Originally Posted by Guest

Sorry it just does not work that way.

You do not get to come on here and just make accusations and say you saw it on TV.

Lets start with just ONE of your accusations and we can work through them one at a time.

"."the auto industry which George Bush's presidency had led to ruin, almost bankruptcy. "

THAT is your quote and your accusations. Back it up somehow...tell us how. YOU cannot just make statements like that.

Now, hoping you can do two things at a time. I asked you to read about the CRC act and how it affected the banking industry crisis. DID YOU READ IT ?

Or, are you going to continue your ranting and raving with nothing to back anything up.

Oh and fair warning...links from either the right or left side of the aisle..you know the links all over the internet that support ONLY one side or another.....Read the Economist, a bit liberal but pretty good stuff there. The Wall St Journal, and those type of links.

PLEASE stop making any accusations until you back up what you have already posted. You are mouthing the old wives tales from political sites and politicians that have nothing to do with facts.

I do believe that I am not the one ranting and raving. And if your insurance is too high, change your carrier like most people do.

Originally Posted by Guest

You mentioned the Iraq war, and I see nobody debating the entry.

HOWEVER, HOW and WHY we left in such haste, which by every military account I have read or that is available was the largest single factor in the explosion of ISIS and savage terrorism in the ME.

I also would request some documented links, proof or something that tells us that the increase in poverty programs you mention are a result of the 2008 recession. You cannot just say things and make accusations with no basis and you have none, nor will find any.

And any analysis, good or bad will need to wait until the economic albatross called ACA is totally implemented

How about some documentation backing up the statement that we left Iraq in haste? Before you go on a wild goose chase read this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdr...oops_from_Iraq

"W" signed an agreement with Maliki that we would leave on a certain date. Maliki wouldn't budge from that date. The majority of US citizens wanted us out of there. What haste are you talking about?

Concerning the increase in poverty programs resulting from the 2008 recession, how about using some common sense. Food stamps are based upon income, and number of dependents. When people are out of work, their income is going to go down (do you need support for that statement). So, many are going to qualify for food stamps. The extension to 99 weeks unemployment is a damn good indication that these people weren't getting new jobs in one big hurry. Many of the jobs that people were forced to take were low paying jobs. Many people dropped out of the job market. One would assume that many were second person in a household. When the family income went down in low income families, they qualify for food stamps on an ongoing basis. Why is that so hard to understand?

What poverty programs did Obama put into place? If he didn't start any new programs, what could have increase the spending in the existing programs? What else could it be other than 2008 recession?

Originally Posted by Guest

How about some documentation backing up the statement that we left Iraq in haste? Before you go on a wild goose chase read this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdr...oops_from_Iraq

"W" signed an agreement with Maliki that we would leave on a certain date. Maliki wouldn't budge from that date. The majority of US citizens wanted us out of there. What haste are you talking about?

Concerning the increase in poverty programs resulting from the 2008 recession, how about using some common sense. Food stamps are based upon income, and number of dependents. When people are out of work, their income is going to go down (do you need support for that statement). So, many are going to qualify for food stamps. The extension to 99 weeks unemployment is a damn good indication that these people weren't getting new jobs in one big hurry. Many of the jobs that people were forced to take were low paying jobs. Many people dropped out of the job market. One would assume that many were second person in a household. When the family income went down in low income families, they qualify for food stamps on an ongoing basis. Why is that so hard to understand?

What poverty programs did Obama put into place? If he didn't start any new programs, what could have increase the spending in the existing programs? What else could it be other than 2008 recession?

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

I do believe that I am not the one ranting and raving. And if your insurance is too high, change your carrier like most people do.

I am not the poster with the auto insurance....

I am the poster who has asked so many times for your to begin to back up your accusations and the FIRST one of those is this...

""."the auto industry which George Bush's presidency had led to ruin, almost bankruptcy. "

I am doing nothing but calling you out on your stupid unsubstantiated accusations. If there is a point to be made,....fine, but you just throw things out.

I have been waiting for quite some time on this question to be answered and hear your validation with links etc, and then I have many more for you on your absurd comments.

Originally Posted by Guest

I am not the poster with the auto insurance....

I am the poster who has asked so many times for your to begin to back up your accusations and the FIRST one of those is this...

""."the auto industry which George Bush's presidency had led to ruin, almost bankruptcy. "

I am doing nothing but calling you out on your stupid unsubstantiated accusations. If there is a point to be made,....fine, but you just throw things out.

I have been waiting for quite some time on this question to be answered and hear your validation with links etc, and then I have many more for you on your absurd comments.

You won't live long enough!

Originally Posted by Guest

You won't live long enough!

Well, that poster and his unfounded accusations will need to deal with me responding to all of his posts I recognize with my questions. I would expect the same if I just came on here and made such statements.

He takes the spin for a biased site and then spreads it here with such terrible generality and expects to be respected for that.

Originally Posted by Guest

Well, that poster and his unfounded accusations will need to deal with me responding to all of his posts I recognize with my questions. I would expect the same if I just came on here and made such statements.

He takes the spin for a biased site and then spreads it here with such terrible generality and expects to be respected for that.

Liberals spend a lot of time with their heads buried in the sand, consequently, they are always showing their butts on forms like this one.

[QUOTE=Guest;1115914]Well, that poster and his unfounded accusations will need to deal with me responding to all of his posts I recognize with my questions. QUOTE]

He will have to DEAl with you? Sounds like a challenge to a fight to me. Is it going to be on Main Street at High Noon with flyswatters?

[QUOTE=Guest;1116004]

Originally Posted by Guest

Well, that poster and his unfounded accusations will need to deal with me responding to all of his posts I recognize with my questions. QUOTE]

He will have to DEAl with you? Sounds like a challenge to a fight to me. Is it going to be on Main Street at High Noon with flyswatters?

You really need to work on your reading comprehension A LOT.

I SAID "...need to me responding to all his posts..."

Where are you posting from...Cody's ? It sure sounds like it.

And those little doo dads.....you must be so proud. I recall in 7th grade, some guys drawing that "Kilroy was here" signs. My first thought when I see them

Originally Posted by Guest

National Debt 12/31/2008 = $10,699,804,864,612.13

National Debt 9/15/2015 = $18,151,049,785,935.02

TreasuryDirert.gov

You can do the math, I think.

The Great Recession was only that because Obama made it last as long as he could. Any other president in history could have/did better at the economy than this incompetent. He wasn't given anything. He ran with Hope and Change. IT's all his and he owns it. He knew exactly what he was getting into and he had plans to hose it up. He hates America and anyone can see it that isn't blind. How many recessions or depressions have we had? How long did it take for us to rebound? Nope, blame it on Bush all you want, but it's Bush that everyone would rather have in there right now than Obama. Check out the polls.

I have no problem with math, and no problem with logic. I will be more than happy to listen to your reasoning as to why the debt incurred between 1/1/09 thru 9/30/09 should be placed upon Obama's shoulders. What did he do prior becoming president that caused the great recession? That snowball was pushed down the hill in 9/08, and didn't hit the bottom until 7/09.

He hates America and anyone that says that is a moron.

Originally Posted by Guest

I have no problem with math, and no problem with logic. I will be more than happy to listen to your reasoning as to why the debt incurred between 1/1/09 thru 9/30/09 should be placed upon Obama's shoulders. What did he do prior becoming president that caused the great recession? That snowball was pushed down the hill in 9/08, and didn't hit the bottom until 7/09.

He hates America and anyone that says that is a moron.

So, Obama wasn't president in '09? I think that you are just trying to squirm out of the fact that you were wrong with your numbers. Like I said, and I will say again, Obama has or will have doubled the national debt during his presidency. He didn't have a budget in how many years? So, it is impossible for him to balance a budget. He has had a deficit every year, adding to the national debt, and now you on the left think he has accomplished a major victory because his deficit for the past year was supposedly less than a trillion bucks. A deficit is still a deficit, and everyone has them. No president has paid down on the national debt since Eisenhower.

You can blame Bush for a recession but Bush also had one after 9/11 and it didn't take the country 8 years to recover. This administration has taken longer than any other to recover from a recession or depression. Obama is going to go down in history as probably the worst leader of any presidents, including Carter.
And yes, I do believe he hates America. I have seen nothing to suggest otherwise. And it doesn't help any when you have liberals always defending his inept or purposely bad decisions. He is a failed liberal experiment, with the sole purpose of moving America into socialism. He is so bad that he couldn't even accomplish that in totality.

Originally Posted by Guest

National Debt 12/31/2008 = $10,699,804,864,612.13

National Debt 9/15/2015 = $18,151,049,785,935.02

TreasuryDirert.gov

You can do the math, I think.

The Great Recession was only that because Obama made it last as long as he could. Any other president in history could have/did better at the economy than this incompetent. He wasn't given anything. He ran with Hope and Change. IT's all his and he owns it. He knew exactly what he was getting into and he had plans to hose it up. He hates America and anyone can see it that isn't blind. How many recessions or depressions have we had? How long did it take for us to rebound? Nope, blame it on Bush all you want, but it's Bush that everyone would rather have in there right now than Obama. Check out the polls.

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

So, Obama wasn't president in '09? I think that you are just trying to squirm out of the fact that you were wrong with your numbers. Like I said, and I will say again, Obama has or will have doubled the national debt during his presidency. He didn't have a budget in how many years? So, it is impossible for him to balance a budget. He has had a deficit every year, adding to the national debt, and now you on the left think he has accomplished a major victory because his deficit for the past year was supposedly less than a trillion bucks. A deficit is still a deficit, and everyone has them. No president has paid down on the national debt since Eisenhower.

You can blame Bush for a recession but Bush also had one after 9/11 and it didn't take the country 8 years to recover. This administration has taken longer than any other to recover from a recession or depression. Obama is going to go down in history as probably the worst leader of any presidents, including Carter.
And yes, I do believe he hates America. I have seen nothing to suggest otherwise. And it doesn't help any when you have liberals always defending his inept or purposely bad decisions. He is a failed liberal experiment, with the sole purpose of moving America into socialism. He is so bad that he couldn't even accomplish that in totality.

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

So, you are saying that the government website is wrong? Sounds like you are desperately reaching for the spin button. Any excuse to pardon the worst president in history. At least Carter can pass peacefully knowing that he no longer holds that honor/disgrace.