Clinton just knocked it out of the park

[Derron]

Best Democratic orators of my lifetime.
4. Jessie Jackson

You can't possibly be serious.

The man was the prime example of people giving a pass to ineloquent speakers because of their race. He misused words in every other sentence. He spoke like a child.

But he wants to cut Baracks nuts off..so that is not a bad thing really..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQl_6buUggM

[Derron]

# 5 on Bri's list of great Democratic orators..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_AAMa_X ... re=related

# 2 on the list

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs

# 3 on the list

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omzXqufqb34

[BSmack]

# 5 on Bri's list of great Democratic orators..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_AAMa_X ... re=related

I have two things to say about your comment Derron.

1. You are an idiot for confusing extemporaneous remarks with a planned oration.
2. The 5th best GOP orator is a chimpanzee on crack compared to Obama.

[Derron]

# 5 on Bri's list of great Democratic orators..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_AAMa_X ... re=related

I have two things to say about your comment Derron.

1. You are an idiot for confusing extemporaneous remarks with a planned oration.
2. The 5th best GOP orator is a chimpanzee on crack compared to Obama.

So if the remarks are extemporaneous, then the quality and content can be different that a planned oration ?

Obama is an orator all right, but completely full of shit in what he says. Critical thinking skills in liberals vary a lot, especially when the Messiah speaks.

[mvscal]

Obama is an orator all right,.

He's Ted Baxter with a tan.

[BSmack]

So if the remarks are extemporaneous, then the quality and content can be different that a planned oration ?

[poptart]

Barry's speech?

What the fuck is he on?


Obama: "I Worked With Congress To Cut A Billion Dollars In Spending"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... nding.html


He worked to cut a billion?

A whole billion?? :?





BWAAAA HAHAHAHAHA!!

[Smackie Chan]

You mind condensing that government blow job story down a bit so it can be read in less than 1/2 an hour...

Thanks for continuing to illustrate that if a discussion can't be presented in a pop-up book, it's beyond your ability to grasp. Run along now and go play with a piece of foil tied to a string. Or stock up on ammo.

[poptart]

Considering the financial collapse sucked more than that out of the global economy, I'd say he's aces.

Aces, huh?

How is our 16 trillion dollar debt supposed to be paid back?

*crickets*


Well?

I'm honestly interested in learning what your take is.

Barry said in his speech last night that he expects to be able to cut the deficit by 4.5 trillion over some number of years.

So we should expect to look up and see an... 11.5 trillion dollar national debt number later on?

No, of course not.

He's saying he thinks *wink* *wink* that the rate of increase in the deficit can be reduced by 4.5 trillion over some number of years.


We're going to be fast approaching a 20 trillion dollar debt.

Can you wrap your brain around such a figure?

Barry doesn't, imo, show the slightest inclination to even approach a realistic attempt at dealing with this HUGE issue.


Really, super lib, what is your take on this?

[poptart]

I didn't axe for a supposed Romney solution.

I want Bri's take - or yours, if you have the stones.

I want to know if you are really content with Barry's handling (or non-handling) of the debt issue.

It's going to be 20 trillion before too long.

What's the end game here?

Crash and burn is fine?

That's where we're going with the guy you are pimping very hard, aren't we?

[Atomic Punk]

Please, 88. Taxes are lower now for the rich than they have been for decades.

Does it matter what tax rates are for anybody by now? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the interest rate on the national debt pretty much negates anything either side of the aisle does at this current time on the tax payers.

The corrupt government is financially broke and I don't hear any real solutions to fix it.

[Goober McTuber]

explain to me why it is "fair" to force one citizen to pay taxes on income at a significantly higher percentage rate than another citizen

You're talking about Warren Buffet's secretary, right?

If those in the highest income brackets are amassing a greater and greater share of the wealth, then yes, they can pay a greater and greater share of the taxes.

[Smackie Chan]

Oh, I'd say (not terribly proudly) that given the facts that I've been a Federal civil servant since '85, a Fed Gov't employee since '78, with Defense Acquisition Workforce Level III certifications in Program Management and Lifecycle Logistics, and Level I certification in Business and Financial Management, I have a better handle on the Federal budget process than ~ 99% of the posters here, which, admittedly, may not be saying much. But your concern is appreciated.

Then you should know that spending is (or should be) locked in for a President's first year and point out that fact.

Why should I have done that? The budget, or lack thereof, was never included as part of either my discussion, nor that of what others posted leading to any of my posts in this thread. I simply picked up on Jsc's and poptart's debate on the comparison of job creation numbers between the two parties (job creation being a component of unemployment rate, a lagging economic indicator), and added to it facts & figures (which no one thus far has questioned) regarding recessions (an economic condition), GDP change, and peak unemployment (lagging indicators). Your wanting me to bring the President's budget and the incumbent's lack of leadership ability into the argument is nothing more than a red herring. Rather than countering anything I posted with cogent rebuttal, you predictably began swinging your purse with ad hominems, genetic fallacies, and your usual tired assortment of bluster and rhetoric. Instead of explaining (which I'll concede is not your responsibility, but then again, no one here has any responsibility for anything), why the data I posted was irrelevant, insignificant, meaningless, or inaccurate, you brilliantly resorted to, "Oh yeah? Well...well...well...YOU'RE A LIBTARD!!" Great debating skills there, Socrates. With such analytical skills, it's beyond me why you're not a fellow of the Heritage Foundation.

On what are you basing this? I've simply posted articles & figures available in the public domain,

It's based on you posting propaganda designed for consumption by low functioning cretins.

Propaganda? Look, slappy (to bring this discussion down to a level with which you're more comfortable), if you had anywhere near the critical thinking skills you believe you possess, you'd have noticed that I was actually trying to deflect responsibility for some of the recessions under Republican Presidents away from the GOP by showing that 80% (4/5) of the recessions since 1945 that began within the new President's first term were inherited by Republicans FROM DEMOCRATS! I have no dog in this fight. I simply provided information (as opposed to opinion and logical fallacies), and allowed others, such as you, to provide the analysis. If you choose not to, which appears to be the case, I'm ok with that. Neither you nor I have that responsibility.

Perhaps, since you're our acknowledged historian and self-proclaimed expert on all things government, explain the numbers I've presented and tilt them toward being the fault of Democratic policies and actions.

Is it my responsibility to explain something as simple as correlation does not equal causation?

Again, no. However, if I interpret correctly what you have lamely been trying to divert attention to, you seem to be implying that there is correlation and causation between the passage (or non-passage) of the President's budget and the performance of the economy. Maybe I'm wrong, and that you threw that out there for no other reason than as a diversion, but if not, what point were you trying to make relevant to the ongoing discussion? I admit I don't know, and I'm not going to spend the time researching, if there is any relevance or causation involved in the as-yet undisputed FACTS that, in recent history, more jobs have been created under Democratic presidents than under Republicans, the stock market has fared MUCH better during Democratic presidencies than it has under Republicans, that the Great Depression fully coincided with a Republican presidency, and that more recessions have occurred under Republican watch than under Democrats. This is simply prima facie data that anyone can easily find. It's not up to me to prove its credibility - it is what it is. If you believe it isn't credible, it's up to you to explain why. If you choose not to, then just STFU.

For this boilerplate propaganda to have any credibility whatsoever, it would necessarily include specific links to the Republican and Democrat policies which led to these numbers if indeed there is any connection to made at all.

See above.

And while you're at it, why not present facts and figures that show Democratic Presidents historically having an adverse impact on the economy relative to Republicans.

Have you been asleep for the last three and half years? The higher the tax rate, the higher the cost of regulatory compliance, the higher the drag coefficient on the economy. This is Economics 101.

Here's the basic disconnect: I've been using historical facts & figures to show differences between what the economy has done under Democrats and Republicans, playing off of what Jsc posted about job creation, irrespective of whether it is meaningful or relevant. I have NOT discussed the individual performance of the incumbent, nor have I promoted any reasons why, as an individual, Obama should get anyone's vote. If we DID get into that discussion, I think you'd find that we agree on many points. You refuse to address the data I've presented, but rather try to derail it and take it down the track of discussing Obama's job performance. I wouldn't have a problem discussing that if it's what the original discussion was focused on. You've conveniently put yourself into what you'd hoped would be an unloseable position by saying Obama's fucked up and anyone who votes for him is an unmitigated idiot, that Romney is fucked up and anyone who votes for him is an unmitigated idiot, and that you'll be voting for neither of them nor anyone else, making you a genius. You simply wring your hands and cry that "Our Republic is completely off the rails."

If the higher tax rate and its effects are "Economics 101," you should have no problem, given your bent for history, of providing data to support this. I'm not disagreeing with you, and I'm not going to look for the evidence to support it. It seems to be common sense, but is not part of what I was discussing. You seem to be wanting to use a sample size of one (Obama) to illustrate a principle. I'd rather see the principle illustrated by a trend graph over a period of time longer than the past 3.5 yrs, but am not interested enough to look for it. Feel free to do it if you'd like, but if you don't, I won't lose any sleep.

In any event, past Democratic Presidents are irrelevant just as past Republicans are irrelevant. This is another not so curious distraction from Bath House Barry's dismal record of failure and stupidity.

Perhaps past performance of those not running is irrelevant. And I've not defended Barry's record, nor tried to distract from it. I've simply chummed the waters, waited for the fishies to show up, and gotten a bite. However, there are those who don't vote for the individual, but rather the "D" or the "R." If someone were to try to convince me that, in general, it's better to vote for one of those letters rather than the other, I'd like for that person to explain why, using history as a guide. Surely, someone with your superior grasp of history and government who has consistently argued in favor of conservative principles & policies should be able to present irrefutable data showing why it's better to vote for the "R," in general, based on the benefits of doing so, and the consequences of voting for the "D."

Even though you don't explicitly include me among them, if lumping me in with them was your tacit intent, link me up to where I've shown support, or indicated that I'll be voting for, the incumbent.

You're carrying his water right here

I'm doing no such thing. Remember, history is your strong suit, not mine. I made what should be easily shown to be a huge strategic error by choosing to engage you in a fight using your weapon of choice. I'm still waiting for you to show me that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't you gone on record saying that creating economic policy is the most important job of a President, and that fiscal conservatism (as allegedly practiced by Republicans better than by Democrats, historically) is far more preferable, more responsible, and provides better overall results than the tax-and-spend liberalism of those dangerous Democrats? If so, shouldn't there be ample data to support this? You know, stuff like unemployment figures, debt creation/reduction, and the like. Just to throw a little more chum out there...

A president is a success economically if he can help steer the country onto a longer-term path of broadly shared economic growth, and if his policies lay a foundation for sustainable prosperity for the future.
----------------------
The analysis accepts Republican economic philosophy that says the U.S. would be better off with a lower rate of federal budget growth and a smaller federal budget relative to GDP.
----------------------
Presidents Harry S Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson rank first through third. Presidents George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush make up the bottom three. President Ronald Reagan is No. 8, just one slot above President Obama.
----------------------
The rankings can also be used for performance comparisons of the two political parties. Conveniently, there are six Republicans and six Democrats, so if we take the average for Democratic and Republican presidents we can make a head-to-head party comparison. The Democratic presidents scored substantially higher than the Republican presidents, with a score of 26.95. Republican presidents scored -26.95.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-2 ... onomy.html

What I might expect and hope from you would be a rational discussion of what's presented in that article explaining why the methodology used to create the scoring is flawed, why the info provided should be discredited, and/or the presentation of data using different and more sound methodologies showing contradictory results.

And just for good measure, since Barry's debt management (relative to past Presidents?) is such a critical issue...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/politici ... aldebt.asp

[poptart]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the interest rate on the national debt pretty much negates anything either side of the aisle does at this current time on the tax payers.

The corrupt government is financially broke and I don't hear any real solutions to fix it.

Bingo.

The "The rich are not taxed enough" meme is nothing but a distraction, because even if the rich were VERY heavily taxed it wouldn't begin to move the needle at all in the direction of a declining debt.

There is a MAJOR spending problem and it is OBVIOUS.


Sure, a discussion about tax rates has merit, but it doesn't really have jack shit to do with the debt issue.

[Terry in Crapchester]

What I might expect and hope from you would be a rational discussion . . .

Dude, you do realize that you were addressing mvscal, no? He and "rational discussion" do not belong in the same sentence. Now, if you had said name-calling, . . .

[poptart]

And just for good measure, since Barry's debt management (relative to past Presidents?) is such a critical issue...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/politici ... aldebt.asp

You didn't direct this at me, but I want to reply.

I don't CARE what Reagan did, Bush 1 did, Clintoon did, or Bush 2 did.

They are not running for president, but Barry IS.

The current debt situation is a CRISIS.
No two ways about it.

ObaMao shows no inclination to even begin to seriously deal with it.

It's entirely unacceptable and I pretty much have no use for anyone who chooses to brush it aside as if it isn't there.

I have no idea what most of these people are thinking - except Jsc.

He thinks the republic will be in fine shape so long as males can buttfuck each other freely and pregnant women can abort at will. :)

[jiminphilly]

Please, 88. Taxes are lower now for the rich than they have been for decades.

Do you consider a household clearing $250,001 rich?

[poptart]

Concerned about the deficit?

Obamacare will reduce it.

The piece said (if we want to believe it) that BarryCare will reduce the deficit (not the debt) by 210 billion over a decade.

THAT doesn't even begin to touch the problem, asshat.

It's basically nothing.


Do you understand that this year alone we are running a deficit of over a trillion dollars?


The disconnect from reality is mind-numbing.

[Smackie Chan]

I don't CARE what Reagan did, Bush 1 did, Clintoon did, or Bush 2 did.

They are not running for president, but Barry IS.

The current debt situation is a CRISIS.
No two ways about it.

ObaMao shows no inclination to even begin to seriously deal with it.

Point taken. I concur that tackling the debt issue should be a priority. This is not the first presidency during which there has been a perceived debt crisis. The S&L bailout created one. The Iraq & Afghanistan Wars created one. I don't recall you, mvscal, or any others on the right raising as much of a stink about it before Obama started adding to it. In fact, I agreed with mvscal a few years back when Dubya was in office that, while many on the left were hand-wringing over it, I believed it wasn't as catastrophic as some were making it out to be. I guess my question now would be, what was the tipping point when the debt went from being manageable and within "reason," and became a crisis? Was it a particular dollar amount or some event that pushed us over the edge? If so, what was the amount or the event? Obama's stimulus plan implementation?

If Obama's "management" of the debt crisis shouldn't be judged by how his predecessors fared, by what standard should it be judged? An as-yet-achieved-by-anyone ideal? Or are you just looking for him to show some "inclination to even begin to seriously deal with it"?

[jiminphilly]

Please, 88. Taxes are lower now for the rich than they have been for decades.

Do you consider a household clearing $250,001 rich?

To the vast majority of Americans, yes.

Of course, to the Romneys and Kochs, it is nothing.

I didn't ask the vast majority of Americans, I'm asking you, Chip. Is a household clearing $250,001 a rich family? Do they deserve to have their taxes raised?

[Terry in Crapchester]

Do you consider a household clearing $250,001 rich?

To the vast majority of Americans, yes.

Of course, to the Romneys and Kochs, it is nothing.

I didn't ask the vast majority of Americans, I'm asking you, Chip. Is a household clearing $250,001 a rich family? Do they deserve to have their taxes raised?

Of course, under Obama's proposal, the tax increase for a family earning $250,001 would only be for that last dollar of income. Taxes on the first $250,000 of taxable (not gross) income will remain the same.

[Derron]

You mind condensing that government blow job story down a bit so it can be read in less than 1/2 an hour...

Thanks for continuing to illustrate that if a discussion can't be presented in a pop-up book, it's beyond your ability to grasp. Run along now and go play with a piece of foil tied to a string. Or stock up on ammo.

Oh, I'd say (not terribly proudly) that given the facts that I've been a Federal civil servant since '85, a Fed Gov't employee since '78, with Defense Acquisition Workforce Level III certifications in Program Management and Lifecycle Logistics, and Level I certification in Business and Financial Management, I have a better handle on the Federal budget process than ~ 99% of the posters here, which, admittedly, may not be saying much.

Nice resume there civil servant. That and your previous band width wasting post clearly illustrates why the federal government is so fucked up. Looking at the situation our country is in, and the Federal government, and your background as a tax sucking civil servant, and your look at my certifications take, makes a very good case that the legions of civil servants , (its the servant part that kills me ) continue to contribute the the incompetent and ongoing raping of the country and its tax payers.

Being able to get your point across in less words, is a hard concept for you government honks to grasp, but give it a try sometime.

[Mikey]

Would it be easier if he used smaller words Duhron?

The less words the better.

:doh:

[Y2K]

88's question gets to the definition of the word fair.

Some people think that everyone paying the same amount in taxes is fair. I do not.
Some people this.k that everyone paying the same percent in taxes is fair. I do not.

I think the wealthy should pay more and at a higher percentage. Exactly what percent, I do not know.

So in essense you're saying the driving force for being sucessfull should be that you should give someone else the majority of the money you earn. Brilliant!
That should drive people to go out and take a chance at starting a new business or expanding the one they have.
Good god this country is fucked.

[Derron]

Would it be easier if he used smaller words Duhron?

The less words the better.

You may be on to something here -

maybe we impose a character limit on certain posters....

Threads could start to look like this:

Duhron: "government bad"

LTS: "jew fault"

Dins: "that wrong"

Tart: "god told me"

I'm sure I'm missing a few....

Yeah..one would be....

KC Suck: Financial wizard who needs lots of small words to understand a concept.

[Mikey]

You muhrons all need to go enroll in English 10.

[Mikey]

Striking similarity.

I wonder if atmospheric CO2 has a direct effect on God in the GOP platform.

[Terry in Crapchester]

88's question gets to the definition of the word fair.

Some people think that everyone paying the same amount in taxes is fair. I do not.
Some people this.k that everyone paying the same percent in taxes is fair. I do not.

I think the wealthy should pay more and at a higher percentage. Exactly what percent, I do not know.

So in essense you're saying the driving force for being sucessfull should be that you should give someone else the majority of the money you earn. Brilliant!
That should drive people to go out and take a chance at starting a new business or expanding the one they have.
Good god this country is fucked.

I'm pretty sure there's a difference between arguing for a progressive income tax system (something this country has had, in one form or another, for almost 100 years, btw) and arguing in favor of the wealthiest Americans paying the majority of their earnings in income tax, on the other.

That said, of course, there was a time when the highest marginal tax rate was 92%. A Republican was President. And the economy was doing much better than it is today. Ponderous . . .

[Smackie Chan]

KC Suck
Suckie Chan

I see your nic smack creativity knows no bounds. Let's see if I can master it to your level:

Jsuckc810
Suck_Michigan
MgoSuck-LightSpecial
Terry in Suckchester
smackaholsuck

Am I getting the hang of it? Am I using too many words? If so, perhaps this can keep you entertained...

[Van]

You muhrons all need to go enroll in English 10.

I was just sitting here facepalming as they all completely missed your point in underlining 'less.' Even now, they still don't get it.

[lovebuzz]

Mikey and Van have serious board credibility.

Oh, and Smackie Chan should change his name to Rackie Chan.

[mvscal]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't you gone on record saying that creating economic policy is the most important job of a President, and that fiscal conservatism (as allegedly practiced by Republicans better than by Democrats, historically) is far more preferable, more responsible, and provides better overall results than the tax-and-spend liberalism of those dangerous Democrats? If so, shouldn't there be ample data to support this? You know, stuff like unemployment figures, debt creation/reduction, and the like.

Why the fuck do you think I asked you if you had been asleep for the three and half years? Evidently your answer is, "Yes, I have."

The proper economic policy for any President is to get the fuck out of the way and let business take care of business. Government doesn't create jobs. They can only destroy them and, at best, create favorable conditions for the private sector growth their paychecks depend on. The less government is meddling in business, the less business will be meddling in government. Dumbo's policies have been catastrophic failures. Your idiotic Snopes bullshit aside, Barry has added more debt in his three and half years than any other President in history.

Nobody has ever spent more and delivered less than the moron squatting in the White Hut right now.

[Goober McTuber]

You never say why you disagree with the people you disagree with, nor do you provide any explanation for why you think the wealthy should pay more and at a higher percentage (which they do now, you know...).

Not according to Warren Buffet.

[Mikey]

You muhrons all need to go enroll in English 10.

I was just sitting here facepalming as they all completely missed your point in underlining 'less.' Even now, they still don't get it.

Post more, read fewer.

[poptart]

Why pop is so happy with the Republicans:

You're an embarrassing tool.

You have NO rational response to the debt issue, so you toss out diversionary stupidity like that which does not even apply to me.

psst...

I'm not a Republican.
I'm not happy with the Republicans.
The Republican party is fucked up.
I am not voting for Romney, who is a joke.

Point taken. I concur that tackling the debt issue should be a priority. This is not the first presidency during which there has been a perceived debt crisis. The S&L bailout created one. The Iraq & Afghanistan Wars created one. I don't recall you, mvscal, or any others on the right raising as much of a stink about it before Obama started adding to it. In fact, I agreed with mvscal a few years back when Dubya was in office that, while many on the left were hand-wringing over it, I believed it wasn't as catastrophic as some were making it out to be. I guess my question now would be, what was the tipping point when the debt went from being manageable and within "reason," and became a crisis? Was it a particular dollar amount or some event that pushed us over the edge? If so, what was the amount or the event? Obama's stimulus plan implementation?

If Obama's "management" of the debt crisis shouldn't be judged by how his predecessors fared, by what standard should it be judged? An as-yet-achieved-by-anyone ideal? Or are you just looking for him to show some "inclination to even begin to seriously deal with it"?

If you start out by acknowledging that the debt issue needs to be a priority, why go on with the mental exercise you followed with?

It's water under the bridge.

The 16 trillion dollar national debt accumulated under MANY different Presidents and it's not all Barry's fault, but he's the only one now that has power to take steps to deal with it.

But instead of dealing with it, all he wants to do is ADD to it - and at a very dramatic clip.

I guess my question now would be, what was the tipping point when the debt went from being manageable and within "reason," and became a crisis?

Probably right near the end of the GW presidency - when the economic crisis hit.
At that point, the jig was up and massive gov debt as a routine practice could no longer be passed off as business as usual.

Barry stepped into a debt crisis and has added, in less than 4 years, almost 6 trillion dollars to it.

Unimaginable negligence - and the fact that people actually support this is mind boggling.

[mvscal]

This is not the first presidency during which there has been a perceived debt crisis.

Perceived? Are we simply imagining that we're $16 trillion in the hole?

The S&L bailout created one. The Iraq & Afghanistan Wars created one. I don't recall you, mvscal, or any others on the right raising as much of a stink about it before Obama started adding to it.

I guess you were too stoned. Do you remember Chimpy's approval numbers cratering to 29% after he signed TARP and never broke 30% the rest of his tenure? His wild spending lost conservative support. Both myself and poptart lashed the Chimp for his orgy of spending on this forum.

I guess my question now would be, what was the tipping point when the debt went from being manageable and within "reason," and became a crisis?

The largest annual deficit Chimpy Magnus accrued was $459 billion. The smallest deficit Bath House Barry accrued was $1.3 trillion. Any alarm bells ringing yet?

If Obama's "management" of the debt crisis shouldn't be judged by how his predecessors fared, by what standard should it be judged?

He should be judged by his actions. There is no management of this debt crisis whatsoever. If you are even remotely interested in managing debt, the first thing you do is create a budget. The first thing Barry did was stop creating budgets.

There are absolutely no controls on Federal spending. We haven't had a budget in three and half years. We have a debt ceiling and they spend every penny up to the ceiling and then they fearmonger their way into raising the debt ceiling again with scary stories of government shutdown and blood in the streets.

That doesn't strike me as a particularly responsible way to run a government. How about you? Or are you just trolling?

[smackaholic]

Who happens to be in office when a recession hits is kind of irrelevant. Dubya walked into the dot bomb fiasco recession which had more to do with Bubba than he. Reagan had a nasty recession right off the bat also thanks to the mess Jimmy handed him.

What is relevant is wtf you do with it.

Reagan had a very strong recovery. Bush had a decent enough recovery despite 9-11, although he squandered it trying to make the dems think he was a nice guy. Barry,OTOH has done jackshit other than point fingers and print money. And we have an economy that has pretty much just sat at the bottom of the hole it fell into.

[Smackie Chan]

Are we simply imagining that we're $16 trillion in the hole?
Both myself and poptart lashed the Chimp for his orgy of spending on this forum.

Funny how attitudes toward debt change depending on whom is in office.

Your posts are missing since this thread was from before your history was erased. But you're quoted in the posts of those who were spared. One of your posts not quoted anywhere followed mine about 2/3 of the way down page 3 which ends with "I'm not too concerned anymore." You echoed those sentiments, and your posts quoted in those of others above mine show that you had little concern about Mikey's warnings of the debt approaching $10 trillion.

[mvscal]

My attitude towards debt depends on how much debt we're talking about and our ability to sell it not who is in office.

You take two aspirin and it will relieve your headache. You take fifty and you'll wind up on a slab in the morgue. Once you stop pretending that there isn't any difference between temporary deficits of $200 billion and permanent, structural deficits of over $1 trillion we can have a real discussion on the topic.

[Moving Sale]

You take two aspirin and it will relieve your headache. You take fifty and you'll wind up on a slab in the morgue.

Except you endorsed two aspirins and we are only at three you vapid, racist, black cock mounting hosechicken.