Disgusted with obama administration - Part II
-
wkfan
The words "Joe Biden' and 'POTUS' in the same sentence sends chills down my spine.gut;1440157 wrote:Two words: Joe Biden.
Although, despite being a complete idiot, I believe Biden would be a more effective POTUS than Obama. -
BoatShoes
Actually, no. Federal Government Spending as a percentage of GDP is now at a lower level than it was during the end of Ronald Reagan's first term and dropping at a faster rate.gut;1440156 wrote:That's because most of the above is bullshit. And giving Obama credit for the "fastest rate of deficit reduction' is pure retard. Govt spending is at among it's highest levels of GDP ever, probably behind only the Great Depression. In fact, he's mainly shrunk the tax base while growing spending, and tried to pile it all on the rich. It's not only ineffective and stupid, it's divisive.
Also worth pointing out; See that sharp drop during the end of Reagan's first term? What also happened there??? The FED cut interest rates...which is crucial (and you've ignored in the past). Barack Obama has faced zero interest rates and unconventional monetary policy since before he was even in office. Volcker just cut interest rates and viola, GDP rose at a much faster rate than spending. Ben Bernanke can't pull that off with Quantitative Easing despite its being better than nothing.
Furthermore, the U.S. federal government spent 45% of GDP on WWII so we're not even near the all time high and now even lower than during the beginning of the Reagan years and dropping at even a more rapid pace than in the lean years of the 90's. -
jmog
You know what I see on that graph?BoatShoes;1440287 wrote:Actually, no. Federal Government Spending as a percentage of GDP is now at a lower level than it was during the end of Ronald Reagan's first term and dropping at a faster rate.
Also worth pointing out; See that sharp drop during the end of Reagan's first term? What also happened there??? The FED cut interest rates...which is crucial (and you've ignored in the past). Barack Obama has faced zero interest rates and unconventional monetary policy since before he was even in office. Volcker just cut interest rates and viola, GDP rose at a much faster rate than spending. Ben Bernanke can't pull that off with Quantitative Easing despite its being better than nothing.
Furthermore, the U.S. federal government spent 45% of GDP on WWII so we're not even near the all time high and now even lower than during the beginning of the Reagan years and dropping at even a more rapid pace than in the lean years of the 90's.
From 1981 through 1995 the democrats controlled the House. The spending as a % of GDP started at 20.5% and never dropped, only went up and eventually was at 22% with peak at 24%
From 1995 through 2007 the republicans held control of the House. The spending started at that same 22%, dropped to as low as 18.8%, and they left it at 21%, was NEVER higher than when they got it at 22%.
The Democrats take back control in 2007 through 2011. In that time it went from 21% to as high as 25.5% which is where they left it in 2011.
The republicans take back over in 2011, since 2011 it has gone from 25.5% to 23.5% and still falling.
I wonder who has control of the purse strings, the President or the HoR (the Senate and President must sign the bills the house puts out of course)?
Boat, to give credit to Obama for the drop from 25.5% down to 23.5% is a show of a lack of understand of the Constitution and how the system works.
It is quite obvious, when looking at which party has controlled the HoR and the spending as a % of GDP, which party is the spend spend spend party and which party is not. -
BoatShoes
I didn't give Obama "credit" for it per se....just simply saying that Gut shouldn't be so upset by what has happened on his watch based upon his deficit-debt skullduggery.jmog;1440386 wrote:You know what I see on that graph?
From 1981 through 1995 the democrats controlled the House. The spending as a % of GDP started at 20.5% and never dropped, only went up and eventually was at 22% with peak at 24%
From 1995 through 2007 the republicans held control of the House. The spending started at that same 22%, dropped to as low as 18.8%, and they left it at 21%, was NEVER higher than when they got it at 22%.
The Democrats take back control in 2007 through 2011. In that time it went from 21% to as high as 25.5% which is where they left it in 2011.
The republicans take back over in 2011, since 2011 it has gone from 25.5% to 23.5% and still falling.
I wonder who has control of the purse strings, the President or the HoR (the Senate and President must sign the bills the house puts out of course)?
Boat, to give credit to Obama for the drop from 25.5% down to 23.5% is a show of a lack of understand of the Constitution and how the system works.
It is quite obvious, when looking at which party has controlled the HoR and the spending as a % of GDP, which party is the spend spend spend party and which party is not.
Gut and others here (including yourself in other posts) are allowed to blame Obama for the debt/deficit/spending/economy/unemployment year after year and now that this graph shows convincingly that the government spending goes down now we care about congress...and here I thought I was just applying the same rules as everyone else here???
I don't suppose you're so eager to give alll of the credit for the declining worker/population ratio and perpetual mass unemployment on those same Republicans now are you
Also...applying Gut's Green Lantern Theory of Leadership (TM), why weren't those Republican President's able to fight off those big spending liberals??? Reagan the Great Leader couldn't stop those awful liberals from spending??? WHY DIDN"T HE LEAD??
Gut...you should speak with Jmog...Jmog seems to disagree and think that our LEADERs in the presidency are at the mercy of the politicians in Congress. You guys hash this out.
In actuality, the actual correlation of this graph...and Milton Friedman talked about this before he passed...is not that Republicans are truly disciplined spenders as you're suggesting but that government spending as a percentage of gdp goes down the most or is restrained during divided government. It rose at a high rate when the Republicans controlled all three branches as well only to taper off a bit when the Democrats got some power back.
In fact, it would appear that Reagan and Bush I and Bush II accommodated those big spending libs in Congress while Clinton and Obama were dragged to fiscal responsibility by those righteous republicans....based upon your reasoning.
So, if you want Less Spending...I guess the way to go is Democrat President and Republican Congress???
But I doubt you'll be voting for Hillary Clinton and Jim Renacci/Portman next time.
Bottom Line...We've seen drastic deficit and deficit reduction while we still have massive unemployment and it is going to make our society less wealthier in the long and short run...Obama and Congress both deserve blame because they are being deficit scolds at absolutely the worst time. -
gut
You completely ignore, and continue to ignore, Obama campaigned on a budget calling for 25% spending of GDP into perpetuity. You're also diminishing the real size of that difference - 3 or 4%, at least, is $500B+. Of course, we could know this just by looking at the deficts.BoatShoes;1440416 wrote: Gut and others here (including yourself in other posts) are allowed to blame Obama for the debt/deficit/spending/economy/unemployment year after year and now that this graph shows convincingly that the government spending goes down now we care about congress...and here I thought I was just applying the same rules as everyone else here???
You completely ignore that the bailouts and stimulus have become permanent spending increases.
And what do interest rates have to do with it? No, please just stop. Don't attempt to offer some baseless nonsensical theory.
By the way, as for your "Green Lantern Theory", how many times did a POTUS & Congress fail to pass a budget in the 60 years before Obama? It's funny how you try to dismiss the obvious disinterest and complete failure of Obama to lead. -
jmog
Way to obfuscate and again show a lack of understanding of the Constitutional powers vested to each branch of government.BoatShoes;1440416 wrote:I didn't give Obama "credit" for it per se....just simply saying that Gut shouldn't be so upset by what has happened on his watch based upon his deficit-debt skullduggery.
Gut and others here (including yourself in other posts) are allowed to blame Obama for the debt/deficit/spending/economy/unemployment year after year and now that this graph shows convincingly that the government spending goes down now we care about congress...and here I thought I was just applying the same rules as everyone else here???
I don't suppose you're so eager to give alll of the credit for the declining worker/population ratio and perpetual mass unemployment on those same Republicans now are you
Also...applying Gut's Green Lantern Theory of Leadership (TM), why weren't those Republican President's able to fight off those big spending liberals??? Reagan the Great Leader couldn't stop those awful liberals from spending??? WHY DIDN"T HE LEAD??
Gut...you should speak with Jmog...Jmog seems to disagree and think that our LEADERs in the presidency are at the mercy of the politicians in Congress. You guys hash this out.
In actuality, the actual correlation of this graph...and Milton Friedman talked about this before he passed...is not that Republicans are truly disciplined spenders as you're suggesting but that government spending as a percentage of gdp goes down the most or is restrained during divided government. It rose at a high rate when the Republicans controlled all three branches as well only to taper off a bit when the Democrats got some power back.
In fact, it would appear that Reagan and Bush I and Bush II accommodated those big spending libs in Congress while Clinton and Obama were dragged to fiscal responsibility by those righteous republicans....based upon your reasoning.
So, if you want Less Spending...I guess the way to go is Democrat President and Republican Congress???
But I doubt you'll be voting for Hillary Clinton and Jim Renacci/Portman next time.
Bottom Line...We've seen drastic deficit and deficit reduction while we still have massive unemployment and it is going to make our society less wealthier in the long and short run...Obama and Congress both deserve blame because they are being deficit scolds at absolutely the worst time. -
QuakerOats"In the real world, when you cover up four murders after the fact, you likely go to jail. In government, you retire with dignity and run for president with full media support.
Up until yesterday, that was the Benghazi scenario following the death of four Americans including our ambassador to Libya.
The Obama administration has lied, stonewalled, bullied, and intimidated – the true marks of an open and transparent administration. And, with a few notable exceptions, the American media haven’t just let them get away it. Heck, they’ve helped."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/09/liberal-media-spin-benghazi-scandal-to-protect-team-obama/#ixzz2SolCBAGn
Stunning. Instead of doing its job as watchdog of government, the media has become the lapdog of the obama administration. A national embarrasment; a professional disgrace; a treasonous crime.
Change we can believe in ... -
gut
Washington Post was saying the hearings shed some new light on it, but there was "no proof the video wasn't what the intelligence community believed"QuakerOats;1440826 wrote:And, with a few notable exceptions, the American media haven’t just let them get away it.
The problem with that logic is it unfairly shifts the burden of proof to disproving a negative. It's pretty clear there was no real basis or evidence to blame the video or demonstration, so the REAL question WaPo should be demanding to be answered is how and who sent Susan Rice to push that narrative. -
BoatShoes
1. So you are falling on what Obama campaigned on as opposed to what has actually happened?? He and Jack Lew also proposed the Sequester did he not?? Republicans have given him the credit for that idea. He also supported eliminating the high-end Bush tax cuts, did he not?? He also did not fight to keep the payroll tax cut from expiring did he not?gut;1440775 wrote:You completely ignore, and continue to ignore, Obama campaigned on a budget calling for 25% spending of GDP into perpetuity. You're also diminishing the real size of that difference - 3 or 4%, at least, is $500B+. Of course, we could know this just by looking at the deficts.
You completely ignore that the bailouts and stimulus have become permanent spending increases.
And what do interest rates have to do with it? No, please just stop. Don't attempt to offer some baseless nonsensical theory.
By the way, as for your "Green Lantern Theory", how many times did a POTUS & Congress fail to pass a budget in the 60 years before Obama? It's funny how you try to dismiss the obvious disinterest and complete failure of Obama to lead.
So he did all of these other concrete things beyond a budget proposal that have resulted in very rapid deficit reduction.
2. The stimulus spending and the bailout spending were indeed eliminated...you just consider them permanent because government spending grows with gdp. Look at the Graph. Federal Government spending has decreased as a percentage of gdp.
3. Interest rates have a lot to do with it. I find it kind of amazing that you would say such a thing. It is neither baseless nor non-sensical and fully embraced and understood by the Federal Reserve. A very clear recent example is when the ECB raised rates despite a continuing depressed economy and it proved to be a terrible choice.
4. The non-passage of a budget is immaterial. Has anything changed since the Senate passed a budget??? Nothing at all has changed. Not a thing. It is immaterial. In actuality the choice to not pass a controversial budget by Harry Reid...and instead to rely on continuing budget resolutions turned out to be evidence of good political leadership on his part at least (if not Obama's) to choose not to pass it and secure a Democrat majority in the Senate in 2012.
Now that the Senate has passed a budget...it can hardly get to conference committee and there is near zero chance of compromise anyway. -
BoatShoes
Please take your argument to your fellow conservatives on here that Obama had no real role in the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, the $1 trillion deficits since 2010, The Debt Ceiling Debacle...record levels of debt....because all of that really falls on the Congress per the Constitution.jmog;1440817 wrote:Way to obfuscate and again show a lack of understanding of the Constitutional powers vested to each branch of government.
What do you think Quaker?? Jmog's logic indicates the record levels of spending and additional debt ceiling increases in the last two years all fall on the Congress and in no way fall on Obama. -
BoatShoes
I will say this with regard to Benghazi.......Why have we not heard any questions in these hearings trying figuring out who exactly scrubbed the Talking Points?QuakerOats;1440826 wrote:"In the real world, when you cover up four murders after the fact, you likely go to jail. In government, you retire with dignity and run for president with full media support.
Up until yesterday, that was the Benghazi scenario following the death of four Americans including our ambassador to Libya.
The Obama administration has lied, stonewalled, bullied, and intimidated – the true marks of an open and transparent administration. And, with a few notable exceptions, the American media haven’t just let them get away it. Heck, they’ve helped."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/09/liberal-media-spin-benghazi-scandal-to-protect-team-obama/#ixzz2SolCBAGn
Stunning. Instead of doing its job as watchdog of government, the media has become the lapdog of the obama administration. A national embarrasment; a professional disgrace; a treasonous crime.
Change we can believe in ...
The State Department official on the ground (Hicks) thought it was not because of a video...the CIA seemed the to think it wasn't a video....who then exactly decided to change the Talking Points and based on what justification?
If they think it was Hillary then Subpoena her and ask!
I feel like the questions by the GOPers have been rather lame at these things... -
jmog
You are turning into a real piece of work BS, you used to be tolerable on here as you tried to back things up even when you disagreed. Now its just attacks and sarcasm.BoatShoes;1440857 wrote:Please take your argument to your fellow conservatives on here that Obama had no real role in the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, the $1 trillion deficits since 2010, The Debt Ceiling Debacle...record levels of debt....because all of that really falls on the Congress per the Constitution.
What do you think Quaker?? Jmog's logic indicates the record levels of spending and additional debt ceiling increases in the last two years all fall on the Congress and in no way fall on Obama.
If you actually read what I typed, I said the HoR controls the purse strings but the Senate and POTUS still have to sign off (Senate by vote, POTUS by signature) on budgets.
So yes, in general the budgets are the responsibility of the HoR.
From when the Ds took over the HoR in 2007, the deficit went from:
2007-$161 billion
2008-$458 billion
2009-$1,413 billion
2010-$1,294 billion
2011-$1,300 billion
Then the Rs took over the HoR in 2011...
2012-$1,087 billion
2013-$973 billion
2014-$744 billion
Of course 2013 and 2014 are current budgets/estimates.
That trend follows the last couple decades when the HoR switches party. This is a solid trend, Clinton gets too much credit for "balancing the budget" when in reality he got forced into it by the Republican HoR.
Oh, and by the way, I have said this for YEARS, not just now so don't try to pull the "oh sure now you say its the HoR" card on me. -
majorspark
"I can't recall." "I have no recollection." "I don't remember."BoatShoes;1440896 wrote:If they think it was Hillary then Subpoena her and ask! -
BoatShoes
For starters...just to clear what I think out of the way first. The fiscally irresponsible thing to do at this time is to reduce the deficit because it means higher unemployment and slower growth when the Fed can't lower interest rates to offset the fiscal contraction like they did in the 90's! So in reality, the Democrats, Obama and the Republicans are all truly fiscally irresponsible seeking to close the deficit under current conditions.jmog;1440897 wrote:You are turning into a real piece of work BS, you used to be tolerable on here as you tried to back things up even when you disagreed. Now its just attacks and sarcasm.
If you actually read what I typed, I said the HoR controls the purse strings but the Senate and POTUS still have to sign off (Senate by vote, POTUS by signature) on budgets.
So yes, in general the budgets are the responsibility of the HoR.
From when the Ds took over the HoR in 2007, the deficit went from:
2007-$161 billion
2008-$458 billion
2009-$1,413 billion
2010-$1,294 billion
2011-$1,300 billion
Then the Rs took over the HoR in 2011...
2012-$1,087 billion
2013-$973 billion
2014-$744 billion
Of course 2013 and 2014 are current budgets/estimates.
That trend follows the last couple decades when the HoR switches party. This is a solid trend, Clinton gets too much credit for "balancing the budget" when in reality he got forced into it by the Republican HoR.
Oh, and by the way, I have said this for YEARS, not just now so don't try to pull the "oh sure now you say its the HoR" card on me.
But onto your points.
Where did I attack you or anyone else here??
Sarcasm yes but I have always intermingled a mix of sarcasm in my posts from time to time since day one. If I am so intolerable to you, put me on the ignore list like TK451 or whatever.
Bottom line is that I think your argument fails to take into account the parliamentary realities that befuddle our presidential system (that is, despite having a separate executive branch, Congress + President really functions as a kind of dysfunctional parliament). And, I thought sarcasm might be worthy to see if I might engineer a debate between you and a fellow conservative making the opposite point...thought it might change things up between me debating X OhioChatter Libertarian/Conservative for once.
Do we really want to say we're going to give solely the House the credit for that deficit reduction...when a lot of it is due to tax raises? Does that make sense? Part of the reason those budgets are going down is because of Tax Raises...Should I come to the conclusion that because the Republicans in the House primarily control the purse per the Constitution that they are Just as much the Tax Raising Party???
No...I should not...because it was a result of the President forcing their hand...the de facto parlimentary leader of the democrats.
The House has been just as unable to get their real agenda through because of the Democratic Senate and the Democratic President as the President has been unable to get his agenda through.
The divided government is the key. Not Republicans holding the House.
(Additionally you underestimate how much of all that is due to the economy and really has nothing to do with either party as much of the deficit was due to automatic stabilizers which didn't have congressional appropriations and lower tax revenue but I digress on that point).
But surely, somebody else on here is going to dispute what you say...I've been arguing with others on here who would disagree that budgets are primarily the responsibility of the HoR. That really hasn't been the case since Calvin Coolidge started the Budget Bureau.
You're still being too generous to Republicans anyway on your standard of fiscal responsibility by conveniently leaving out some years and losing the forest for the Trees. You're still discounting the fact that when the Republicans controlled everything...who you are laying the claim to fiscal virtue on... exactly the opposite happened when the didn't have democrats in the other chambers blocking their agenda. You know, the "undoing of the Clinton Surplus" and all that irony.
Do you not remember Paul Ryan et al getting Alan Greenspan to bless their Tax Cuts and debt financed wars because they didn't want to "Pay down the debt too fast"??? -
BoatShoes
Truthfully I didn't remember them asking her that specifically. Are you saying they did??majorspark;1440899 wrote:"I can't recall." "I have no recollection." "I don't remember."
If she didn't really know, somebody must...Surely Rep. Issa and company can find out who can't they? Do you not think that has not gotten as much attention as the idea that forces could have stopped it?
None of the Reps asked the Hicks guy if they got the impression that Hillary or Obama or Rice were lying. That could have been asked.
If Hillary did know who scrubbed it...She lied to Congress and I feel like Rep. Issa and company should be able to find that out.
Personally feel like, if they're going to continue this thing, it'd be worthwhile to try and get Hillary's right hand woman (whatever her name is that talked to Hicks) on the Hill. -
majorspark
I was making a Whitewater joke. And no they did not ask her if she ordered the talking points changed. She was only asked if she selected or was consulted on Rice speaking on the matter.BoatShoes;1440919 wrote:Truthfully I didn't remember them asking her that specifically. Are you saying they did??
Never underestimate the size of Hillary's testicle lock box. She can get a lot of testicles in there.BoatShoes;1440919 wrote:If she didn't really know, somebody must...Surely Rep. Issa and company can find out who can't they? Do you not think that has not gotten as much attention as the idea that forces could have stopped it?
None of the Reps asked the Hicks guy if they got the impression that Hillary or Obama or Rice were lying. That could have been asked.
She was only asked if she selected Rice or was consulted on her selection. It would depend on what your definition of lying to congress would be. You got to be careful with the Clintons. It can all hinge on the word "is".BoatShoes;1440919 wrote:If Hillary did know who scrubbed it...She lied to Congress
They should be able to but they would like to keep their testicles.BoatShoes;1440919 wrote:I feel like Rep. Issa and company should be able to find that out. -
HitsRus
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?????I can't recall." "I have no recollection." "I don't remember." -
gut
This is funny. Obama proposed the sequester BUT HAD NO INTENTION OF IMPLEMENTING. That's the extent of his "budget cuts" that aren't simply unacceptable proposals designed to become campaign talking points. Or did you forget all the bluffing and posturing over the sequester, and the doom & gloom? I'll give Obama some credit for the sequester cuts - in this case his incompetence accomplished something in spite of himself!BoatShoes;1440854 wrote:1. So you are falling on what Obama campaigned on as opposed to what has actually happened?? He and Jack Lew also proposed the Sequester did he not?? Republicans have given him the credit for that idea. He also supported eliminating the high-end Bush tax cuts, did he not?? He also did not fight to keep the payroll tax cut from expiring did he not?
See, I don't know if you are being academically dishonest intentionally, or are simply ignorant. Yes, go read your charts and see if you can mine an honest, valid insight for a change. You are flat wrong. Trillion dollar bailouts and stimulus in 2008/2009 - yet where is the corresponding big drop in 2010/11 with the supposed elimination of that spending?BoatShoes;1440854 wrote:2. The stimulus spending and the bailout spending were indeed eliminated...you just consider them permanent because government spending grows with gdp. Look at the Graph. Federal Government spending has decreased as a percentage of gdp.
I can't take you seriously when you try to credit Obama for spending cuts and reductions from a baseline that includes what was supposed to be one-time, extraordinary spending. That's a lot of lipstick on the pig when spending as a % of GDP is STILL at its highest level in 30 years and it's NOT ENOUGH for Obama.
Interest rates have very little to do with govt spending. You're just making garbage up, or pulling it from someone speaking politically and not economically. If anything the lower rates are making the deficit arbitrarily lower by reducing interest on the debt. You're saying govt spending is higher because interest rates are low? That's plain retarded - that's not a personal attack, that's just pure stupidity.
If you expect people to continue to respond to you then step up your game. You're starting to sound a lot like a Baghdad Bob Gibbs puppet. -
jmog
Wrong again...but why should we expect any less?BoatShoes;1440915 wrote:For starters...just to clear what I think out of the way first. The fiscally irresponsible thing to do at this time is to reduce the deficit because it means higher unemployment and slower growth when the Fed can't lower interest rates to offset the fiscal contraction like they did in the 90's! So in reality, the Democrats, Obama and the Republicans are all truly fiscally irresponsible seeking to close the deficit under current conditions.
But onto your points.
Where did I attack you or anyone else here??
Sarcasm yes but I have always intermingled a mix of sarcasm in my posts from time to time since day one. If I am so intolerable to you, put me on the ignore list like TK451 or whatever.
Bottom line is that I think your argument fails to take into account the parliamentary realities that befuddle our presidential system (that is, despite having a separate executive branch, Congress + President really functions as a kind of dysfunctional parliament). And, I thought sarcasm might be worthy to see if I might engineer a debate between you and a fellow conservative making the opposite point...thought it might change things up between me debating X OhioChatter Libertarian/Conservative for once.
Do we really want to say we're going to give solely the House the credit for that deficit reduction...when a lot of it is due to tax raises? Does that make sense? Part of the reason those budgets are going down is because of Tax Raises...Should I come to the conclusion that because the Republicans in the House primarily control the purse per the Constitution that they are Just as much the Tax Raising Party???
No...I should not...because it was a result of the President forcing their hand...the de facto parlimentary leader of the democrats.
The House has been just as unable to get their real agenda through because of the Democratic Senate and the Democratic President as the President has been unable to get his agenda through.
The divided government is the key. Not Republicans holding the House.
(Additionally you underestimate how much of all that is due to the economy and really has nothing to do with either party as much of the deficit was due to automatic stabilizers which didn't have congressional appropriations and lower tax revenue but I digress on that point).
But surely, somebody else on here is going to dispute what you say...I've been arguing with others on here who would disagree that budgets are primarily the responsibility of the HoR. That really hasn't been the case since Calvin Coolidge started the Budget Bureau.
You're still being too generous to Republicans anyway on your standard of fiscal responsibility by conveniently leaving out some years and losing the forest for the Trees. You're still discounting the fact that when the Republicans controlled everything...who you are laying the claim to fiscal virtue on... exactly the opposite happened when the didn't have democrats in the other chambers blocking their agenda. You know, the "undoing of the Clinton Surplus" and all that irony.
Do you not remember Paul Ryan et al getting Alan Greenspan to bless their Tax Cuts and debt financed wars because they didn't want to "Pay down the debt too fast"???
Since 2010 when the Rs won back the HoR the Spending as a % of GDP has dropped 2% (25.5 to 23.5). The revenues as a % of GDP has only went up from 15.0 to 15.5%, so half a %.
So please tell me again how is "a lot of it due to tax increases"?
You can't be serious with that, no way can you truly back that up with facts. -
QuakerOatshttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/10/benghazi-talking-points-reportedly-revised-12-times-official-concerned-would/
What a tangled web we weave, when first we set out to deceive.
Simply amazing. A U.S. president had to resign over lies and coverup pertaining to a two-bit break-in; but when a liberal democrat is caught in lies and coverups pertaining to terrorist attacks and murders of 4 American officials .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................nothing. -
ptown_trojans_1
QuakerOats;1441228 wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/10/benghazi-talking-points-reportedly-revised-12-times-official-concerned-would/
What a tangled web we weave, when first we set out to deceive.
Simply amazing. A U.S. president had to resign over lies and coverup pertaining to a two-bit break-in; but when a liberal democrat is caught in lies and coverups pertaining to terrorist attacks and murders of 4 American officials .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................nothing.
I'll just say these two things, is there any evidence that directly points to the Oval Office?
And, which was worse, this or Iran-Contra? -
fish82
Nope. That said, I wouldn't be breaking out the "Hilary 2016" bumper stickers just yet.ptown_trojans_1;1441250 wrote:I'll just say these two things, is there any evidence that directly points to the Oval Office?
I find no references to American deaths anywhere in the Iran-Contra report, so I'm inclined to go with the former. Kudos on the silky smooth deflection though.ptown_trojans_1;1441250 wrote:And, which was worse, this or Iran-Contra? -
HitsRus
I'll just say this...Watergate investigation took 2 years of hard investigative work with the media driving it every step of the way. No such desire for getting to the truth exists on the part of the great majority of the MSM today.I'll just say these two things, is there any evidence that directly points to the Oval Office?
And, which was worse, this or Iran-Contra?
and....why does one have to be 'worse'...isn't it bad enough?
You are being to kind as you haven't mentioned the indifference leading up to and during the 7 hour attack.Simply amazing. A U.S. president had to resign over lies and coverup pertaining to a two-bit break-in; but when a liberal democrat is caught in lies and coverups pertaining to terrorist attacks and murders of 4 American officials .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...nothing. -
gut
But were any laws broken (serious question)?QuakerOats;1441228 wrote:... but when a liberal democrat is caught in lies and coverups pertaining to terrorist attacks and murders of 4 American officials
Obama doesn't govern, he campaigns. So how can he truly be accountable/responsible for anything? -
gut
We see this over and over and over again. Politicians will continue to lie and deceive so long as their partisan supporters are willing to look the other way. The same people that got all enraged with W saying "how can this happen? why does this happen?"...hmmmm, take a look in the mirror.HitsRus;1441269 wrote:No such desire for getting to the truth exists on the part of the great majority of the MSM today.