MyRandomName: Half his spending cuts are things already coming off the books; Iraq war and deficit commision. Cbo does not count those as cuts, only retard liberals do.

And only conservatives don't count those expenses as part of the budget.

I love how so many supposedly moderate people are here defending the Republicans and their inititives and policies that caused the second Great depression and doing everything they can to blame the Democratic administration for those policies and all of the resulting conditions and effects.

Mugato: DozeNutz: Obama CONTINUED HIS POLICIES. He is doing the exact same as Bush... Get a grip and stop whining

He is? Which two countries did Obama occupy under false pretenses again?

Huh, so he has to start 2 wars to say he is continuing? How about the 2 wars are still going on? How about he started new shiat UNCONSTITUTIONALLY? How about under his admin, NOTHING budgetary changed, besides the fact he is spending more? WHAT CHANGED?

That's a big muffin.

O cut the deficit in half are promised.

brantgoose: Rapmaster2000: [afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com image 247x400]

$5 trillion on cheap champagne and lobsters no doubt. That's what rich people eat, you know. Lobsters all day!!!

Lobster hors-d'oeuvres AND steamed lobster. How gauche! I've seen a few menus in my time and a few pixels and I'm pretty sure the right wing blog that posted that "receipt" did not actually have access to First Lady receipts. Also, it seems odd to me that the First Lady would stay at the Waldorf-Astoria, which is a cockroach infested condominium dump owned by The Donald. Most of it is condos now. I don't even know if anybody stays at the Hotel any more, but I'm pretty sure that a Democrat who did would have to be pixellated.

Yeah, I know. I loved how it said more about the people who created and believed it than Michelle Obama.

1. Bollinger sucks, but regardless it looks like someone thought $44 a bottle was an extravagant price. LOL.
2. Two Whole Steamed Lobsters. What kind of receipt is written like that?
3. The idea that people sit around eating lobsters and caviar - stereotypes from the '60s.

Silly Republicans nobody cares how much debt the US has as long as it is backed by the full faith and credit of the US. In other words unless you Republitards do something silly like cause a default on that debt, we can keep debt financing until the sun burns out, because there is no safer place.

Ctrl-Alt-Del: thatboyoverthere: Did winterwhile have a stroke or something? I mean his posts are really broken up.

You mean as opposed to the cogent, pithy observations he used to make?

Haw Haw Haw

I mean he now seems to have physical difficulty typing.

Slaves2Darkness: Silly Republicans nobody cares how much debt the US has as long as it is backed by the full faith and credit of the US. In other words unless you Republitards do something silly like cause a default on that debt, we can keep debt financing until the sun burns out, because there is no safer place.

Are you serious?

cameroncrazy1984: themeaningoflifeisnot: guess what I don't understand is why Obama gets a complete pass on the deficit just because the mess was created by Bush. Granted, Obama didn't cause this massive deficit. But he did campaign in 2008 on the claim that he was the best man to bring down the debt (yes, I know that's different than the deficit

A) The deficit has been lower in 2010 and 2011. So he is bringing it down. And B) Republicans now control the House. It's on THEM to pass a budget.

What kind of math are you using?

Mugato: DozeNutz: Huh, so he has to start 2 wars to say he is continuing? How about the 2 wars are still going on? How about he started new shiat UNCONSTITUTIONALLY? How about under his admin, NOTHING budgetary changed, besides the fact he is spending more? WHAT CHANGED?

I'm not saying I'm thrilled with his ability to un-fark what Bush spent 8 years farking up. But he did have to deal with a republican congress who had no other goal than to destroy this country the best they could so that Obama doesn't get re-elected. We're pretty much out of Iraq, Gitmo is being shut down despite congressional opposition. No he hasn't been entirely successful but just take a second and look at what the alternative was.

He had 2 years of a super majority, and he spent that time spending money and passing Obamacare. What did he do that was 'Change' during that time? NOTHING! He had what he wanted, and wasted all that time. Don't give me that Republicans bloakcing him crap

Lets see, randomjsa - the guy who openly prayed for terrorist attcks during Obama's term, MyRandomName and muck4doo - guys who think that the last guy in office has never been wrong about anything, and winterwhile - the guy who outright said dubya was jesus christ reincarnated....

Yup, the charter members of the cult of Bush-worshippers are all here. Such deluded, scary, pathetic people...

MyRandomName: Tickle Mittens: lilbjorn: Yeah, let's see . . .
- Two Bush wars
- The Bush tax cuts for the rich
- The Bush recession

Yep, that Obama sure ran up the deficit.

Forgot massive give away to pharmacuticle companies who then quit making leukemia medication for children.

Awww someone doesn't realize that all the fda red tape makes cost to entry in genetics prohibitively expensive. About 2 years to start a new factory.

You know, you'd sound like less of an asshat if you elaborated on that. Maybe connect your thought to his and see how that goes.

Debeo Summa Credo:
He's a better president than Bush...

Citation please.

Mugato: DozeNutz: He had 2 years of a super majority, and he spent that time spending money and passing Obamacare. What did he do that was 'Change' during that time? NOTHING! He had what he wanted, and wasted all that time. Don't give me that Republicans bloakcing him crap

Just because they were democrats doesn't mean they didn't vote him down on things.

Annnd if he were half the president you FarkProgs® fall all over yourselves proclaiming him to be, then he would have not had problems getting those Democrats in line.

Bill Murray said I was weird: Lets see, randomjsa - the guy who openly prayed for terrorist attcks during Obama's term, MyRandomName and muck4doo - guys who think that the last guy in office has never been wrong about anything, and winterwhile - the guy who outright said dubya was jesus christ reincarnated....

Yup, the charter members of the cult of Bush-worshippers are all here. Such deluded, scary, pathetic people...

Did you type that post on your phone while in the sanctuary of The Obama Is God church?

Simple solution that worked for most of the 2000s. Don't count the cost on the budget. That way you can fight a war for free and then blame all the expense on the next guy in office who has to add it.

DozeNutz: Mugato: DozeNutz: Huh, so he has to start 2 wars to say he is continuing? How about the 2 wars are still going on? How about he started new shiat UNCONSTITUTIONALLY? How about under his admin, NOTHING budgetary changed, besides the fact he is spending more? WHAT CHANGED?

I'm not saying I'm thrilled with his ability to un-fark what Bush spent 8 years farking up. But he did have to deal with a republican congress who had no other goal than to destroy this country the best they could so that Obama doesn't get re-elected. We're pretty much out of Iraq, Gitmo is being shut down despite congressional opposition. No he hasn't been entirely successful but just take a second and look at what the alternative was.

He had 2 years of a super majority, and he spent that time spending money and passing Obamacare. What did he do that was 'Change' during that time? NOTHING! He had what he wanted, and wasted all that time. Don't give me that Republicans bloakcing him crap

Obama had precisely 184 calendar days of a super majority (not counting weekends and recesses), and that's when the Democrats could muster every single vote including wheeling Kennedy and Byrd from their hospital rooms to the chamber, convincing Lieberman not to switch parties, and getting Nelson and other midwestern conservative Democrats to take votes that might be unpopular to their constituents. Pretending that the Democrats had unchecked power for 2 years is ridiculous.

Stile4aly: DozeNutz: Mugato: DozeNutz: Huh, so he has to start 2 wars to say he is continuing? How about the 2 wars are still going on? How about he started new shiat UNCONSTITUTIONALLY? How about under his admin, NOTHING budgetary changed, besides the fact he is spending more? WHAT CHANGED?

I'm not saying I'm thrilled with his ability to un-fark what Bush spent 8 years farking up. But he did have to deal with a republican congress who had no other goal than to destroy this country the best they could so that Obama doesn't get re-elected. We're pretty much out of Iraq, Gitmo is being shut down despite congressional opposition. No he hasn't been entirely successful but just take a second and look at what the alternative was.

He had 2 years of a super majority, and he spent that time spending money and passing Obamacare. What did he do that was 'Change' during that time? NOTHING! He had what he wanted, and wasted all that time. Don't give me that Republicans bloakcing him crap

Obama had precisely 184 calendar days of a super majority (not counting weekends and recesses), and that's when the Democrats could muster every single vote including wheeling Kennedy and Byrd from their hospital rooms to the chamber, convincing Lieberman not to switch parties, and getting Nelson and other midwestern conservative Democrats to take votes that might be unpopular to their constituents. Pretending that the Democrats had unchecked power for 2 years is ridiculous.

Not to mention the steadfast refusal to govern coming from the opposition. How can you say that the Republicans participated at all in our Democracy for those two years, when all they did was filibuster everything that the President wanted, even though it's exactly what the GOP wanted too.

And, you do know that you sound absolutely rediculous when you rewrite recent history? Take a look at the senate democrat/republican ratio the day that Obamacare was voted in. (Hint: No super majority)

archichris: There are two ways to react to a budget out of control...... cut spending, or increase revenue. Revenue can be increased as a percentage or by increasing the pool that the percentage is taken from.

Yes, you can cut spending or increase revenue and the economic conditions determine which course ought to be taken. During the Bush years (particularly 2003 - 2007) we were in a situation where spending was skyrocketing and revenues were not being increased to compensate despite the fact that the economy had sufficient strength to support higher tax rates. During the last 3 years the economy has not been able to support broadly higher tax rates, though certainly the argument can be made for higher tax rates on the wealthy. Likewise, as the economic crisis peaked in 2008 and 2009 it was clear that a drop in government spending was unsustainable because of the lack of private sector spending. Some deluded segment of the right believes that it is never acceptable to run a deficit to improve economic conditions despite 100 years of evidence to the contrary. Ultimately, spending will have to be decreased and revenue increased to reduce the deficit but the types of spending reductions proposed by the Republican party (cutting unemployment, reinstating the payroll tax, undermining Medicare and Social Security) would create far more economic harm than savings.

Many people believe that Obama and his policies are shrinking the pool while trying to increase the percentage.

And they will continue believing that despite evidence to the contrary.

At the same time he has increased the rate of spending which is borrowed against the debt by enacting large spending packages like the stimulus....which some argue has had little effect and was intended primarily as an economic prop for liberal allies and interests.

"Some have argued..." it's a wonderful phrase, isn't it? Hides all manner of sin. The majority of professional economists agree that deficit spending during a recession which targets job creation and safety net support is the best possible way to innoculate against a recession. The fact that a significant percentage of the stimulus plan went to things like the AMT patch and other unnecessary tax cuts is what has slowed the recovery. If we had taken the tax cut portion of the stimulus and instead spent on a new WPA type program we would be recovering more quickly.

If he were acting decisively to increase the pool...ie gdp...by letting the economy run unchecked by regulations and governmental interference, then the existing percentages would generate higher revenues and the previous spending would not be such a big issue.

Indeed. The growth in job sectors like toxic waste cleanup and personal injury law would be unbelievable!

But his insistence on enacting a long laundry list of liberal wishes with respect to regulation and healthcare and energy have resulted in what some believe is the worst environment for business and job creation in the last hundred years.

The worst environment for business and job creation has resulted in 23 months of private sector job growth, a strong stock market, and a surge in American manufacturing for the first time in a generation. The President has signed two major pieces of regulation into law: Health care and Wall Street reform. Both were pretty modest proposals and were based at least partially on Republican ideas. What other items from the laundry list of liberal wishes are preventing business from expanding?

Mugato: DozeNutz: He had 2 years of a super majority, and he spent that time spending money and passing Obamacare. What did he do that was 'Change' during that time? NOTHING! He had what he wanted, and wasted all that time. Don't give me that Republicans bloakcing him crap

Just because they were democrats doesn't mean they didn't vote him down on things.

This is also... you know... not true.

I'd prefer it if people actually remembered what happened less than 5 farking years ago, but I guess that's challenging.

1. Blagojovich. Ousted in December of 2008, he was replaced (temporarily) by Roland Burress on January 15th 2009.
2. Norm Coleman v Al Franken. Franken was sworn in on July 7th 2009. Meaning that from January to July, the first 7 months of this mythical 2 year supermajority, there was a maximum of 59 seated Democrats. A supermajority is 60.
3. Ted Kennedy. A month later on August 25th, that rascally democrat kicked the bucket. I'm pretty sure that during this month, all Democrats were present and accounted for. Totalling either 58 or 59. Still not 60.
...

There was never a Democratic supermajority that would let Obama do whatever he wanted to. That is what some people might call "lying" and doesn't deserve anything other than correction and derision.

Vindibudd: Mugato: DozeNutz: He had 2 years of a super majority, and he spent that time spending money and passing Obamacare. What did he do that was 'Change' during that time? NOTHING! He had what he wanted, and wasted all that time. Don't give me that Republicans bloakcing him crap

Just because they were democrats doesn't mean they didn't vote him down on things.

Annnd if he were half the president you FarkProgs® fall all over yourselves proclaiming him to be, then he would have not had problems getting those Democrats in line.

You heard it here first, folks. The POTUS isn't a real man unless he can garner unquestioning obedience from his minions. So vote Republican.

hatelabs: Yeah Bush spending his last year giving away everything for nothing and supporting policy to bankrupt the country had NOTHING to do with the debt acquired under Obama's time in office. Nooo when Bush left everything was working perfectly and we were raking in money....oh no that was Clinton, nevermind.

Look, I'm not exonerating Bush in any way, but how can you claim Clinton was some sort of financial whiz? All he did was essentially continue on with many of the policies started under Reagan. The same crew was in charge at places like the Fed. This REALLY comes down to Alan Greenspan. His financial dogma is what lead to the boom years of the 90's. It also lead to the ridiculous cluster fark that was the 2000's. Sure, Bush's tax policies are certainly coming back to bite us, and the democrats aren't exactly blameless with their pushing to get everyone into the happy world of home ownership. But the real culprit was the laissez-faire policies of Greenspan and his disciples. Hell, the man admits that Ayn Rand was essentially his economic idol. Why on earth would ANYONE, republican or democrat, believe that it would be a good idea to listen to a man who bases his economic theory on the idealized world view of a fiction writer? And let's not forget that the Roaring 20's and the ensuing Great Depression were both the direct results of the exact same type of laissez-faire policy. Clinton can be accused of many things, but being stupid isn't one of them. So why are we letting him off the hook for not noticing that Greenspan and his ideas were frighteningly Hoover-like? Worse yet, perhaps he WAS aware of the comparison and chose not to act on it because he was at the reigns during the boom period. And while I'm on the topic of great-depression era presidential comparisons, Obama is no FDR either. I know he's fighting with an uncooperative congress, and the fact is the debt is into astronomical figures, so spending our way out of the recession may not even be a viable option. But it wasn't really anything huge that FDR did that pulled us out of the depression. It was the man himself. He came on the radio every week and gave people hope. This man was so goddamned popular that people hung up photos and portraits of Roosevelt in their homes and businesses. He gave people something to believe in, someone to rally around. Obama simply hasn't done that, and I'm not at all sure that he can. He has the right ideas in many cases, and the economy is slowly recovering, but a bit of confidence on the part of the people would go a LONG way.

iq_in_binary: winterwhile: America's creditors (can we all say China) will soon dictate how the U.S. spends its budget

and it won't be on entitlements

Greece here we come

China isn't even in the top five list of our biggest creditors, try again.

China is number 3 behind the Federal Reserve and the Social Security trust. You try again.

Link (new window)

trey101: iq_in_binary: winterwhile: America's creditors (can we all say China) will soon dictate how the U.S. spends its budget

and it won't be on entitlements

Greece here we come

China isn't even in the top five list of our biggest creditors, try again.

China is number 3 behind the Federal Reserve and the Social Security trust. You try again.

Link (new window)

China is losing approximately 3% per year in real dollars for holding our debt so who the hell cares?

Vindibudd: Bill Murray said I was weird: Lets see, randomjsa - the guy who openly prayed for terrorist attcks during Obama's term, MyRandomName and muck4doo - guys who think that the last guy in office has never been wrong about anything, and winterwhile - the guy who outright said dubya was jesus christ reincarnated....

Yup, the charter members of the cult of Bush-worshippers are all here. Such deluded, scary, pathetic people...

Did you type that post on your phone while in the sanctuary of The Obama Is God church?

Defending someone who openly prays for terrorist attacks, my, what an upstanding patriot you are...

rohar: trey101: iq_in_binary: winterwhile: America's creditors (can we all say China) will soon dictate how the U.S. spends its budget

and it won't be on entitlements

Greece here we come

China isn't even in the top five list of our biggest creditors, try again.

China is number 3 behind the Federal Reserve and the Social Security trust. You try again.

Link (new window)

China is losing approximately 3% per year in real dollars for holding our debt so who the hell cares?

Obviously the guy I was talking to... but that must not matter to someone that wants to butt into other peoples statements with imaginary figures. If what you say is true... BACK IT UP WITH A FACT! I backed my statement up with a fact... you are just shouting off at the mouth until you give facts.

Mugato:

/and using "progressive" as some sort of slur is hilarious

It's just short for Fark Progressive, if you feel it's a slur, I can't help you there.

Trapper439: Vindibudd: Mugato: DozeNutz: He had 2 years of a super majority, and he spent that time spending money and passing Obamacare. What did he do that was 'Change' during that time? NOTHING! He had what he wanted, and wasted all that time. Don't give me that Republicans bloakcing him crap

Just because they were democrats doesn't mean they didn't vote him down on things.

Annnd if he were half the president you FarkProgs® fall all over yourselves proclaiming him to be, then he would have not had problems getting those Democrats in line.

You heard it here first, folks. The POTUS isn't a real man unless he can garner unquestioning obedience from his minions. So vote Republican.

The president is supposed to be a leader, and is the de facto leader of the party he hails from. If as a leader, he can't even keep his own party in line, then he is not an effective leader.

1) go to war
2) don't raise taxes to pay for war
3) blame new guy for resulting deficit

trey101: rohar: trey101: iq_in_binary: winterwhile: America's creditors (can we all say China) will soon dictate how the U.S. spends its budget

and it won't be on entitlements

Greece here we come

China isn't even in the top five list of our biggest creditors, try again.

China is number 3 behind the Federal Reserve and the Social Security trust. You try again.

Link (new window)

China is losing approximately 3% per year in real dollars for holding our debt so who the hell cares?

Obviously the guy I was talking to... but that must not matter to someone that wants to butt into other peoples statements with imaginary figures. If what you say is true... BACK IT UP WITH A FACT! I backed my statement up with a fact... you are just shouting off at the mouth until you give facts.

10 year T-bills are going for 2.2%. Inflation is at about 3%. GDP is in.creasing at about 2%. Hmm, wonder what the math is to make sense of all of this...

Vindibudd: Trapper439: Vindibudd: Mugato: DozeNutz: He had 2 years of a super majority, and he spent that time spending money and passing Obamacare. What did he do that was 'Change' during that time? NOTHING! He had what he wanted, and wasted all that time. Don't give me that Republicans bloakcing him crap

Just because they were democrats doesn't mean they didn't vote him down on things.

Annnd if he were half the president you FarkProgs® fall all over yourselves proclaiming him to be, then he would have not had problems getting those Democrats in line.

You heard it here first, folks. The POTUS isn't a real man unless he can garner unquestioning obedience from his minions. So vote Republican.

The president is supposed to be a leader, and is the de facto leader of the party he hails from. If as a leader, he can't even keep his own party in line, then he is not an effective leader.

That's... that's not how it works, man.

You're thinking of a parliamentary system, maybe?

rohar: trey101: rohar: trey101: iq_in_binary: winterwhile: America's creditors (can we all say China) will soon dictate how the U.S. spends its budget

and it won't be on entitlements

Greece here we come

China isn't even in the top five list of our biggest creditors, try again.

China is number 3 behind the Federal Reserve and the Social Security trust. You try again.

Link (new window)

China is losing approximately 3% per year in real dollars for holding our debt so who the hell cares?

Obviously the guy I was talking to... but that must not matter to someone that wants to butt into other peoples statements with imaginary figures. If what you say is true... BACK IT UP WITH A FACT! I backed my statement up with a fact... you are just shouting off at the mouth until you give facts.

10 year T-bills are going for 2.2%. Inflation is at about 3%. GDP is in.creasing at about 2%. Hmm, wonder what the math is to make sense of all of this...

That's how safe the US dollar is. People would rather be guaranteed lose a little money over 30 years than take a chance on losing even more by betting on another currency.

TheMadChaosopher: Well didnt get here from 8 years of the Red Team in the white house. We got here from several decades of the Red Team and Blue Team trading places. As long as you people keep voting for republicans and democrats we're going to keep sinking.

Both sides are bad amirite?

Werent you a Bush supporting Republican?

Teufelaffe: I'm going to guess that you're either current/former military, or from a military family (or maybe you really wish you were military). In the civilian world, a "leader" is not someone who 'takes charge' and commands everyone under them to start kowtowing and fall into line. Outside of the military, that's what's known as a "megalomaniac" or possibly a "dictator". In the civilian world, people are actually free to follow their conscience or beliefs (or in the case of Congress, their bank balance) and follow who they choose to follow. I know the Republicans...

Swear to god, until that last sentance there I thought you were attacking Obama.

Came to see if charts and bar-graphs were spewed in the first 10 posts, in reaction to subby's headline..

I have not been disappointed

randomjsa: I always love the "Bush Tax Cuts" being used as a scapegoat.

Obama knows, just as Warren Buffet knows, that even if we taxed every single dollar made by every person in the United States making more than 10 million dollars a year (roughly 8200 people) that would be 250~ billion dollars.

So go ahead, raise taxes on them, in fact, take everything they make for a year...

You're going to get the other 3.2-3.5 trillion dollars for Obama's new budget from... where? The point is even if you taxed those people at 100% it still wouldn't be enough to pay for everything, and Obama knows this... He either knows this, or he's stupid.

That goes for the rest of you by the way: You either know this, or you're stupid.

But this is what we've come to expect. 100% of the time anything goes wrong or is in any way negative, it's ALWAYS Bush's fault... Always. ALWAYS. There are NO exceptions. 100% of the time anything goes right or is in any way positive, it's ALWAYS because of Obama... Always! No exceptions!

The magic continues... Everything is the last guys fault, blame him, it's his problem, we didn't do it, not our fault... No sir... Oh wait, are things getting better now? Well just ignore the fact that we've been saying "Everything" was the last guys fault, because clearly now all of a sudden this can only be attributed to Obama.

My god, your post is utter rubbish.

First off: No one wants to tax the rich 100% of their earnings. You and your ilk would have to be retarded to think that. We want them taxed at a rate higher than the middle class which is currently not happening.

Second off: Do you have any idea what a trend is? If you have no idea what a trend is you need to stop posting about anything that remotely involves finances.

Finally: We get it, you guys are racist and the monkey should be put down. When you guys finally start making some factual sense people will start actually listening. As of now you act like a bunch of children. By this I mean screaming as loud as you can and calling people names to prove your point. Adults provide facts and/or logical arguments.