View Single Post
      07-12-2012, 09:49 AM   #47
ScotchAndCigar
Banned
 
ScotchAndCigar's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 128i space gray vert
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: New England

Posts: 817
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by cssnms View Post
You never cease to amaze!

You can slice and dice it anyway you want you mathmatically challenged twit. Let me say this again because it is clear and that you and your dunderhead uneducated left wing buddies are to stupid to comprehend it.

Under the Bush presidency the debt rose by $4.8 trillion -- IN 2 terms (that's 8 yrs for those of you don't know what that means) OBAMA spent $4.9 trillion in just 3.5 yrs!

Again here is how stupid you are... You continue to throw your own peeps under the bus each time you open your mouth. TARP could not be signed by the president unless the Democrats in congress approved it.

Speaking of debt and who is responsible for running it up see if you can wrap your pee brain around these figures...

2003 - 2007 Republicans controlled congress for 48 months and the debt at the start was $6,382,650,489,675 and at the end of the term was $8,677,214,255,313 Debt increased by $2,294,563,765,638 at an avg daily accumulation $47,803,411,784

2007 - 2009 Democrat controlled for 24 months and the debt at the start was $8,677,214,255,313 and at the end of their run the debt increased to $10,627,961,295,931 Debt increased by $1,950,747,040,618 at an average daily accumulation $81,281,126,692

2009 - 2011 Democrat's controlled congress for 24 and the debt at the start of their term was $10,627,961,295,931 and at the end of their term it increased to $14,014,049,043,294 the debt increased by $3,386,087,747,363 at and avg daily accumulation $141,086,989,473.

Now see if you can muster the brain power to add up how much the debt increased during the months the DEMOCRATS CONTROLLED congress.
OK, I don't know (or care) what life event occurred which caused you to come back to this sub-forum after several months' absence, and go on this wild, abusive rant, wherein you keep starting new threads each day, and get more and more inappropriate with each post, but you need to stop. This is a public forum, there are rules. Also, one assumes that, as a BMW owner, you may have an ounce of self-awareness bouncing around somewhere, telling you that perhaps you shouldn't address anonymous people on a car forum in the same way you'd threaten your ex-wife right before you kill her.

What's more, you don't know me, but I can guarantee you that my education, professional status, and intellect are in the higher percentiles, perhaps better than you, perhaps not; but considering that you have difficulty putting together grammatically correct sentences and comprehending my posts, I'd guess it's the former.

Now, back to the topic. You continue to make the same errors in analysis. During Reagan's presidency, the debt nearly tripled, from $1T to almost $3T, yet it was "only" an increase of $2T. You need to look at percentages.

Of course Bush had 2 terms and Obama's not yet completed 1; we all know that, just as we know that it gets dark when the sun goes away. You don't need to yell obvious things to people. But here's where you fall down. Bush took office from a guy who left a budget surplus and a good economy. Now I'm not crediting Clinton with that, let's just say these things are wordwide and cyclical.

During Bush's 1st term, we were sliding down from that good economy, but we didn't hit recession until later in his 2nd term. So any measure of the rate of debt increase during that period would reflect that. Now on top of that, we have your problem, which is your failure to put things in proper perspective by using percentages. Today, I might see a weekly change in gasoline prices of 10 cents per gallon, no big deal, right? But back in the '60s, that would be earth-shattering.

Spending increases under the Obama administration are at the lowest rate in decades, look it up. You have your facts all convoluted. Yes, democrats also voted for TARP, but so did repubs, so just accept it and move on. Bush/Cheney lied to congress and the American people about the wars. Cheney said it'll be "6 days, 6 weeks, certainly not 6 months", and Bush outright lied about WMDs. But the real problem was that, as president, Bush would not ever end the wars, and congress was faced several times with the option of defunding it, but they could not allow the troops to suffer, nor face the political backlash.

Bush twice sent all Americans a piddly refund check, "vote for me, and I'll give you a hundred dollars". Well just like the wars, there was no funding for that in the budget. Bush also created the dept of Homeland security, a huge waste of money that should've helped protect the US, but isn't.

Regardless of whether Obama or McCain got elected, the pres was walking into a snowballing great recession, one that, among other things, would cause a revenue shortfall for the gov't. Add to that the 2 ongoing wars and a deficiency in tax rates, and you have the debt.

Obama ended the war in Iraq (admittedly following a planned timetable), and Afghanistan is drawing down. Both the US and world economy still have problems, but we've had years of positive GDP growth, the stock market is strong, jobs have been slowly but steadily recovering from the 10% unemployment peak, some of the biggest employers in the US are showing record profits, and the real estate market is starting to come back.

I credit Obama with a bit of this, but I believe much of it is cyclical, and in general I think that people politicize way too much. The fact that China is a major world producer is no suprise, it's a trend that started with the decline of the British empire.

In conclusion, mellow the f-k out man.
ScotchAndCigar is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote