National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush

Quote from Hawk2007 : There was absolutely nothing President Obama could do about the national debt when the democrat party held super-majorities in the House and Senate.

Are you the same poster who recently complained about calling tea party Teabaggers?

Tsk tsk

Quote from Danman114 : Is your multiplier any different if that money is spent by private individuals who earn it?

Depends. If the economy is in the shitter, private individuals aren't spening much money.

Quote : And people accuse libertarians of being Utopian.

And anti-government ideologues.

Quote : What is purchased is beside the point. The fact that you're borrowing in the name of your child, or taking it away from your neighbors is. You can replace 'Corvette' with 1/100th of jet/tank designed to fight enemies we had 20 years ago, or 1/10,000 a monument built to celebrate a former president, it doesn't reall matter.

Right, cause everything you disagree with is a waste of money....

Quote : Again besides the point. It could be $1 billion on an air plane, or $500,000 on a missle that simply gets test fired. The idea that these contribute to the health of an economy is a joke. it contributes the select few people who spend the borrowed/taxed money at the expense of everyone else.

Who spend the money, which provides income for everyone else.

No one claims military spending is for "the health of the economy," except that there won't be an economy if our enemies destroy us.

The point is, borrowing money from our kids is better than the economy collapsing.

Quote from DarthSaver : Absolutely! Under Obama, they now spend the money wisely like investing $3k on mind readers and $75k on bike building exercises during their scaled down, understated "conferences".

If those kinds of expenditures are such a waste of money, why do top corporations engage in similar exercises?

Quote from 124nic8 : If those kinds of expenditures are such a waste of money, why do top corporations engage in similar exercises?

Please link to taxpayer funded corporations that engage in similar exercises. What private companies do with their time and money is none of my concern.

Quote from DarthSaver : Yeah, evil rich bastards!! Roll Call's Top Ten Richest Congressmen Rep. Michael McCaul (R, Texas) - $294.21 Million Rep. Darrell Issa (R, CA) - $220.40 Million Sen. John Kerry (D, Mass) - $193.07 Million Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, W. Vir.) - $81.63 Million Sen. Mark Warner (D, Vir.) - $76.30 Million Rep. Jared Polis (D, Colo) - $65.91 Million Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D, New Jersey) - $55.07 Million Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D, Conn.) - $52.93 Million Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D, Calif) - $45.39 Million Rep. Vern Buchanan (R, Florida) - $44.39 Million

So top ten

Dem = 193 + 81 + 76 + 66 + 55 + 53 + 45 = 575

GOP = 294 + 220 + 44 = 658

Yet you bolded the Dems. How cute!

Quote from TRNT : Are you the same poster who recently complained about calling tea party Teabaggers? Tsk tsk

Are you comparing Democrats with teabagging? Who am I to argue?

Quote from TRNT : So top ten Dem = 193 + 81 + 76 + 66 + 55 + 53 + 45 = 575 GOP = 294 + 220 + 44 = 658 Yet you bolded the Dems. How cute!

You failed at math. How cute

On that winning note, I will refrain from posting in TP for another year. It has been fun "schooling" (a term so eloquently used by a senior member here) the left. It seemed less of a challenge than in the past. Once the Obama glow wore off, i guess so did the desire to intelligently defend him and his administration. Have fun, see you in 2013!

Quote from 124nic8 : Depends. If the economy is in the shitter, private individuals aren't spening much money.

So we should spend money for the sake of spending money? What if there is an important reason why people aren't spending money like they used to? Should that be ignored and made up for by the federal government?

Quote from 124nic8 : And anti-government ideologues.

That doesn't sound like any libertarian I know. Most like government, they just want to keep it small and manageable.

Quote from 124nic8 : Right, cause everything you disagree with is a waste of money...

Again, your focusing on the spending, and not the fact that your GDP is measuring something that is either A. Borrowed for your kids (if you have any) or B. Taken from your neighbor.

There's nothing that it could be spent on that changes this fact, nor the fact that your counting money from these sources as part of a GDP figure where the higher the number supposedly the better off we are!

Quote from 124nic8 : Who spend the money, which provides income for everyone else. No one claims military spending is for "the health of the economy," except that there won't be an economy if our enemies destroy us. The point is, borrowing money from our kids is better than the economy collapsing.

I love seeing the neo-con come out in liberals. As far as 'borrowing money from our kids is better than the economy collapsing', I disagree. Our children (then again, I have one) didn't ask for the mess we created in this economy, and the debt we are burdening them with will be an awful sight (unless they do the smart thing and default).

Quote from DarthSaver : Are you comparing Democrats with teabagging? Who am I to argue? You failed at math. How cute

It takes a special person to make that argument. And you are that special person.

And it takes a special person to deflect by pointing to typos. Again you are that...err....special person. You must be VERY special.

Quote from DarthSaver : On that winning note, I will refrain from posting in TP for another year. It has been fun "schooling" (a term so eloquently used by a senior member here) the left. It seemed less of a challenge than in the past. Once the Obama glow wore off, i guess so did the desire to intelligently defend him and his administration. Have fun, see you in 2013!

Indeed, very special.

Quote from TRNT : So top ten Dem = 193 + 81 + 76 + 66 + 55 + 53 + 45 = 575 GOP = 294 + 220 + 44 = 658 Yet you bolded the Dems. How cute!

nice math. obamanomics

Quote from 124nic8 : Which included stimulus spending.... Almost all the experts disagree with you. Many major banks were on the verge of collapse. In history? You need to re-take your American history courses cause you weren't paying attention. Economic growth has most definitely been lower that now in US history. And it would be much lower now had debt growth not stimulated the economy. Are you really that ignorant about the state of the economy in 2008?

What a bunch of nonfacts you are spouting.


A post WWII graph of economic growth would show Barack Obama at the bottom of all post WWII presidents. A post WWII graph of deficit spending would show Barack Obama at the top of the deficit graph.

People like you like to make bogus claims to disregard these facts. I am not surprised you do not like them. The state of the economy and the state of the budget in 2012 will cause major problems for Mr. Romney as he has to reduce spending from its incredibly high levels in 2012.


The CBO, in January 2009, had already accounted for TARP spending. What they failed to account for was Obama's doubling of welfare spending to his base of lazy people.

Quote from 124nic8 : Depends. If the economy is in the shitter, private individuals aren't spening much money. Who spend the money, which provides income for everyone else. No one claims military spending is for "the health of the economy," except that there won't be an economy if our enemies destroy us.

People like you of course keep the economy in the shitter by discouraging private commerce as you take money from hardworking people and give it to your friends.

Quote from Dr. J : wait, didn't Obama sign extensions to the "bush" tax cuts? I guess that means those fall on his head, now, right?

No, he was forced to do that by a republican congress.

Quote from DarthSaver : Please link to taxpayer funded corporations that engage in similar exercises. What private companies do with their time and money is none of my concern.

What is of our concern is effective organizational management.

Are you denying that top corporations are good at effective organizational management?

Why shouldn't government practice similar effective organizational management?