (now it's $799) billion that you claim was added in the 27-day period. That still leaves $9.201 trillion of debt added to the national debt by the Obama administration.

The $799 billion of debt that you insist upon having explained (which I have already ceded) is of minor consequence when you consider the larger debit picture.

Originally Posted by Guest

Iff'n you don't like it, just don't vote for him again.

You might say you isn't going to vote for Hillary either but that is fine cause she going to win easily without your vote.

You can moan all you want about those who gets the free stuff but add all those people up and they will be voting for Hillary. Your vote has been cancelled out and the state goes to Hillary.

When your kids and grandkids visit your gravesite they can reminiss about the America we used to have, and stand there dumbfounded attempting to figure out how to get "We the People" back into their lives.

Originally Posted by Guest

Am I special? Using the three people that responded to my post, I am special. Why, because I am honest.

Is anyone of the three honest? If you are answer the following question, "What did Obama do in his first 27 days of his presidency that he should be tagged with the 699 billion in national debt increase?" If I am playing with numbers, that should be a very easy question to answer.

While you are at it, take a look at the national debt at the end of the government's fiscal year.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2015

Every year the national debt under "W" increased over 500 billion dollars. Since when is 500 billion a small number?


Unlike you three, I do look at the events of the time that had a lot to do with the national debt increase, and not blame "W" as if was a free spending liberal. The wars, and the great recession had a lot to do with the increase of national debt under Obama, whether you like it or not.

I think I have warned you before not to confuse the Sean Hannity contingency on this forum with intellect and fact.

Originally Posted by Guest

I think I have warned you before not to confuse the Sean Hannity contingency on this forum with intellect and fact.

Don't worry, there won't be any confusion. Hannity doesn't have a conversation with himself, like the one and lonely liberal on here.

Obama's Economic Stimulus Package $787 billion
Bush's deficits ran mostly in the billions per year.
Obama's deficits almost always ran into the trillions.

Bush's Deficit:

FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion. (Democrat congress)
FY 2008 - $1.017 trillion. (Democrat congress)
FY 2007 - $501 billion.
FY 2006 - $574 billion.
FY 2005 - $554 billion.
FY 2004 - $596 billion.
FY 2003 - $555 billion.
FY 2002 - $421 billion.

Obama's Deficit:

FY 2014 - $1.086 trillion.
FY 2013 - $672 billion.
FY 2012 - $1.276 trillion.
FY 2011 - $1.229 trillion.
FY 2010 - $1.652 trillion.
FY 2009 - $253 billion. (Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009. This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama's contribution to the debt.)