Talk of The Villages Florida

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)
-   The Villages, Florida, Political talk (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-political-talk-88/)
-   -   "Wow!" Is all I can say. (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-political-talk-88/wow-all-i-can-say-163051/)

Guest 09-19-2015 01:19 PM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1116537)
Obama was left with a monumental mess when he took office. History will tell whether Obama was the worst or one of the best presidents......liberals are smart enough not to make a definitive statement such as Obama being a "failure". With all the blockades thrown up by Congress and the Senate, I am surprised that anything got fixed. And if Obama is such a failure and hates America, maybe anyone one of you armchair "experts" should run for president.

Oooh, so serious! Obama had two full years of NON-resistence. He had complete control and spent the whole time passing that disastrous Obamacare. Appears to me like you are trying anything to excuse a very inept non-leader. The great Leader from behind, of the great gay pride.

By the way, the only blockades present were on Reid's desk waiting for a vote. This armchair expert could have done a better job and was more qualified than Obama. I just didn't have affirmative action going for me.

Guest 09-19-2015 01:23 PM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1116537)
Obama was left with a monumental mess when he took office. History will tell whether Obama was the worst or one of the best presidents......liberals are smart enough not to make a definitive statement such as Obama being a "failure". With all the blockades thrown up by Congress and the Senate, I am surprised that anything got fixed. And if Obama is such a failure and hates America, maybe anyone one of you armchair "experts" should run for president.

OK so you think he has been blocked....it really does sound like an excuse, but anyway forget that part.

Please tell us all about what he was able to get accomplished his first two years in office when both houses of congress were democrtatic? Nobody there to block him during those years.

And I do think you are confused about the blocking. We all know the king of blockage, Harry Reid, did not let ANY legislation through to the senate floor unless it was in line with the democratic agenda. That is the blockage you must be recollecting!

Take your time!

Guest 09-19-2015 01:27 PM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1116527)
Odd that you say "everyone would rather have Bush in office than Obama". Do you need to be reminded of who was elected? Your figures on the National Debt are incorrect. From Politifact.com I copied this last paragraph:

"Our ruling

(Rand) Paul said, "Debt doubled" under Bush "and now it’s tripling under Barack Obama’s watch."

This statement is confusing. A person could easily interpret it to mean that debt has tripled since Obama took office -- which would be incorrect. Paul, on the other hand, said that it means debt today, under Obama, is triple what it was when Bush’s term started.

Indeed, today’s national debt is about triple what it was in January 2001, when Bush took office.

It's also worth noting that many factors other than a particular president's policies affect the national debt.

From one not-so-obvious angle, Paul's numbers are correct. But because the statement could so easily be interpreted in another, less accurate way, we rate it Half True."


About this statement:

Published: Thursday, April 9th, 2015 at 3:30 p.m.

Researched by: Lauren Carroll

Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan

Subjects: Debt

Sources:

Rand Paul campaign launch transcript, April 7, 2015

U.S. Treasury, Debt to the Penny, accessed April 9, 2015

Tax Policy Center, Federal Debt 1940-2020, Feb. 2, 2015

PolitiFact, "RNC chair Reince Priebus says Barack Obama has 'the worst record of any president' on debt," Dec. 4, 2014

Email interview, Paul spokesman Sergio Gor, April 8, 2015

Email interview, George Washington Law professor Neil Buchanan, April 8, 2015

Email interview, Harvard professor Linda Bilmes, April 8, 2015

SOrry, I can't go back and copy the link without losing this post.

Talk about confused. There was no mention of Paul's statement in the other post. It said accurately that the national debt was.......on such a date. It then said that the national debt was ......on the next date. Is that hard for you to understand? It was direct quotes taken from a government website. And you are saying that poster was wrong? And your information is right? Admit you are wrong and move on. Point for the other team.

The poster also stated that current polls favored Bush. What has that got to do with Obama being elected now? Either you are very desperate to defend, or you are a bit confused.

Guest 09-19-2015 02:06 PM

Let's examine the information provided by the poster's gov website:

He said Dec 31, 2008 the national debt was = $10,699,804,864,612.13 *correct*
He said current national debt was = $18,151,049,785,935.02 *correct*

Ok so far

You said it should only count after Sep 30, 2009 = $11,909,829,003,511.75
Today's national debt is == $18,154,723,985,268.48

So the yearly average is what? About $1 > trillion
So, if there is no decrease in the yearly national debt, we should average about $2+ trillion more by the end of Oabma's term, plus or minus what Obamacare will cost.

Hmmm, seems like he was right in stating that Obama will have doubled the national debt. Even with your date calculations.

Do you have any information to dispute his claim?

Guest 09-19-2015 08:22 PM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1115856)
First of all, let me say thanks for a reasonable response. This is what this forum is about, ie. to exchange thoughts, share information. All too often, anything said is met with snarky smart !@@ comments, so thank you.

You are correct that there was no agreement with Maliki, but almost EVERY military and foreign relation expert I have read insist that if we wanted to have such an agreement, it would be done. For example...Leon Panetta who was a member of the administration at the time.

"In a new book, former Defense Secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta suggests that President Obama failed to heed his advisers who wanted to leave troops in Iraq past December 2011, which may have contributed to the rise of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)."

"Panetta acknowledged the difficulties of putting together the agreement that would have allowed U.S. forces to stay in the country - it had the support of various leaders in Iraq, but none who were willing to back it publicly - but also said the U.S. could have used its leverage, such as reconstruction aid money, to convince then-President Nouri al-Maliki to support a continued U.S. presence."


Leon Panetta criticizes Obama for Iraq withdrawal - CBS News

I hope you are still reading because here is the most informative...

"He said that Under Secretary of Defense Michele Flournoy advocated that position - which was shared by military commanders in the region and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Panetta writes - but found that Mr. Obama's team at the White House "pushed back, and the differences occasionally became heated."

"Those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests," he said.

Panetta writes of his frustration at the White House, which he says coordinated negotiations but never really led them. And without Mr. Obama's "personal advocacy," a deal with Maliki was allowed "to slip away."


So I must admit that literally you are correct, but as so much in the realm of politics and foreign affairs we are surrounded by nuance and context.

On the food stamp question, I simply asked you to validate your claim as to the direct cause of the increase. I never ever blamed anyone and will not because I do not know, but so many either blame Obama or Bush and I just want someone to validate what they are saying. We had a poster suggest yesterday that Bush, himself, caused the auto slow down which is absurd at best.

Concerning your question about food stamps, this article pretty much confirms what I stated. I didn't see this article until you asked for validation.

The New Face Of Food Stamps: Working-Age Americans

Guest 09-19-2015 09:02 PM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1116560)
Let's examine the information provided by the poster's gov website:

He said Dec 31, 2008 the national debt was = $10,699,804,864,612.13 *correct*
He said current national debt was = $18,151,049,785,935.02 *correct*

Ok so far

You said it should only count after Sep 30, 2009 = $11,909,829,003,511.75
Today's national debt is == $18,154,723,985,268.48

So the yearly average is what? About $1 > trillion
So, if there is no decrease in the yearly national debt, we should average about $2+ trillion more by the end of Oabma's term, plus or minus what Obamacare will cost.

Hmmm, seems like he was right in stating that Obama will have doubled the national debt. Even with your date calculations.

Do you have any information to dispute his claim?


It has tripled since Bush took office, doubling during Bush's term.

Guest 09-19-2015 09:03 PM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1116560)
Let's examine the information provided by the poster's gov website:

He said Dec 31, 2008 the national debt was = $10,699,804,864,612.13 *correct*
He said current national debt was = $18,151,049,785,935.02 *correct*

Ok so far

You said it should only count after Sep 30, 2009 = $11,909,829,003,511.75
Today's national debt is == $18,154,723,985,268.48

So the yearly average is what? About $1 > trillion
So, if there is no decrease in the yearly national debt, we should average about $2+ trillion more by the end of Oabma's term, plus or minus what Obamacare will cost.

Hmmm, seems like he was right in stating that Obama will have doubled the national debt. Even with your date calculations.

Do you have any information to dispute his claim?

Let's do some rounding 11.9 trillion round it to 12 trillion. So, 12 trillion times 2 is 24 trillion. 18 trillion plus 2 is 20 trillion. I could be wrong, but it looks like 4 trillion more would have to be added for the national debt to double under Obama. Do you have any other math problems for me?

Concerning the national debt, look what "W" was handed in first year. Then, look at what Obama was handed in first year. It is night, and day.

The two, or three, if you include the great recession, major items that contributed to national debt increase under "W" were the Iraq/Afgan wars, huge tax reduction, mostly to top wage earners, and the great recession. Obama inherited two of the three. The ACA has added to the National debt. Over 50% of the debt increase was a direct result of what Obama was handed.

This is not the blame game. Programs, that were in effect before each president was elected, added to the national debt. You can't place the blame on them for that. Neither did any of "W's" or Obama's policies create the great recession.

If all you want to do is demean Obama, be my guest.

Guest 09-20-2015 04:41 AM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1116687)
It has tripled since Bush took office, doubling during Bush's term.

Not true. It doubled during Bush's terms, with 2nd term Dem controlled congress and then it will double again during Obama's terms, with Dem controlled first term and tyrant controlled second term.

During Bush's terms, the Avg yearly increase in national debt was in the billions, not trillions. During Obama's terms, the national debt will average over a trillion per year.

The only time in Bush's two terms where the debt went up a trillion bucks was in 2008. And it might be added, that congress was controlled by Dems since 2007. Never in Obama's terms did the yearly national debt increase go below a trillion.

You can scream about unfunded wars during Bush, but the fact remains that even then the national debt per year was below a trillion until 2008.
Obama had complete control of congress for two whole years, and was not able to get a handle on the debt problem, increasing the ceiling every year against advice from Republicans and economists.

I got my figures from TreasuryDirect.gov if anyone wishes to verify my information. If you want to see who controlled congress during those years considered, I used Wikipedia. I took into consideration the fiscal year, not the actual years of office, because of the protests posted by Obamanites on here.

To summarize, Bush did double the national debt. But, not one year of Bush's two terms increased by a trillion dollars, except until fiscal year 2008. Dem's controlled congress from 2007 on.
Obama has never had a year of national debt less than a trillion dollars and won't. Regardless of excuses, congress as well as the white house was totally controlled by Dem's for the first two years of his first term. He was advised not to increase the debt loan ceiling by the GOP as well as the economists but did so with threats and slurs. Since Obama's reign, the GDP has tanked and stagnated. This is the longest recession/depression recovery in history, that's due to poor management by this administration.

We have the most people that have left the work force
We have the highest amount of people on food stamps
Unemployment benefits were extended for over a year
The most workers that have retired early
House sales lowest in decades

On top of all this Obama has ruined our foreign policy
He has racially divided this country worst than any previous president in history.
He has used his power to prevent immigration laws from being enforced
Not to mention what he has done as far as shredding the constitution.

Guest 09-20-2015 04:46 AM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1116688)
Let's do some rounding 11.9 trillion round it to 12 trillion. So, 12 trillion times 2 is 24 trillion. 18 trillion plus 2 is 20 trillion. I could be wrong, but it looks like 4 trillion more would have to be added for the national debt to double under Obama. Do you have any other math problems for me?

Concerning the national debt, look what "W" was handed in first year. Then, look at what Obama was handed in first year. It is night, and day.

The two, or three, if you include the great recession, major items that contributed to national debt increase under "W" were the Iraq/Afgan wars, huge tax reduction, mostly to top wage earners, and the great recession. Obama inherited two of the three. The ACA has added to the National debt. Over 50% of the debt increase was a direct result of what Obama was handed.

This is not the blame game. Programs, that were in effect before each president was elected, added to the national debt. You can't place the blame on them for that. Neither did any of "W's" or Obama's policies create the great recession.

If all you want to do is demean Obama, be my guest.

I wonder where you learned your math. See the post above for the actual information linked to a gov website. Your magical math doesn't compute. You must be using some of that new modern math.

Guest 09-20-2015 04:48 AM

Kind of hard for Obama to work the figures when he never had a budget to work with. The only president to go through a whole term without a budget.

Guest 09-20-2015 04:54 AM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1116688)
Let's do some rounding 11.9 trillion round it to 12 trillion. So, 12 trillion times 2 is 24 trillion. 18 trillion plus 2 is 20 trillion. I could be wrong, but it looks like 4 trillion more would have to be added for the national debt to double under Obama. Do you have any other math problems for me?

Concerning the national debt, look what "W" was handed in first year. Then, look at what Obama was handed in first year. It is night, and day.

The two, or three, if you include the great recession, major items that contributed to national debt increase under "W" were the Iraq/Afgan wars, huge tax reduction, mostly to top wage earners, and the great recession. Obama inherited two of the three. The ACA has added to the National debt. Over 50% of the debt increase was a direct result of what Obama was handed.

This is not the blame game. Programs, that were in effect before each president was elected, added to the national debt. You can't place the blame on them for that. Neither did any of "W's" or Obama's policies create the great recession.

If all you want to do is demean Obama, be my guest.

Obama doesn't need any help at being "demeaned." The facts do it for him, without anyone's help. All the facts and evidence condemns him. Obama's debt by year, is double what Bush's was until 2008. The facts are rather blatant.

Guest 09-20-2015 08:42 AM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1114898)
This is my very first time looking and reading the Political Talk. WOW!

I thought it was going to be actual political discussions that friends could be having in a living room together. Not so at all, eh? It is just angry rantings and personal attacking each other and nonsense attacks of character of candidates.

There is so very little political climate on this group. It says in the "sticky" to have discussions as you would have in a face-to-face discussion. Any person talking to another face to face like so many of these exchanges would have their teeth rearranged, I would think.

Say what you want but it will be without the likes of me. Checking in was for curiousity but leaving is a pleasure. Just know your beliefs are not consistent with the great majority of Villagers - ones who are not angry about life.

This has pretty much been the case with every political forum that I've ever been on. It's terrible.

I didn't think I've ever agree with Bernie Sanders on anything but he's right on the money when he said,

Quote:

“Too often in our country, and I think both sides bear responsibility for us, there is to much shouting, at each other, there is too much making fun of each other.”

“It is easy to go out and talk with people who agree with you.”

“It is harder but not less important for us to try and communicate with those that do not agree with us.”
The politicians and especially, the media, have us all simply trying to defend "our side". Broadcasters like Rush Limbaugh and Rachel Maddow have made a fortune by demonizing the people that they don't agree with.

If you watched the CNN debate you heard that the purpose of most of the questions was not to get information about ideas, plans and philosophies, but rather to get the candidates fighting with one another.

The whole election process in this country is shot to hell.

Guest 09-20-2015 08:54 AM

We can all agree that such a huge debt is not good for America.
We can all agree that no matter what it was under which administration trying to assign blame (an Obama trend) does nothing to reduce the debt.

The real question for those who are Obama supporters is what has the debt done during Obama's term?

We know it has not gone down, so exactly what is it Obama has done that will put the national debt in a downward/reduction trend.

No blame allowed. It solves nothing except copping out allowed by the uninformed.

Take your time assembling the list of actions (:D).

Guest 09-20-2015 11:47 AM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1116836)
We can all agree that such a huge debt is not good for America.
We can all agree that no matter what it was under which administration trying to assign blame (an Obama trend) does nothing to reduce the debt.

The real question for those who are Obama supporters is what has the debt done during Obama's term?

We know it has not gone down, so exactly what is it Obama has done that will put the national debt in a downward/reduction trend.

No blame allowed. It solves nothing except copping out allowed by the uninformed.

Take your time assembling the list of actions (:D).

Running up a huge debt is just once more element of Obama's strategy to "transform" (transgender?) America. Making us go bust works quite nicely. Plus, it enables him to turn the turdpile over to his successor, while he's out playing golf.

Guest 09-20-2015 11:59 AM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1116688)
Let's do some rounding 11.9 trillion round it to 12 trillion. So, 12 trillion times 2 is 24 trillion. 18 trillion plus 2 is 20 trillion. I could be wrong, but it looks like 4 trillion more would have to be added for the national debt to double under Obama. Do you have any other math problems for me?

Concerning the national debt, look what "W" was handed in first year. Then, look at what Obama was handed in first year. It is night, and day.

The two, or three, if you include the great recession, major items that contributed to national debt increase under "W" were the Iraq/Afgan wars, huge tax reduction, mostly to top wage earners, and the great recession. Obama inherited two of the three. The ACA has added to the National debt. Over 50% of the debt increase was a direct result of what Obama was handed.

This is not the blame game. Programs, that were in effect before each president was elected, added to the national debt. You can't place the blame on them for that. Neither did any of "W's" or Obama's policies create the great recession.

If all you want to do is demean Obama, be my guest.

My intention was not to demean Obama. Just sick of everything being blamed on him. I figured someone would try to blame the wildfires on Obama.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.