Spoiler Alert: L.S.S.U. Language Gurus Double Down On Banished Words
Yes, it's that time of year again, folks! Time to cleanse out our vocabulary's lower intestinal tract with a purge of all the now-clichéd triteness we've been using with abandon all year long.
As always, we bow to the wisdom emanating forth from the noble groves of Academe which are located on the frigid shores of Gitche Gumee. I speak, of course, of the Lake Superior State University, who has been tirelessly fighting this losing battle for decades now.
Without further delay, here is the official 2013 list of banished words and phrases. Since 2012 was an election year, politics does seem predominant this time around:
Fiscal Cliff
Kick The Can Down The Road
Double Down
Job Creators
Passion
YOLO
Spoiler Alert
Bucket List
Trending
Superfood
Boneless Wings
Guru
As usual, half the fun is reading the comments by those nominating words and phrases on the L.S.S.U. website. These can be explanatory, or hilarious, or sometimes both:
[Fiscal Cliff] -- "You can't turn on the news without hearing this. I'm equally worried about the River of Debt and Mountain of Despair."
[Double Down] -- "The next time I see or hear the phrase, I am going to double over."
[Job Creators] -- "It implies supernatural powers -- such as the ability to change the weather or levitate. Most new jobs pay less than the lost jobs to ensure stratospheric CEO compensation and nice returns on investments. I respectfully propose a replacement term that is more accurate -- job depleters."
[YOLO] -- "Stands for 'You Only Live Once' and used by wannabe Twitter philosophers who think they've uncovered a deep secret of life. Also used as an excuse to do really stupid things, such as streaking at a baseball game with YOLO printed on one's chest. I only live once, so I'd prefer to be able to do it without ever seeing YOLO again."
[Superfood] -- "It's food. It's either healthful or it's not. There is no 'super' involved."
[Boneless Wings] -- "Can we just call them chicken (pieces)?"
I think that last one has a parenthetical word due to possible copyright infringements, but I admit I'm only guessing.
My personal favorite of the bunch, if for no other reason than its sweepingly-inclusive nature:
[Kick The Can Down The Road] -- "Usually used in politics, this typically means that someone or some group is neglecting its responsibilities. This was seized upon during the current administration and is used as a cliché by all parties... Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, Tories, Whigs, Socialists, Communists, Fashionistas...."
Which, as I said, is an awfully all-encompassing list, there. You don't often see "Whigs" and "Fashionistas" used in the same sentence, after all.
But allow me to take this penultimate paragraph to single out a phrase I'm about to use; a phrase which is far too recently-coined to be on anyone's banished list yet, even if it does refer to a movie from 1991. I speak of the verbization of the "T-n-L" duo, of course, which I had to marvel over when I came across it a few weeks ago (forgot whose column I read it in, sorry). At the very least, some sort of "phrases you never thought would become verbs" award should be contemplated for it, I feel. Any species of phrase praise would do, really. But enough of this digression -- we're pressed enough for time as it is, as we prepare to exit chez Weigant to attend a New Year's party where we fully expect the television to be turned to cable news until the wee hours.
In fact, we invite you to join in tonight with all the political gurus as we all wait to see whether Congress is going to Thelma-and-Louise off the fiscal cliff... or just double-down and kick the can down the road again. If watching the passion of the politicians while eating (take your choice) boneless wings or the latest trending superfood at your "Will the so-called job creators have to pay a dime more?" party gets to be too much, then we suggest you take a deep breath and relax. Because -- Spoiler Alert! -- YOLO. Instead of wasting your New Year's watching the hot air emanate from our Nation's Capital, I'd urge you to get out there and cross something off your bucket list! Have yourselves a Happy New Year, and we'll see you all in 2013!
[Program Note: If you refresh this page, you'll see up at the top that we are incredibly close to meeting our fundraising goal for the year. First, we'd like to profusely thank everyone who has sent in money to support such frippery as the above column, in a financial manner. We are well on our way to being able to afford a new computer here at the ChrisWeigant.com world headquarters. We do sincerely hope we get a last-second donation tonight (a truly modest one would put us over the top, at this point) but even if we only come very close to our goal, this has been a banner fundraising year, and we'd like to say thanks once again to everyone who has participated.]
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Well, it's looks like Vice President Joe Biden saves the day ... again.
It only seems fitting that one of the words that gets the shaft tonight, once and for all, is ...
gaffe ... of the specifically Washington type, and otherwise.
Happy New Year everyone!
LizM -
Chris Cillizza agrees with you, which is good enough for me:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/31/winners-and-losers-in-the-fiscal-cliff-deal/?hpid=z1
:-)
-CW
I was actually just this morning thinking about how abysmally tired I am of the words "fiscal cliff"....
Next up!??
"Debt Ceiling"...
Stop the world!! I want to get off!!!
Michale
0593
Chris,
But, then, Cillizza writes this drivel ...
Obama’s handling of the fiscal cliff talks felt pitch perfect up until his Monday event with “middle class” citizens. The rally felt too much like a campaign rally — Obama was repeatedly cheered — and the president himself was in a joking mood that didn’t seem to fit the moment. Will it be overshadow the fact that he got a deal? No. But it was an off-key note from the country’s top communicator.
Which tells me that he hasn't been paying attention to what the congressional Republicans have been doing over the course of the last 4 years or he has been paying attention but doesn't understand what's been going on.
President Obama has always said that he needs and is relying on the support of the middle class to get this deal done and the "event" he held yesterday was wholly fitting of the occasion.
I'm sorry that some Republicans are so hypersensitive that they felt abused by the whole ordeal. My messsage for them: GET OVER IT!
Michale,
Just seven more comments and I can get my full contribution to the effort off in the mail!
I'll check back later.
Say, don't you have something nice to say about Biden, or something ...
Say, don't you have something nice to say about Biden, or something ...
He's a funny guy...
"Yer a weird guy, Ace. A really weird guy."
-Dan Marino, ACE VENTURA, PET DETECTIVE
Michale
0594
Liz,
Didn't you say you would be happy with the Republicans, if they would go along with Democrats, if only to give the Dems enough rope to hang themselves??
I think you got your wish... :D
If there was ever any doubt that the Democratic Party is the TAX AND SPEND Party, those doubts have been laid to rest...
Michale
0595
Michale
No, I'm pretty sure I said the complete opposite of that, my friend. :)
Just two more to go and you can take the rest of the day off! :)
During the Reagan years, President Reagan signed tax legislation that authorized $3 in tax revenue for every $1 cut...
Of course, Democrats reneged on the deal and the spending cuts never materialized.
During the Bush (HW) years, President Bush signed legislation that authorized $2 in tax revenue for every $1 cut. This violated Bush's infamous "Read My Lips" promise and directly lead to Bush's defeat in the 1992 Elections.
Of course, Democrats reneged on THAT deal as well and the spending cuts never materialized..
Flash Forward to today..
Senate Republicans make a deal that authorizes *$41* in taxes for every $1 dollar in cuts...
Even with that abysmally lopsided ratio, does ANYONE honestly believe that Democrats will do the right thing and follow thru with these promised cuts???
Like I said before and will continue to say..
In 2014 and 2016, Americans will be BEGGING the GOP to take control of the country...
If the last four years have proven ANYTHING, it's that Tax & Spend simply doesn't work...
Michale
0596
Michale,
It's getting down to the wire and, I'm not talking about the demonstration of US politics in action tonight, either!
From my count, you're currently at 0599!!!
So, just one more to go in less than three hours, our time ...
I couldn't do it, Liz... I just couldn't figure out what I should say and you KNOW I don't like to just babble.. :D
Michale
Well, Michale, I'd say that you actually did do it and in style, too!
As I recall you beat last year's record by a significant margin and - at 599 comments! - you've left yourself something to shoot for next year.
Very, very well done!
Now, I have to get myself to the post office! :)
Thanx Liz... Ya always (well, usually :D) lift my spirits up! :D
Michale
Debt Ceiling
Amen. This is actually kind of a boring one for the media though. I keep waiting for them to come up with something more apocalyptic :)
Boneless Wings
This one cracked me up as well, CW. Unfortunately, "mashed up chicken parts" doesn't roll off the tongue quite as well. Heheh.
-David
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year (etc) to everyone!
The whole world is breathing a collective sigh of relief that you Americans decided not to jump off the fiscal cliff but instead of raising adequate revenue, chose to continue borrowing so the rest of the world doesn't have to go into recession - thanks for that.
I think kicking the can of spending cuts down the road was a great result for Democrats given the the worst case scenario is now sequestration (spoiler alert: Republican's don't want this as they don't want balanced cuts but to double down on completely skewed cuts against the poor/elderly/veterans).
Mr Biden did an excellent job. He is a guru of negotiating and showed that it wasn't just his passion that makes him the excellent politician he is today.
I'm off to tuck into my boneless wings. I have been eating and drinking a lot of crappy food over the festive period so this isn't the wisest idea but YOLO...
Michale,
If the last four years have proven ANYTHING, it's that Tax & Spend simply doesn't work..
If the last 30 years have proven anything it is that if Democrats are the party of tax and spend, Republicans are the party of borrow and spend...
If the last 30 years have proven anything it is that if Democrats are the party of tax and spend, Republicans are the party of borrow and spend...
This coming from the guy who supports the BIGGEST borrower in this nation's history...
Yea, THAT's credibility... :^/
By the bi... Welcome back... :D
Michale
This coming from the guy who supports the BIGGEST borrower in this nation's history...
Just in case you have gotten unaccustomed to FACTS in your absence... :D
President Barack Obama: First Term = $5.073 trillion.
President George W. Bush: First Term = $1.267 trillion.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm
Hmmm perhaps you might consider that Mr Reagan and Mr Bush are clearly your biggest borrowers, considering from the start point to the end point of their Presidencies the US debt MORE THAN DOUBLED (in Reagan's cast, tripled)... Obama would have to hit $22t to be in Bush's level of debt or $33t to be at Reagan's level of debt lol.
Hmmm perhaps you might consider that Mr Reagan and Mr Bush are clearly your biggest borrowers, considering from the start point to the end point of their Presidencies the US debt MORE THAN DOUBLED (in Reagan's cast, tripled)... Obama would have to hit $22t to be in Bush's level of debt or $33t to be at Reagan's level of debt lol.
Perhaps YOU might consider that Reagan and Bush were two term presidents and Obama has only had one term..
In the link above it shows that Bush's First Term debt was a bit above 1 Trillion..
Obama's First Term Debt is 5 TIMES that amount!
I am just a simple knuckle-dragging ground-pounder. But even I know that more debt = more borrowing...
And Obama surpasses ANY US President in that category, by far..
Yer guy stinks.. Just admit it and you'll feel better.. :D
Michale
77.1% of Americans will see their taxes raise..
And Democrats REALLY think they are the "warriors" for the Middle Class???
SERIOUSLY!!???
Michale...
Michale,
In the link above it shows that Bush's First Term debt was a bit above 1 Trillion..
Obama's First Term Debt is 5 TIMES that amount!
I am just a simple knuckle-dragging ground-pounder. But even I know that more debt = more borrowing...
And Obama surpasses ANY US President in that category, by far..
If every single President had a clean slate and took control with $0 debt (the entire debt slate wiped clean) and a fresh start - no deficit, surplus or anything - meaning you are responsible for everything that happened - you would be 100% correct that Obama is the highest borrowing spending President ever. Of that there is no doubt.
Unfortunately for you (something that you have never quite been able to get your head around over and over and over again on here) this is not reality. The reality is the President takes over a country at Point A and leaves it at Point B. So the best measurement of a success of a Presidency are to look at Point A and Point B to see where they took the country.
And on this criteria your worst 2 Presidents in borrow & spend are Mr Reagan (no.1) and Mr Bush (no.2). Obama is almost tied in 3rd with Bush Snr.
So yes, Republican Presidents = borrow and spend.
77.1% of Americans will see their taxes raise..
And Democrats REALLY think they are the "warriors" for the Middle Class???
SERIOUSLY!!???
Uhm seriously? You know that Democrats wanted to extend the Payroll Tax cut but Republicans said no?? Do you read CW's columns??
You see the payroll tax increase doesn't impact Republicans buddies - the wealthy. And it does impact the poor. Double win for them.
So using Republican formula for judging any decision you can see why they don't like it:
(1) Does it help the poor?
---> Yes = Reject
---> No = Go to Q2
(2) Does it impact the wealthy
---> Yes = Reject
---> No = FIST-PUMP ACCEPT.
So yes, Republican Presidents = borrow and spend.
Yes.. In MichtyLand, I am sure that is true..
But, here in the real world, the facts speak for themselves..
President Barack Obama: First Term = $5.073 trillion.
President George W. Bush: First Term = $1.267 trillion.
These are the facts... And they are undisputed...
Michale
Uhm seriously? You know that Democrats wanted to extend the Payroll Tax cut but Republicans said no??
Yea, some warriors..
Roosevelt to Hitler, "We are going to stop you!!"
Hitler: "No"...
Roosevelt: "OK... PACK IT UP, BOYS!! WE'RE GOING HOME!!!"
With "warriors" like the Democrats, who needs Republicans???
Michale
These are the facts... And they are undisputed...
Reagan = Tripled the debt (300%)
Bush = More than doubled the debt (250%)
Obama = Added 40%. Not even in the same division of borrow and spend, has much to learn.
These are the facts... And they are undisputed...
Here it is in graph form for you Michale http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/50449f8369bedd020c000009-960/debt-increase-by-president.png
i know most here aren't sports people, but if i hear anyone else say "in this league" (especially if they themselves aren't even IN the damn league) i'm going to vomit.
Reagan = Tripled the debt (300%)
Bush = More than doubled the debt (250%)
Obama = Added 40%. Not even in the same division of borrow and spend, has much to learn.
These are the facts... And they are undisputed...
Once again, you cherry pick your "facts"..
What are the AMOUNTS of debt??
President Barack Obama: First Term = $5.073 trillion.
President George W. Bush: First Term = $1.267 trillion.
Further, you insist on comparing Bush and Reagan's EIGHT YEARS to Obama's THREE YEARS...
"HELLO!!! McFLY!!!!!"
Obama has wracked up TWICE as much debt in THREE YEARS that Reagan and Bush COMBINED wracked up in EIGHT YEARS!!!!
I remind you that this is a REALITY BASED forum.. Stats from MichtyLand are not admissible... :D
You've lost your touch, michty... You used to be a lot more formidable... Too much eggnog.. :D
By the bi... Your link shows a 403-FORBIDDEN error..
Nice to have "facts" that no one else can see... :D
Michale
What are the AMOUNTS of debt??
Again read my post in [22]. Unless the starting point was ZERO, then the AMOUNT of debt is meaningless. Again: UNLESS THE STARTING POINT WAS ZERO. You seem completely unable to understand this basic point.
No President inherits a clean slate with $0 debt and zero bills that the previous guy signed up for. So to see how they have handled the debt, you look at where they started (Point A) and where they left things (Point B) and deduct these points to see what they did to the debt/economy they inherited.
What you want to do (really because it suits your argument) is look at Point B and completely ignore Point A - assume that Obama is responsible for every single $ of deficit (ever in the history of America) because you have been brainwashed into believing that before Obama took over America was a rosy place with people laughing and dancing and $0 deficits and Obama magically spent a $16t debt all by himself lolol...
I'll try the link again :)
http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/50449f8369bedd020c000009-960/debt-increase-by-president.png
I'll try a simple analogy to try and get you to understand this point, then I'll give up.
There are two guys each tasked with the sole purpose of handling a credit card account.
The first guy takes over the credit card bill when it is $10. 4 years later, he has turned this bill into $750,000 of debt.
The second guy takes over a credit card bill of $100m. 4 years later the bill is at $101m.
In Michale world, the first guy has done an AMAZING job of handling his cash because he ONLY(!) added $750k to the credit card bill, where as the second guy added a whopping $1m!
This is literally what you're arguing by looking at the 'amount' of debt they added without looking at the context of what the debt was when they took it over and PROPORTIONALLY how the debt expanded under their leadership...
Again read my post in [22]. Unless the starting point was ZERO, then the AMOUNT of debt is meaningless. Again: UNLESS THE STARTING POINT WAS ZERO. You seem completely unable to understand this basic point.
I'll say again...
"HELLO???!!!! McFLY!!!!"
The amount was the debt that THAT particular president added to the debt....
Ergo, the amount DID start at zero!!!
Bush ADDED 1.26 trillion dollars to the debt in his first term..
Obama ADDED over FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS to the debt in the first three years of his first term..
Hello??? Are you awake??? Any intelligent life in MichtyLand???
I'll try the link again :)
You can link all you want. 403-FORBIDDEN is still 403-FORBIDDEN
I'll leave #30 to the annals of idiocy as you are still trying to stick with percentages when it's the actual dollar amount that is the point.. As your usual MO, you change the parameters of the discussion when you discover how wrong you are..
Bush added 1.26 Trillion dollars to the debt in his first term. That's 4 years..
Obama added 5.07 TRILLION dollars to the debt in the first three years of his term..
Com'on! I am a Neanderthal when it comes to finances and economics and even *I* can see how you are trying to wiggle out of the facts... :D
Michale
Bush added 1.26 Trillion dollars to the debt in his first term. That's 4 years..
Obama added 5.07 TRILLION dollars to the debt in the first three years of his term...
i think the point michty was attempting to make was that bush entered office with a nice sized surplus and a thriving economy (courtesy of clinton/gingrich), while obama entered office with a monstrous deficit and an economy in free-fall (courtesy of bush/hastert and bush/pelosi). therefore, the reasoning is that bush's deficit (5B in 2 terms) is more egregious than obama's (5B in 1 term), because the starting conditions were different.
i think there's a case to be made that bush's debt is worse even though objectively it wasn't run up as quickly. since obama's time in office is not yet done, in my mind the jury's still out.
~joshua
Michale,
No matter how many times you spin what Obama has done in his first term, the facts of the matter do not change.
The Obama administration has presided over a period which has seen government spending rise at a slower rate - about 1.4% per annum - that at any time in the previous 60 years.
By comparison, government spending under the previous administration grew at an average rate of about 7.7 percent per year and 8.7% per year during Reagan's first term.
And, it was Obama who had to deal with the most destructive financial crisis since the Great Depression!
Anyway you slice it, Michale, the Obama administration has acted in a very prudent and fiscally responsible manner to limit the damage of a financial crisis unprecedented in its severity through an overall pro-growth strategy for tax and fiscal policy. And, it has done so in the face of strong headwinds that persistently emanate from the Republican cult of economic failure.
Would you like to guess what is largely responsible for the expanding deficit? That's right ... much lower than expected revenues due to weak economic growth in the wake of the ... wait for it ... most destructive financial crisis since the Great Depression!
For a more in-depth analysis, check out the Wall Street Journal's Market Watch column by Rex Nutting, Obama Spending Binge Never Happened.
Michale,
Bush added 1.26 Trillion dollars to the debt in his first term. That's 4 years. Obama added 5.07 TRILLION dollars to the debt in the first three years of his term.
I'm not sure where you're getting your figures from ... ahem ... but they are ass-backwards, almost to the dollar!
Some more chum to add to the mix ...
Why all this talk about debt and taxes? Shouldn't we be talking about getting the economy back on track?
-David
BTW- For the record, the biggest reason we've run deficits under Obama is called "The Recession". The economy shrank and therefore tax revenue did as well.
This accounts for roughly half of the Obama deficit. The financial collapse and recession.
-David
David,
Well, getting the economy back on track has quite a lot to do with deficits, debt, tax and fiscal policy.
We should be talking about how the Obama administration should proceed with its pro-growth strategy and how the country can get through the next few months unscathed by the destructive policy prescriptions advocated by the Republican cult of economic failure.
I couldn't agree more with comment #36!
Joshua,
i think the point michty was attempting to make was that bush entered office with a nice sized surplus and a thriving economy (courtesy of clinton/gingrich),
And a year later, a small insignificant event called 9/11 happened..
You might recall that.
Isn't it even SLIGHTLY possible that THAT particular event had SOME bearing on the debt??
Irregardless, the fact remains..
Bush added 1.26 Trillion dollars to the debt in his first term. That's 4 years..
Obama added 5.07 TRILLION dollars to the debt in the first three years of his term.. Which is TWICE what Reagan *AND* Bush added in *EIGHT* years COMBINED!!!
Spin it all you want..
You are entitled to your own opinion. Yer even entitled to your own spin.
You are NOT entitled to your own facts.
It's against the rules.. :D
Michale
Isn't it even SLIGHTLY possible that THAT particular event had SOME bearing on the debt??
Ah, no ... not compared to what the Bush administration did, all by themselves. I'm talking about the beloved but wholly unpaid for tax cuts and two very unsuccessful wars.
Bush's economic policies were a combined and miserable failure and had little if anything to do with 9/11 ... unless, of course, you chalk it all up to PSTD. Ahem.
Michale,
Where are you getting your facts and figures from?
Because they are totally wrong.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/tim-carney-how-corporate-tax-credits-got-in-the-cliff-deal/article/2517397#.UOUFRXe24eS
Tell me again how Obama and the Democrats are NOT bought and paid for be special interests lobbyists and their corporate masters??
IN all the evidence to the contrary, I seem to have forgotten...
Michale
Isn't it quite past your bedtime? :)
Michale [9] -
Why would America beg either party for anything different when the vote in the Senate was 89-8? You can't blame one party for that one, my friend.
David [14] -
I tried to get something to rhyme with "nuggets" while writing this article, but couldn't come up with anything. I bet that's what the "(pieces)" said originally... but neither I nor the LSSU site wants to mess with The Clown's lawyers....
michty6 [16] -
Oh... snap! That one had to hurt... (heh).
M6 [22] -
Hope you don't mind me calling you "M6"... that doesn't mean anything special to Brits, does it? Heh.
Anyway, do you know the only US president to ever completely pay off the national debt (not "deficit"... the whole debt...) during his time in office? Just a trivia question for you...
:-)
Michale [24] -
Actually, both parties are equally responsible for the SS payroll tax increase. The Dems made noises about continuing the payroll tax holiday, the GOP was completely against it, and the Dems shrugged their shoulders and said "eh, no big deal" and tossed it under the bus. Once again, a bipartisan effort, as I pointed out on (from memory) 12/27. So what's your point? It's not a partisan issue -- it's an "all those bastards in Washington screwed us all again" type of issue...
nypoet22 -
Actually, I agree, "in this league" is annoying. Also, I would add "in this ballpark" as well...
Michale [28] -
Not to address your main point, but Obama is a few weeks shy of 4 years in office, now. "Three years" doesn't cut it anymore, sorry. Just a nit to pick, but still...
M6 [29] -
I'm getting a 403 error, too.
Michale [31] -
So we're in agreement that Bill Clinton was the best president in our lifetimes on the debt issue? Right? Since all presidents are either to blame or to credit for the budgets on their watch (from day one onwards), then Clinton was the greatest president of the latter part of the 20th century, right? Just wanted to hear you admit that, that's all. Heh.
David [35] -
NO! We should be talking about how brilliant the verbization of "Thelma-and-Louise-ing" and/or whether the term "brinkmanship" or "brinksmanship" is really the preferred one, here. This is supposed to be a LANGUAGE column, dammit!
Heh heh.
Michale [38]
Irregardless
See, that's what I'm talking about. All members of the Language Police should be CRINGING at that one!
Heh.
Seriously, though, which president do you think history will treat kinder, Obama or Bush? Just curious...
OK, whew! Made it to the end...
-CW
getting the economy back on track has quite a lot to do with deficits, debt, tax and fiscal policy.
Liz- Most economists I've read say nothing about how dealing with debt & deficit will help us grow the economy. Debt & deficit is largely a conservative argument for this very reason. On the contrary, "cutting spending" as conservatives argue will shrink the economy. Every Democrat should be making this point and trying to refocus the discussion on the economy.
Debt & deficit, like the Republican war on terror, is largely a distraction if the larger goal is fixing the economy. It is how Republicans frame the discussion in order to try to cut all social programs (which is what they really want).
Step 1- Create a crisis.
Step 2- Use crisis to argue for spending cuts.
Step 3- Repeat.
This is also why deficits only seem to matter when Democrats are in charge. Funny that, eh?
Now this is not to say that deficits are not an issue. They're just not THE issue. And the time to be dealing with them is when the economy is strong.
This is supposed to be a LANGUAGE column, dammit!
Irregardless- Is this a double negative?
(I've had to catch myself from using this one a few times myself :) )
-David
Liz,
Isn't it quite past your bedtime? :)
Yea it is.. I usually don't get on CW.COM in the evening hours as it puts my brain into high gear and makes it hard to sleep.
But, for some reason I didn't get to sleep til 0230 anyways, so I figured.. "Since I was up.."
"The new word in our house is 'sensuous'... 'Sensuous up, get me a beer!'....
-Jeff Foxworthy
:D
CW,
Why would America beg either party for anything different when the vote in the Senate was 89-8? You can't blame one party for that one, my friend.
I can if my point is that the Democratic Party claims to be "warriors" for the middle class, yet turns around and screws over said middle class at every turn..
Not to address your main point, but Obama is a few weeks shy of 4 years in office, now. "Three years" doesn't cut it anymore, sorry. Just a nit to pick, but still...
Not really, since the financial stats quoted were for Obama's 3 year mark or thereabouts.. When the 4th year stats are thrown in the mix, his total debt is likely to be considerably higher...
So we're in agreement that Bill Clinton was the best president in our lifetimes on the debt issue?
Bill Clinton had a lot of factors going for him (DotCom bubble) just as Bush Jr had a lot of factors going against him (9/11).
It's just as accurate to say that it was the GOP Congress that made the prosperity, not Clinton..
However, I will grudgingly admit that Clinton would have been chalked up as one of the more effective Presidents of our time, if only he could have kept his weiner in his pants..
See, that's what I'm talking about. All members of the Language Police should be CRINGING at that one!
Yea, during my infamous USENET wars, I found that throwing a nonsensical term into the mix drives people bonkers.. :D
Seriously, though, which president do you think history will treat kinder, Obama or Bush? Just curious...
It would depend on the context. Economy-wise, Obama will probably be treated nicer.. National Security-wise, it will be Bush by a country mile...
Overall, I think Bush will get the better end of the deal. But that could just be my anti-Obama attitude, I have to admit..
M6, (I like that) :D
No response as to which President has wracked up more debt???
President Barack Obama: First Term = $5.073 trillion.
President George W. Bush: First Term = $1.267 trillion.
And the stats only show Obama's first three years, so it's not even a full term..
Obama has added more debt to this country in three years than Bush and Reagan added in EIGHT years, COMBINED...
Debt-wise, yer guy's a wanker...
These are the facts. And they are undisputed...
Michale
M6,
A guy is flying a bunch of tourists around in a helicopter in San Francisco.. A merciless fog bank rolls in and totally obscures the ground. The pilot, seeing a building poking thru the ground fog heads over. He hovers close to the top of the building where a group of people are standing. Pilot yells out, "Where am I??"
One of the group answers, "You are in a helicopter"... The pilot thinks for a moment, waves thanx to the guy who yelled and veers off..
A few minutes later, the pilot makes a perfect 3-point landing at his home hanger, despite not being able to see a thing.
One of the tourists remarked, "That's amazing! How could you find your way, based on that totally bullshit answer??"
The pilot said, "Oh, it was easy. I just needed a single point of reference to be able to find my way back home. The answer the guy gave me was completely factual, yet utterly irrelevant to the context. So I knew that I had to be at the HQ of the Democratic Party."
My point??
Our discussion was about which President has been the biggest borrower. Since we can't find any stats for that, the next best thing is to conclude which President has been the biggest debt maker.
Your stat, while likely factual (no idea since you refuse to link ANY of your proclamations) is completely irrelevant to the point of the discussion...
Michale
Our discussion was about which President has been the biggest borrower.
The bigger question though is: what is best for the economy?
-David
Jobs report for December ... 215,000 new added. Above analyst expectations.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/private-sector-adds-215-000-132243664.html
Michale,
The amount was the debt that THAT particular president added to the debt....
Ergo, the amount DID start at zero!!!
Lololol no. Just so so so so so wrong.
In fact you can look at the ACTUAL REAL$ starting points:
- Obama STARTED with a $600b deficit, a $1.2t forecast deficit and >$11t in debt (you know that debt requires interest payments right?)
- Bush STARTED with a $100b surplus, $6b of surpluses forecasted for the next 10 years and ~$4t in debt.
I know. You LIKE to think this isn't true and they magically started at zero (or that Obama went back in time machine and is responsible for the trillion in debt he inherited because of his 'orgasmic spending'). But this is because you don't live in reality.
But I know numbers aren't your thing, that's why a provided a much simpler, clear analogy in [30]. If this isn't clear (or simple) it's only because you don't want it to be clear (or simple) because you don't want to recognise reality as it doesn't suit the world your right-wing sites have tried to create...
Our discussion was about which President has been the biggest borrower. Since we can't find any stats for that
Lolol I added the bold. You can find stats for that. Try Google, Wikipedia or anything. Here I'll even give you a formula:
= (Amount of debt at end of term-Amount of debt at start of term)/Amount of debt at start of term
The person with the highest %age is the highest borrower. Clue: you are not going to like the numbers because they show which party is the party of 'borrow and spend'.
Whoops line in above comment should be:
"- Bush STARTED with a $100b surplus, $6t of surpluses forecasted for the next 10 years and ~$4t in debt."
David,
Our discussion was about which President has been the biggest borrower.
The bigger question though is: what is best for the economy?
Borrowing can be good for the economy, especially when rates are low. The rates afforded to Governments are the lowest possible, so it'd be stupid for them not to borrow something - especially if you spend it on infrastructure, education, science and research or other +EV projects - the future economic growth you will get from these will offset your borrowing costs (otherwise they wouldn't be +EV and you shouldn't do them ;)).
However, if you borrow to fund tax cuts, military spending, invading a few countries and Corporate welfare (cough cough cough) then the ROI on all of these investments is going to lead you to have massive deficits in future unless you fix these problems (cough cough cough). And if the economy tanks you're going to be in big deficit trouble having borrowed to finance these things (cough cough cough cough cough).
David,
Now this is not to say that deficits are not an issue. They're just not THE issue. And the time to be dealing with them is when the economy is strong.
Exactly!
However, we can no longer discuss economic growth and financial crises like they are just cyclical components of what makes the world go round. All that sort of thinking really had to change in the aftermath of the most destructive global financial crisis since the Great Depression.
I know full well what congressional Republicans and the Norquists of this world are up to and it has precious little to do with debt and deficits.
But, how do the economists you read suggest we grow the economy without talking about tax and fiscal policy?
By the way, I hope President Obama meant what he said when he wasn't going to debate the Republicans when it comes to the debt ceiling or that we're not nearly done with making the tax system more equitable. Because if we are subjected to a repeat of what happened last summer, then it's hard to know how the economy won't suffer even more than it did the last time around.
Do you know how Obama et al. are going to be able to do what they say in this regard?
David,
Now this is not to say that deficits are not an issue. They're just not THE issue. And the time to be dealing with them is when the economy is strong.
Btw I have come up with a very simple way to link economic recovery and deficit reduction together. It is called the 'michty6 plan' (or 'M6 plan' as of today ;)) and it goes like this:
- Unemployment hits 7%, Clinton level tax rates restored to those earning $200k.
- Unemployment hits 6.5%, Clinton level tax rates restored to those earning $150k.
- Unemployment hits 6%, Clinton level tax rates restored to those earning $100k.
- Unemployment hits 5.5%, Clinton level tax rates restored to those earning $50k.
Oh and there is also a Part (B): STOP INVADING AND RUNNING OTHER COUNTRIES. This is also an important part to deficit reduction, as the fewer countries you have to run the lower your spending ;)
Borrowing can be good for the economy, especially when rates are low. The rates afforded to Governments are the lowest possible, so it'd be stupid for them not to borrow something.
Well said. You want to borrow where there is the most significant return on investment.
But, how do the economists you read suggest we grow the economy without talking about tax and fiscal policy?
Fiscal policy absolutely, Liz. I just want all fiscal policy to be included.
Republican strategy is to focus on this tiny piece called "deficit" because of their agenda to cut social programs.
How does this have anything to do with the economy? Answer: it by and large doesn't.
Do you know how Obama et al. are going to be able to do what they say in this regard?
This is a great question. I'm curious about this as well.
-David
It is called the 'michty6 plan' (or 'M6 plan' as of today ;))
I love it.
I even more love how you framed it: "Deficit reduction should be tied to economic recovery"
This sets the priorities straight.
1. Fix the economy
2. Worry about the deficit
Liz, this may be your answer. This is the type of thing the Democrats need to be able to frame.
Why this is so important is that Republicans are going to come hard w/ "cuts". And cuts will not help the economy.
-David
A good starting volley from Obama would be "I will veto any bill that doesn't help the economy"
David,
This is a great question. I'm curious about this as well.
I think we may have had a glimpse of how Obama is going to approach the next couple of months with respect to dealing with the nonsense of the congressional Republicans. Remember his mini rally the other day when he gathered supporters just before the vote in the House? He has to continue to cultivate support from the American people in an effort to marginalize a Republican Party that is seemingly already at war with itself.
I think if Obama handles this fight over the debt limit and the sequester like a very tough campaign, enlisting the support of the middle class en masse and calling out the nonsense of the Republican cult of economic failure at each and every turn, then the economy may be in very good shape in the wake of these "fiscal cliff" negotiations.
But, he needs to start the campaign yesterday and keep it up until the end.
He has to continue to cultivate support from the American people in an effort to marginalize a Republican Party that is seemingly already at war with itself.
I hope so, Liz. Keep using the bully pulpit. Do what Reagan did and go around Congress.
Just read a great article from, believe it or not, the New Republic on a couple of the things we've been talking about ...
http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/111573/obama-didnt-get-rolled-the-fiscal-cliff-in-fact-he-won?utm_source=The+New+Republic&utm_campaign=8d433b6674-TNR_Daily_010313&utm_medium=email#
Here's another ...
"Third, there is a division among Republican lobbies, political organizations and interest groups that surfaced in the wake of the election and once again this week. It’s not easy to define, but it runs between pro-business conservatives, on the one hand, and the right-wing libertarians of the Tea Party and Club for Growth and their billionaire funders."
-David
Yes, David, I read that earlier today. I also stopped by another favourite site, Bill Bradley's New West Notes (www.newwestnotes.com) where there is some very interesting analysis as to where Obama is going with this.
It's going to be very interesting indeed to watch over the next few weeks to see how it all unfolds.
I was thinking today that perhaps Republicans really are insane enough to not raise the debt limit. I could see the following playing out:
- Republicans refuse to raise debt limit.
- Markets crash, world freaks out, stock prices plummet and another recession begins.
- In a bid to fight off the recession, Obama takes executive action to raise the debt limit.
- Said action is taken to court, but buys the US Government some time.
- Republicans, seeing the back-lash, raise the debit limit but the damage is already done and they proceed to get absolutely destroyed in the 2014 elections.
- In 2015 Democrats take debt ceiling increases out of the control of Congress.
I mean I guess they showed they weren't completely bat shit crazy enough on Jan 1st to block vote and avoid raising taxes but they are going to be spitting the dummy out big time if they get stuck with sequestration and not the massive cuts to poor/elderly/veteran/sick programmes that they want (which is not going to happen, since Democrats can now sit back and laugh at Republican attempts to obliterate these programmes when the new worst case scenario for them is sequestration - which has much more balanced cuts).
I sure do hope it doesn't work out that way, Michty! I suspect that it will not be like that.
But, I do think part of the plan is to take the silly debt ceiling debate right out the picture. And, I also like the part about the Republicans meeting their rude awakening in 2014. :)
Michty-
Help me understand sequestration. This sounds like the across the board budget cuts which had been part of the fiscal cliff.
Would this happen again if the debt ceiling isn't raised?
Interested because this could impact the negotiating position of both parties. That's what I'm trying to understand.
-David
OMG- I think I get it. Dems pushed the date of the sequestration back. They still hold this card. I thought they'd gotten rid of this. This is a good thing.
You think this is a good thing? Would have been better to push it back a year, as the Dems wanted, so that it wasn't attached to that damn debt ceiling debate. This gives the Republicans a lot of leverage, all else being equal. But, alas, all else is not equal! :)
Yeh as far as I'm concerned (and this should be every Democrats as well as Obama's approach), sequestration and raising the debt ceiling are 2 completely different things. Liz is right, timing them together was a bit of a mistake - even 3 months would have been better than 2! This was no doubt a concession to Republicans who want to use the debt ceiling as leverage.
But as long as Democrats are firm that raising the debt ceiling has nothing to do with sequestration (which it doesn't) then it should be good.
As far as I'm concerned if I was a Democrat I'd say to Republicans: either give us a good offer or sequestration happens. The debt ceiling ball is in your court, you can decide if you want to start another recession or not, we are going to vote 100% as a party to raise the debt ceiling and avoid a recession, the rest is up to you.
What I think will happen is that Republicans will put forward a laughable bill that guts every programme that helps poor/elderly/veteran/sick people and attach a debt ceiling extension to it. Basically it's the fiscal cliff position in reverse.
Would have been better to push it back a year, as the Dems wanted, so that it wasn't attached to that damn debt ceiling debate.
True they're not the same debate. However, it may be good that they're timed similarly.
Because there is incentive for Republicans to not face sequestration. See also: military cuts.
Otherwise, my guess is that they'd simply use the debt ceiling to try to force through as many cuts as possible. They may do it anyways but this is where point 3 comes in:
"Third, there is a division among Republican lobbies, political organizations and interest groups that surfaced in the wake of the election and once again this week."
If Republicans lose the military lobby, they are indeed doomed.
-David
OMG- I think I get it. Dems pushed the date of the sequestration back. They still hold this card. I thought they'd gotten rid of this. This is a good thing.
And Republicans still have the Debt Limit card...
And you wonder why there can be no compromise in Congress..
Apparently you have gone from "there is no Right v Left" to "Democrats still hold the sequestration card. Great!!" in record time... :D
Ya ever notice how ya'all only complain about the Right v Left meme when it's the Democrats balls that are in the vice?? :D
Michale
Michale,
It's actually the country's economic well-being that may be caught in the vice ... again ... at the hands of the congressional Republicans ... AGAIN!
Our discussion was about which President has been the biggest borrower.
The bigger question though is: what is best for the economy?
Com'on David.. If I can't play the "aw shucks" card, neither can you! :D
You know as well as I do that amassing such a huge amount of debt is not only bad for the economy, it's a disaster for National Security...
Sure, a little borrowing is a good thing.. A high tide lifts all boats and all that..
But the kind of borrowing that Obama has caused is simply unpatriotic and is a threat to national security....
How do I know??
BECAUSE OBAMA HIMSELF SAID SO!!!
It's funny how NONE of you ever acknowledge Obama's OWN words in this issue..
I know why.. Because Obama's OWN words totally decimate ya'alls arguments...
Utterly and complete decimation...
Michale
It's actually the country's economic well-being that may be caught in the vice ... again ... at the hands of the congressional Republicans ... AGAIN!
It wasn't Republicans that ran up the debt by over FIVE TRILLION Dollars...
It was Obama and the Democrats..
They made the bed.. Now we all have to lie in it..
Spin it all you want, but the facts are clear.. This is Obama's and the Democrat's economy now..
You said so yourself..
Michale
And you wonder why there can be no compromise in Congress.
Au contraire. It's exactly why there is compromise :)
Democrats/Republicans are the political reality of our Congress. People, however, don't tend to be 100% Republican or Democrat.
For example, I consider myself a very economically conservative person. Yet socially, I identify with liberals.
-David
You know as well as I do that amassing such a huge amount of debt is not only bad for the economy
It doesn't appear to worry the economic ratings agencies at all.
In fact, it doesn't worry economists. Not until it's at a level where it's disproportionate to GDP.
It really isn't a problem at all right now. Except ... that conservatives want to cut social programs.
To do this, they need to sell it. To sell it, they're using deficit fear.
Quite simple really. And you know this as well as I, Michale. You just want to cut social programs so entire the hyperbole "it's a disaster for National Security" blah blah blah.
Really? It doesn't look like it's caused any issues whatsoever yet. It's still at sustainable levels.
-David
It wasn't Republicans that ran up the debt by over FIVE TRILLION Dollars..
Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool. Another classic Michale 'fact'. Must've been that Obama and his time machine. DAMN YOU TIME TRAVELLING OBAMA!!!!
For example, I consider myself a very economically conservative person.
Despite all evidence to the contrary.. :D
If you were economically conservative, you would buy into the trickle down theory...
It doesn't appear to worry the economic ratings agencies at all.
Then you should have no problem stating unequivocally and for the record that this economy is Obama's and the Democrat's economy now..
No more blaming Bush..
You want to go on record??? :D
Michale
Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool. Another classic Michale 'fact'.
President Barack Obama: First Term = $5.073 trillion.
President George W. Bush: First Term = $1.267 trillion.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm
Unlike you, michty, I provide substantiation for all my facts..
You don't...
It's THAT simple....
Michale
Unlike you, michty, I provide substantiation for all my facts..
And, for the record, my links aren't locked so no one else can read them... :D
Transparency is my middle name...
"Mine's Cornelius. You tell anyone, I'll kill ya."
-Bruce Willis, THE LAST BOY SCOUT
:D
Michale....
Bush
US Debt at start of term = $5.7t
US Debt at end of term = $10.6t
US Forecast Budget at start of term = +$281b
US Forecast Budget at end of term = -$1.4t
Increase in debt = $4.9t
Increase in debt = 86%
Effect on annual deficit = Turned +$281b forecast to a -$1.4t forecast (a shift of -$1.68t)
Obama
US Debt at start of term = $10.6t
US Debt at present = $16.4t
US Forecast Budget at start of term = -$1.4t
US Forecast Budget at present = -$0.9t
Increase in debt = $5.8t
Increase in debt = 55%
Effect on annual deficit = Turned -$1.4t forecast to a -$0.9t forecast (a shift of +$0.5t)
Those are the ACTUAL facts.
So the impact of Bush was to take a $300b surplus and turn it into a $1.4t deficit - that is DESTROY the annual budget by NEGATIVE $1.6t over the course of his Presidency; so far the affect of Obama has been to DECREASE the forecast surplus by POSITIVE $0.5t. This is what I mean when I say you can't assess them as if they started with zero. This is why looking at proportional debt increase is more accurate. Or in graphical form, if this damn link will work:
http://cdn.front.moveon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Who-Increased-The-Debt-Revised-Front.jpg
(only shows up to end of 2011)
If you were economically conservative, you would buy into the trickle down theory.
Nah ... I'd rather run surpluses every year ;)
Economically conservative doesn't mean ignoring when something doesn't work - for example, supply side economics.
You want to go on record??? :D
If the Republican Congress would pass a liberal agenda and stop pushing cuts, I'd be happy to "own it". Even so, we're still far better off than we would have been under a return to Romney tax cuts for the wealthy.
-David
michty,
http://cdn.front.moveon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Who-Increased-The-Debt-Revised-Front.jpg
(only shows up to end of 2011)
Yer substantiation is MOVE ON!!!?????
SERIOUSLY!!!????
:D Now THAT's funny!!! :D
David,
Economically conservative doesn't mean ignoring when something doesn't work - for example, supply side economics.
As opposed to economic liberals who embody the very definition of insanity... :D
If the Republican Congress would pass a liberal agenda and stop pushing cuts, I'd be happy to "own it".
In other words, you refuse to acknowledge the Democrat's responsibility towards the problem.
Everything is all the Republican's fault..
Democrat's ONLY culpability is that they weren't hard enough on the Republicans..
Gotcha.... :D
Hasn't it occurred to ANY of you that it's the POLICIES that are the problem??
Of course not.. It's much easier to indulge in the Left v Right meme, now that Democrat's balls are safely ensconced from the vice... :D
Michale
For the record and apropos of nothing..
SKYFALL is a way kewl flick!
I am not a fan of Daniel Craig as Bond, but the movie itself is likely in the top 3 of BBFs....
Michale
Michale,
No I used the Treasury Direct website for the debt levels, CBO for the deficit forecasts.
I like how you completely ignored all the points and focussed on the graph though as that indicates you can't find any fault anywhere and have finally recognised my point (I only included the graph because some people aren't very good with numbers and need to see things in graphical form - the graph is also little out of date as Obama should be at 55% - i.e. tied in 3rd with Bush senior as I mentioned earlier in these comments)
I like how you completely ignored all the points and focussed on the graph
That's because your points are garbage and have absolutely NO substantiation or basis in reality...
All you spew is completely false garbage...
If you would provide links, as I do, then you might have an argument..
As it is, all you have is Obama-love kool-aide drunkeness fantasy...
Michale
Hasn't it occurred to ANY of you that it's the POLICIES that are the problem?
Sure. If you want growth, you need to invest for growth instead of focusing on cutting programs. This is almost the definition of economic growth.
You can't get any more focused on a policy.
On the flip side, you don't seem to be able to name a single Democratic policy and explain how it's the problem.
For example, I haven't seen one argument from you about what problems our deficit has actually caused. Just a lot of screaming about Obama and debt.
-David
Michale,
So, you finally went to see the latest Bond flick. I've been meaning to see it again. Did you know that it is the first Bond film in 50 years of the franchise to go over one billion dollars at the box office? And, that's not counting what its take will be in China!
For the record, I think there are very good arguments to make for this Bond being the BEST BOND EVER! And, the new M isn't so bad himself, either. Or ... is he???
Michale,
I haven't seen all of the Bond films yet but, I would suspect that Casino Royale, Craig's first one, would be in my top three.
What are your favourites?
Hey, Michale!
I think we may have finally found a topic you know something about. :)
David,
Sure. If you want growth, you need to invest for growth instead of focusing on cutting programs. This is almost the definition of economic growth.
And yet, there has not been ANY significant growth under Obama and the Democrats.. Tax & Spend with aplomb, abandon and w/o any controls or restraint simply does not work.
If you were truly a fiscal conservative, you would see this..
For the record, I think there are very good arguments to make for this Bond being the BEST BOND EVER! And, the new M isn't so bad himself, either. Or ... is he???
The nice thing about Bond flicks is they are interchangeable. SKYFALL was actually a prequel that introduced us to Moneypenny.. It was a nice touch putting the gun barrel blood flow thingy at the end of the movie rather than the beginning.. Kinda said (to me anyways)... "And so it begins...."
Kewpie to anyone who can (w/o Google) state what other blockbuster movie franchise the new Moneypenny played in..
Although Sean Connery will always be Bond (James Bond) to me, I have to admit a certain affinity for the Brosnan Bond flicks. In other words, Goldeneye, World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day were great movies, but Connery is the only Bond.. :D
I think we may have finally found a topic you know something about. :)
Oh, there are a few other things. If Obama and the Democrats make good on their threat to go after Americans' guns, you'll see another topic that I am an expert on.. In spades.. :D
http://www.guns.com/2013/01/03/marine-writes-letter-to-sen-dianne-feinstein-i-will-not-be-disarmed-video/
Or we could always talk about what a hypocrite Al Gore is for selling his Current TV to one of the biggest oil exporters in the world... Which simply proves that all the Climate Change is to Gore is a way to make money.. My expertise shines thru there as well..
It's just my luck that the topic de jour has been something I know the least about. And, frankly, care the least about...
Michale
Michale,
It's just my luck that the topic de jour has been something I know the least about. And, frankly, care the least about...
Really?
I think we may have finally found a topic you know something about. :)
I think what you mean is we have finally found a topic that we both can agree on.. :D
hehehehehehehehe
Michale
It's just my luck that the topic de jour has been something I know the least about. And, frankly, care the least about...
Really?
Really?? which??
That I don't know much about it? Or don't care much about it??
The answer to both is yep..
My ignorance of the topic is there for all to see. :D It's like many here trying to argue about guns.
And, while I know I SHOULD care about the economy, it's important and all that, I just can't seem to gumption up any enthusiasm over the topic.
No matter what happens, we all get screwed over anyways, so......
It's the Vulcan discipline of Kaiidth...
Loosely translated it means "Mastery Of The Unavoidable"..
In other words, if worrying about it won't change it, then why worry about it??? :D
Michale
Speaking of guns and stupidity...
Rice told the detectives that one of their weapons, specifically a female detective’s gun, was making another diner feel uncomfortable.
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/dennys-kick-out-belleville-police-for-being-armed/
Do you know how much business LEOs brings to Dennys???
It's this kind of ignorance and stupidity that hallmarks the Left's view of guns..
I don't have a problem with people's opinions about guns, even if they are negative opinions..
I DO have a problem when those opinions are borne of ignorance and fear-mongering and are THEN used to make policy...
Michale
Sure, a little borrowing is a good thing.. A high tide lifts all boats and all that..
But the kind of borrowing that Obama has caused is simply unpatriotic and is a threat to national security....
How do I know??
BECAUSE OBAMA HIMSELF SAID SO!!!
It's funny how NONE of you ever acknowledge Obama's OWN words in this issue..
{{{cchhiiiirrrrrp}}} {{chirrrrrrppppp}}
:D
Michale
And yet, there has not been ANY significant growth under Obama and the Democrats..
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/galleries/2012/news/economy/1206/gallery.Obama-economy/images/chart-gdp-102612.gif
While this is small, it is growth, not the deregulation caused financial collapse. And growth would also have been greater with more stimulus.
Now Republicans know this. And choose to block it anyways.
As I've said, I'd be happy to call it a Democratic economy if Republicans would just get out of the way.
-David
BTW- From Russia With Love and Goldfinger. My two favorites! I agree w/ you completely on Connery, Michale, though I do like Daniel Craig.
My one nit on Craig would be that he seems a bit emotionless. Connery (and even more so Moore) were a little more playful and fun as Bond.
-David
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xDj3NRYTU8
While this is small, it is growth
So, we agree..
It's not significant..
Imagine how much better the growth would be if Obama and the Democrats exercised a little less Leftist agenda and a little more common sense..
When you have dug yourself into a financial hole, the VERY FIRST THING you must do is... STOP DIGGING!!!
As I've said, I'd be happy to call it a Democratic economy if Republicans would just get out of the way.
And I would be happy to call it Republicans National Security if Democrats would just get out of the way...
Once again, it works both ways.. :D
My one nit on Craig would be that he seems a bit emotionless. Connery (and even more so Moore) were a little more playful and fun as Bond.
Agreed on Craig. He would make a great Vulcan... But I think that Brosnan was the most "playful" Bond..
Moore was too "presidential".. He had presence... But that's the WORST thing in the world for a spy to have...
Brosnan & Connery looked equally comfortable in a tux at a baccarat table as they do in jean cutoffs and a tank top at the beach...
Michale
A somewhat off topic question...
Are there business regulations in practice here in the US that regulate what Gas Station owners can charge for gas??
The wife and I had this discussion on the way to work this morning..
We have several gas stations right across the street and next to each other by my shop. Their gas prices have always been the same.
I always thought that there are business regulations in place for Gas Station owners that require them not to undercut competitors in proximity. Ergo a big station chain cannot undercut a competitor to force them out of business..
My wife thinks it's because they just want to get the maximum $$$ they can w/o being more expensive than what's next door...
Who's right??
Michale
That's because your points are garbage and have absolutely NO substantiation or basis in reality...
All you spew is completely false garbage...
If you would provide links, as I do, then you might have an argument..
As it is, all you have is Obama-love kool-aide drunkeness fantasy...
That's funny I couldn't have said it better myself.... About your points. All your (several times) repeated points have been about in this discussion is comparing the Bush 1st term to the Obama 1st term. Of course you COMPLETELY IGNORE the fact Bush inherited a surplus and actually ran a surplus budget in his 1st year, since this was what was forecast when he began (his surplus was $100b below forecast); where as Obama inherited a MASSIVE deficit with a MASSIVE deficit forecast for his 1st year. You want to live in this make believe world where these things didn't happen and that Obama inherited the most amazing economy ever where as Bush didn't inherit the strongest economy ever seen in decades and destroy it through BORROW AND SPEND.
The figures are out there if you bother to look in official sources. For example, you can see the debt figures to the EXACT DAY at http://www.savingsbonds.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
But all this is lost on you because you live in lalalalalalalala land so discussing the FACTS that I presented in [77] is impossible because you don't want to admit that >$11t of debt existed before Obama even came to office, never mind the economic circumstances and consequences inherited by a President.
Once you change your mind about this and are open to actually discussing the facts then I'm all ears. Until then I'll leave you and your fantasy lalalaland to yourself...
Also you guys are way off. I have seen and own every James Bond, I am a huge fan.
The 'new style' Bond under Craig is horrendous. Don't get me wrong, as movies go they are good movies but as for BOND MOVIES go they have to be up there with the worst.
The motus operandi for the Daniel Craig Bond has been that Bond is more of a thug-like character with none of the charm and sophistication of the previous Bonds. They saw the success of Jason Bourne and decided Bond must be more like this - less of the smiling and charm of Bond, more of the growling and brutal force of Bourne.
Also the theme of every Craig movie has been that Bond is completely inadequate in some way - to the extent that in Craig's first Bond movie he was supposed to be 'too inexperienced and learning' and 'naive' by falling in love (they already tried this before with On Her Majesty's Secret Service - universally recognised as easily the worst Bond movie ever) to the latest movie where apparently he was 'old and past it' and needed help from M to hide this fact. Riiiiiiiight. Casino Royale was just about passable as a Bond movie, definitely Craig's best.
But Brosnan/the previous Bond writers have to share the blame for what they did to Craig. Brosnan's 1st movies were excellent (Goldeneye - his 1st and best) but his last 2, the last 1 in particular, were just ridiculous. It had so much nonsense, for example the invisible car, that the reaction of the writers was to over-correct (for example, their correction to this was to completely take out Q branch for the next 2 movies). Sigh.
/Bond rant ;)
Michale,
Imagine how much better the growth would be if Obama and the Democrats exercised a little less Leftist agenda and a little more common sense..
When you have dug yourself into a financial hole, the VERY FIRST THING you must do is... STOP DIGGING!!!
Perhaps I'm being a little harsh on your if this is your understanding of what has happened.
Without too much into macroeconomic theory, is completely wrong and very common basic economic ignorance. When you have a recession, especially one so large, the WORST thing you can do is to stop spending. Even Republicans knew this (see the Bush bailouts, for example). Stopping spending during a recession IS continuing to dig yourself deeper into a hole by making the recession considerably worse. That is, your understanding is completely the opposite of economic reality.
The problem with this particular Great Recession was quite unique in that beforehand, when the economy was better, the US (and other) Governments were still borrowing MASSIVE chunks of money as Western Governments everywhere continually reduced taxes for the past 30 years and replaced the lost revenue with borrowings.
So the size of deficits they held were MASSIVELY inflated to the strength of the economy. Then the recession hit and all these Governments already had MASSIVE deficits, but they had no choice but to make them even more massive because doing anything else would be catastrophic and lead to hyper-inflation esq levels of despair. This is the reason they were calling what happened this month the 'Fiscal Cliff' because it was exactly this - shutting off spending and Government during the recovery from a recession - that is economic suicide.
So when we continually harp on about the problems of the past 10 years and where the debt came from this is with good reason - because if the US wasn't so highly debt leveraged when the Great Recession hit then you wouldn't have the SUPER MASSIVE deficits you see now.
Now the sad thing - as I have repeated many times - is that neither side is prepared to fix the areas that made the US so highly debt leveraged before the recession hit (tax, military spending in particular). So until you fix these problems, the expanding costs of social programmes (which will be a problem IN FUTURE) is the least of your worries.
Who's right?
That, my friend, is a loaded question. Would you rather be 'right' or would you rather be 'happy'? :)
That said, it's an interesting question. My guess is that it's because gas is largely a commodity. Therefore, prices are not going to vary too much from supplier to supplier. As far as I know there are no regulations mandating certain prices.
I do know that most gas stations/convenient marts do not make much money off of gasoline. They make their money from sodas and other things they sell to customers buying gas. This would lend itself to the commodity theory as individual station owners are largely just passing on the cost of the commodity with little markup.
They saw the success of Jason Bourne and decided Bond must be more like this - less of the smiling and charm of Bond, more of the growling and brutal force of Bourne.
Maybe that's what I miss in Craig. The worldliness. The sharp wit. The flirtiness and humor. I still like Craig and especially loved the Parkour scene in Casino Royale, but he plays the character very cold. I have to confess I never saw any of the Remington Steele ... err, Brosnan movies.
Heheh.
-David
Brosnan was an excellent Bond, but his last 2 movies really tailed off. His 1st 3 were pretty good though and Goldeneye would be up there amongst the best Bond movies ever...
Connery is undoubtedly the best Bond (although I am biased most people recognise this ;)) but Moore had a bunch of really good movies - although Goldfinger is generally recognised as the best (for good reason :))
michty,
The 'new style' Bond under Craig is horrendous. Don't get me wrong, as movies go they are good movies but as for BOND MOVIES go they have to be up there with the worst.
The end of days are amongst us!! Michty and I agree!!! :D
David,
That, my friend, is a loaded question. Would you rather be 'right' or would you rather be 'happy'? :)
Touch`!! :D
THAT was funny!! :D
I have to confess I never saw any of the Remington Steele ... err, Brosnan movies.
Oh, then you are missing a treat!!
For action and humor, the Brosnan Bonds cannot be missed..
If I wasn't such a Connery fan (not the least of which we share the same name :D) Brosnan would be the best Bond...
Michale
There were 5 Brosnan Bonds???
I know Goldeneye, The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day...
The other 2???
Michale
BTW ... here's how Bond might solve the debt ceiling crisis
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/debt-ceiling-coin_n_2404653.html
-David
No as soon as I saw that stupid coin thing (which is nonsense of the highest level of nonsense) my first thoughts were Mr Burns and the trillion dollar bill!
No as soon as I saw that stupid coin thing (which is nonsense of the highest level of nonsense) my first thoughts were Mr Burns and the trillion dollar bill!
LOL!!!
Agreed. But is it any more nonsensical than the misunderstanding about the 'debt ceiling'?
Many people believe the debt ceiling is authorizing more spending when not raising the debt ceiling is really more like saying 'we're not going to pay our bills' - 'we're just going to default'
-David
not raising the debt ceiling is really more like saying 'we're not going to pay our bills' - 'we're just going to default'
No, it's more like a parent and a irresponsible child..
Parent: "No, Barry. I am not going to raise your allowance. You need to learn responsibility. Running up bills you can't pay is not patriotic."
Child: "But MOOOOOOMMMMM!!! If I don't give people the money I said I would pay them, they won't like me."
Parent: "Well, you should have thought about that before you ran up all those bills. It's simply irresponsible and un-patriotic"
You see the point?? :D
Michale
You see the point?
That's just it though.
Congress has already spent the money. If they wanted to spend less they should have simply spent less.
It's more like this:
Child: "I have to pay the interest on my credit card this month"
Parent: "Don't pay it. That way you will spend less."
Huh?
The money has already been spent. It's insane to say we're not going to honor our obligations.
That's why credit agencies want to lower our rating because it is absolutely insane.
-David
Responsibility would be paying for what we bought.
Saying 'we bought it, now we're not going to pay for it' is saying we're a crappy customer and letting the world know they shouldn't do business with us.
How would you treat a customer who bought a security system from you and then simply refused to pay?
-David
Responsibility would be paying for what we bought.
No, responsibility is not buying unnecessary things that we CAN'T pay for...
Michale
David/Michale
No, responsibility is not buying unnecessary things that we CAN'T pay for...
This is absolutely true. Here is my analogy:
Military: Can we get our $800 billion that you promised for 2013? We have soldiers to pay in countries that we invaded, as well as instalment payments due for the billions and trillions of orders for equipment that you've been placing for the past 10 years. Oh and all the loan interest on all the borrowing we took out to pay for that equipment.
Congress: No, we have decided that not paying these bills we signed into law is the best deficit reduction plan.
Lololol.
It's more like this:
Child: "I have to pay the interest on my credit card this month"
Parent: "Don't pay it. That way you will spend less."
Huh?
Actually more like
Employee: Can I get my pay-check now?
Employer: No, we've decided to stop paying our employees.
Employee: Why?
Employer: Well, after making a bunch of profit during the 90s we have been running at a loss now since the new board took over in 2001. In fact, even during good times we were running up MASSIVE losses such that when the bad times hit our losses got worse.
Employee: Oh that sucks, can't we raise more revenue and that will lead to higher profits? I have a few ideas how we could do that actually. In fact a vast majority of the employees believe that you can use taxes to raise revenue and they want you, who represents them, to do this.
Employer: We could have got more revenue in but a big chunk of the board decided they don't like revenue. So they decided we just won't pay our employees any more and that will solve things.
Employee: But won't all the employees stop working and then the company will collapse?
Employer: Oh that's ok, we'll just blame Obama when that happens. Plus we never really liked the company very much anyway, in fact many of our board are ironically anti-company, so screwing over the company is fine with us...
Employee: (Mumbles to himself) Who the fuck was stupid enough to put these guys in charge?
Oh wait. I just heard the employee has returned for more explanation!
Employee: I'm sorry this is crazy. I need more explanation for this nonsense.
Employer: Sure, what would you like to know?
Employee: Well how did we run up such MASSIVE losses during the better economic years before the massive economic recession hit? Why weren't we better prepared for it??
Employer: Good question. Well you see the first reason is that the new board that took over in 2001 decided that they didn't like revenue and wanted to cut revenue.
Employee: Why would they do that??
Employer: Well strangely enough, they believed that cutting revenue would increase revenue.
Employee: You can't be serious.
Employer: Oh I am. Even worse - although that old board is now a laughing stock, many of the current board actually still believe in these principles!
Employee: Wow. But surely just cuts to revenue couldn't have created this mess?
Employer: You're right! In fact the 2001 board decided to take over some other companies - 2 other companies in fact. Except that these other companies were both loss making, added nothing to the company and required masses of resources to take over!
Employee: So why did they do it?
Employer: They managed to persuade a bunch of people that these companies were a major threat to ours. But then when we took a look at the books of the companies, we found there was no threat at all.
Employee: But how did we pay for all this?
Employer: Oh we just put it on the company credit card.
Employee: So THAT'S how we had such massive debts before this recession hit??
Employer: Yes, I am afraid so.
Employee: So what you are going to do about the loss levels now? Can we raise revenue and cut these unnecessary costs??
Employer: Well no. Remember a bunch of the board still believe in the philosophy of the old board. They have decided that they are going to just stop paying employees. Oh and stop paying the credit cards for all that stuff we did.
Employee: Won't that have dire consequences??
Employer: Oh yeh, in fact the entire world will suffer a large recession, millions of people will lose their jobs, the company $ will plummet in value...
Employee: So why do it then??
Employer: Well you probably are not going to believe the reason. You see we've been spending money on employee healthcare and a bunch of the board have decided that it is solely this spending that is to blame for our mess. The other half keep talking about the revenue cuts and company take-overs but they are basically talking to a wall.
Employee: You're right, I don't believe it. How on earth can they actually seriously believe this?
Employer: Oh they're very clever and have a big propaganda machine. In fact the board have convinced people that the old 1990s board, which ran profits for a decade, were actually the irresponsible ones with money and stopped them from completely taking over again!
Employee: This is unbelievable. You can't be serious? So you are saying that almost half the board want to create a massive recession across the world, cost millions of people their jobs and create economic chaos just because they aren't allowed to cut the company healthcare plan that didn't even cause the mess in the first place??
Employer: That would be correct.
Employee:(Mumbles to himself) Who the fuck was stupid enough to put these guys in charge?
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/04/3167317/lincolnton-furniture-company-praised.html
What IS it about praise from Obama being the kiss of death for companies???
Michale
They should have just stopped paying their employees and creditors. That would've fixed things probably... ;)
No, responsibility is not buying unnecessary things that we CAN'T pay for.
Sure. But once you buy, you don't simply not pay.
That's called delinquency. It leads to things like bankruptcy, terrible credit scores, and economic failure.
The time to not buy is when you're buying. Not after you've already bought. That's simply loony.
Michale, what would you do with a customer who bought a security system and refused to pay you?
Would you say "why that's very patriotic of you, sir"?
I'm guessing not.
Employee:(Mumbles to himself) Who the fuck was stupid enough to put these guys in charge?
Good question.
-David
They should have just stopped paying their employees and creditors. That would've fixed things probably... ;)
Yea, THAT's the problem...
Maybe it was likely they expanded to fast and too far beyond their means.
THAT is a much more likely scenario....
I honestly can't BELIEVE ya'all are advocating living outside one's means with reckless abandoned...
Michale
Sure. But once you buy, you don't simply not pay.
Then one shouldn't have purchased..
It's THAT simple...
Michale, what would you do with a customer who bought a security system and refused to pay you?
It wouldn't happen because I get all my $$$ up front.. :D
I would tell him that if he can't afford a security system, he shouldn't be buying one..
If he said it was life and death and that could be confirmed, I would gladly GIVE him the system, free of charge...
:D
How can this country learn fiscal responsibility if there are no consequences from being fiscally irresponsible??
Michale
How can this country learn fiscal responsibility if there are no consequences from being fiscally irresponsible??
This is absolutely spot on Michale. Could not agree more.
For example, if you're going to invade another country, you should be willing to raise the revenue to pay for it; if you're going to give out massive tax cuts loaded to the top earners, you should be able to substantiate how you're going to pay for it (and 'the tax cuts pay for themselves' does not count lolololol). And cutting revenue whilst increasing spending (i.e. both these together = BORROWING TO PAY FOR STUFF THAT DOESN'T IMPROVE YOUR COUNTRY) should be BANNED.
Furthermore, being fiscally responsible includes SAVING for when times get tough, not running up MASSIVE TRILLIONS OF DEBT when times are not so bad so that when they get really, really bad your starting point is TRILLIONS OF DEBT not a balanced budget.
Then one shouldn't have purchased.
There I can't argue. We should never have gotten into those 2 idiotic wars.
But the fact is we did purchase. And we don't have a time machine. Yet.
So if it's true that you won't learn w/o a price, I find it strange that you're advocating not paying.
-David
p.s. Now I will go back to thinking about double oh seven. Because we're getting near the point where we'll just have to disagree.
There I can't argue. We should never have gotten into those 2 idiotic wars.
The people in Iraq being brutalized by Saddam Hussein and the people in Afghanistan being brutalized by the Taliban might disagree with you..
Hopefully, we'll never see another dictator like Hitler come to power..
Apparently there doesn't seem to be much stomach for doing the right thing amongst the Left these days..
p.s. Now I will go back to thinking about double oh seven. Because we're getting near the point where we'll just have to disagree.
Oh that point was passed a year or so ago.. :D
But, I agree.. Back to Bond...
What were the 2 other Brosnan Bonds?? I know Goldeneye, The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day..
Michale
Michty,
This is absolutely spot on Michale. Could not agree more.
OK, this is getting too scary!! :D
For example, if you're going to invade another country, you should be willing to raise the revenue to pay for it;
See my post to David..
Sometimes doing the right thing is more important then anything else...
Michale
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/unemployment-rises-women-african-americans-december
WOW..
Talk about voting against one's interests...
Obama's biggest supporters are also the biggest losers in the jobs market...
Serves them right..
Michale
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04/sandy-victim-needs-more-than-hugs-to-rebuild-business-along-new-jersey-shore/
Amazing this guy got re-elected...
Michale.
OK, I gave up and GOOGLE'd the Brosnan Bonds.
We were both wrong. There were actually 4 Brosnan Bonds.
Goldeneye
Tomorrow Never Dies
The World Is Not Enough
Die Another Day
I had assumed you were mistaking the two Timothy Dalton Bond movies for Brosnan Bonds..
The Living Daylights
Licence To Kill
Aprobos of absolutely nothing.
Robert Davi, who played the very chilling bad guy in LICENCE, was also a very chilling bad guy as Commander Koyla, a long running nemesis of LT Colonel John Shepard in STARGATE: ATLANTIS.
Michale
I am also constrained to point out that ya'alls argument was diametrically opposite during the Bush Administration..
Geee, I wonder why that is?? :D
Michale
Sometimes doing the right thing is more important then anything else.
If it was so important, why not pay for it?
Why be such a-holes and threaten to not pay our bills?
I look forward to your next change of subject anti-Obama rant :)
-David
If it was so important, why not pay for it?
If you are dying of a heart-attack, why not pay your portion of the medical bill up front??
After all, if it's important, why not pay for it?? :D
Why be such a-holes and threaten to not pay our bills?
For the same reason ya'all DIDN'T want to pay the bills when Bush was president... :D
Michale
For the same reason ya'all DIDN'T want to pay the bills when Bush was president... :D
For the same reason that your guy, Obama said that paying the bills was "unpatriotic"...
As always, ya'all can't escape Obama's own words.. :D
Michale
For the same reason ya'all DIDN'T want to pay the bills when Bush was president.
But that's just it ... the debt ceiling was raised w/o a fuss by Democrats under Bush.
Democrats never threatened to destroy the country if they didn't get what they wanted.
I'm sorry, Michale, but the Republicans of today look like a bunch of spoiled a-holes.
-David
p.s. I'm still picturing you trying to say to your daughter that not paying her credit cards is the patriotic thing to do :)
p.s. I'm still picturing you trying to say to your daughter that not paying her credit cards is the patriotic thing to do :)
BTW- I joke about this only because I don't believe you would do it. I could see you giving the lecture about spending more than you earn. But I can't see you ever telling a child of yours not to honor a commitment.
But that's just it ... the debt ceiling was raised w/o a fuss by Democrats under Bush.
w/o fuss???
Shirley, you jest...
Calling President Bush "unpatriotic" is hardly "w/o fuss"...
p.s. I'm still picturing you trying to say to your daughter that not paying her credit cards is the patriotic thing to do :)
That's just it....
*I* NEVER said that not paying debts is patriotic..
Your guy, Obama, said it..
Michale..
See, that's the problem with ya'alls arguments..
Yer not arguing with..
You are arguing with Obama.. :D
Michale
See, that's the problem with ya'alls arguments..
Yer not arguing with..
You are arguing with Obama.. :D
Sorry, posted that as I was walking out the door in my shop..
The "Raising the debt ceiling is unpatriotic" argument is not *MY* argument.
It's Obama's argument..
So, when ya'all are arguing that raising the debt ceiling is the right thing to do, ya'all aren't arguing with me..
You are arguing with Obama..
And, ironically enough, you are also arguing with yourselves..
Because, when Bush was POTUS, raising the debt ceiling was evil bad wrong and being delinquent on our debts was the right thing to do...
Michale
The more I think about this, the more it bugs me..
One of the few things that we all agree on here in Weigantia is that questioning an American's patriotism simply because of a political agenda is wrong as wrong can be..
Yet, that is EXACTLY what Obama did.
And, once again, he gets a pass....
Michale
Ok, you've got me on a technicality. What you said was ...
But the kind of borrowing that Obama has caused is simply unpatriotic and is a threat to national security.
So when you say something is unpatriotic, that is ok. When anyone else says it, it's not ok.
Am I getting this about right?
-David
So when you say something is unpatriotic, that is ok. When anyone else says it, it's not ok.
Once again, you are missing my point..
*I* didn't say that raising the debt limit is unpatriotic...
OBAMA said it...
If you have a problem with that argument, take it up with your guy...
Michale
Once again, you are missing my point.
I'm pretty sure I get your point. Maybe it's all those "I hate Obama" bumper stickers :)
-David
Michale,
Sometimes doing the right thing is more important then anything else...
I agree. But to think that you can just borrow money, whilst cutting revenues at the same time, to pay for your 'doing the right thing' is idiotic behaviour of the highest level. THIS is the problem with the current GOP: revenues are ALWAYS off the table even when they want to create massive gigantic expenditure on wars.
To make it clear, I have no problem with justified wars - as long as you have no problem with raising taxes to pay for them.
*I* didn't say that raising the debt limit is unpatriotic...
OBAMA said it...
Complete and utter nonsense of the highest level of nonsense-land.
I think you are confusing 'debt' with 'debt ceiling'. As David and I have pointed out countless times (see our analogies), the two are totally different things.
Debt = controlled by Congress and the budget they set
Debt ceiling = paying the bills, absolutely nothing to do with the level of debt.
At no point did Obama ever say that raising the debt CEILING was unpatriotic.
At no point did Obama ever say that raising the debt CEILING was unpatriotic.
Semantics..
Even still, you are wrong..
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22Debt+Ceiling%22+Obama+Bush+Unpatriotic&oq=%22Debt+Ceiling%22+Obama+Bush+Unpatriotic&gs_l=hp.3...179923.180817.1.181321.5.5.0.0.0.1.274.853.0j4j1.5.0.les%3Bcpsugrpq2high..0.0...1.1.F66V00aFWGc&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.eWU&fp=31229be95c8561f6&bpcl=40096503&biw=1920&bih=890
This is another loser of a position for ya'all..
Obama slammed Bush for raising the debt/debt ceiling..
Yet Obama has raised the debt TWICE as much in 3 years as Bush AND Reagan raised it in EIGHT years...
These are the facts that no amount of spin will change..
Michale
Yet Obama has raised the debt TWICE as much in 3 years as Bush AND Reagan raised it in EIGHT years...
These are the facts that no amount of spin will change..
Actually Bush raised the debt ceiling around 7 times. The debt ceiling was raised under Reagan 17 times. Obama is at 4 times.
As I've mentioned before, Obama is MILES BEHIND Reagan and Bush in terms of adding to the debt/destroying the surpluses a President inherits.
Oh and the debt ceiling has been raised (since 1960) 49 times under Republican presidents and 29 times under Democratic presidents.
But of course you probably knew that since Republicans are the party of borrow and spend...
THOSE are the facts on the debt ceiling.
Actually Bush raised the debt ceiling around 7 times. The debt ceiling was raised under Reagan 17 times. Obama is at 4 times.
Silence. Has my point about who is the worst borrower finally sunk in??
Whoops I was wrong. Reagan raised it 18 times.
My bad ;)
Actually Bush raised the debt ceiling around 7 times. The debt ceiling was raised under Reagan 17 times. Obama is at 4 times.
Once again, you change the argument when you get slammed down..
I said Obama raised the DEBT, not the Debt Limit..
You can't even keep the arguments straight, let alone the facts...
Michale
I said Obama raised the DEBT, not the Debt Limit..
You can't even keep the arguments straight, let alone the facts...
Lol no you said Obama called raising the debt limit unpatriotic. I pointed out this was horrendously wrong and factually incorrect.
We have already covered debt levels in detail. I presented full Obama vs Bush facts in [77] and lots of other posts in here.
There is a huge difference between DEBT (arguments over revenue and expenditure) and DEBT CEILINGS (a procedural process to pay the bills).
However, debt ceiling raises are one way of analysing how crazy a President has borrowed. The fact Reagan had to do this 18 TIMES in 8 years is testament to why he is the no.1 worst President the US has ever seen in terms of deficit building.