Is the Tea Party a terrorist organization?

[nkdlunch]

They took the country hostage and theatened total financial doom in order to get what they want.

Isn't that terrorism?

[boutons_deux]

Their political sadism will certainly cause 1000s of deaths and 100s of 1000s of unnecessary pain and (increased) poverty of the old, the poor, the disabled, the uninsured for want of health care.

And their "Christian" supporters will be silent accomplices as they were when the Repugs busted into Iraq.

[Winehole23]

Politics is tough, sons.

[Winehole23]

nkdlunch: were you looking for this (http://www.economist.com/node/21524951)?

[DarrinS]

If your name is boutons, RandomGuy, or Alan Grayson, the answer is yes.

[DarrinS]

Their political sadism will certainly cause 1000s of deaths and 100s of 1000s of unnecessary pain and (increased) poverty of the old, the poor, the disabled, the uninsured for want of health care.

And their "Christian" supporters will be silent accomplices as they were when the Repugs busted into Iraq.

50 million climate refugees by 2010

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

[Winehole23]

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/easywhip/newbox2.jpg


non sequitur?

[Winehole23]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html

[RandomGuy]

mjYSuWwT3EM

Terrorists or spoiled children. Take your pick.

[RandomGuy]

If your name is boutons, RandomGuy, or Alan Grayson, the answer is yes.

One person's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter.

I believe I have been pointing this out to you for years now, and you are just now getting it?

[baseline bum]

mjYSuWwT3EM

Terrorists or spoiled children. Take your pick.

:rollin

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Where were all the teabaggers when Bush was creating record national deficits?

[baseline bum]

Where were all the teabaggers when Bush was creating record national deficits?

Telling everyone who didn't support the president that they hated America.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Telling everyone who didn't support the president that they hated America.
:lmao I remember from 2001 to 2008 all of them were saying retarded stuff like, "That's just a big number Democrats use to scare people!"

[cheguevara]

pretty much. Also I don't see much difference between the tea bagger that shot that congress woman and the children and an alkhaeda cell

[baseline bum]

Deficits don't matter when you don't have a black Kenyan muslim terrorist in the white house.

[angrydude]

The better question is where did the anti-war movement go?

[Winehole23]

The so-called antiwar movement was mainly a partisan dog-whistle. Election marked the end of its usefulness to Barack Obama (and most of the people who voted for him.)

[Winehole23]

A few lonely voices still cry out in the wilderness, true partisans prefer to defend their political man whatever he does, and the will of the country is passed over in silence.

About 70% of Americans think we need to conclude our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. When will politicians start respecting them?

[ManuBalboa]

lol Obama and co. demagoguing Giffords run in with near death

[boutons_deux]

"When will politicians start respecting them?"

Never. politicians respect, above all else, the lobbyists who hand them UCA contribs, jobs, speaking engagements, junkets, gifts.

[ElNono]

The so-called antiwar movement was mainly a partisan dog-whistle.

I won't be so sure. The amount of anti-war demonstrators at the local army fort hasn't changed much since the wars started (same with the pro-war people).

What was noteworthy around here is the new influx of demonstrators in front of the local SS office, with banners like "Hands off my money", etc.

[ToughActinTinactin]

They got what they wanted.

[Winehole23]

I won't be so sure. The amount of anti-war demonstrators at the local army fort hasn't changed much since the wars started (same with the pro-war people).

What was noteworthy around here is the new influx of demonstrators in front of the local SS office, with banners like "Hands off my money", etc.In a way, this is the same point. Apart from hard core, vocational agitators, there hasn't been much of an antiwar movement. Its ranks were swelled by good Democrats in 2006. Where did all of the outrage go?

[RandomGuy]

In a way, this is the same point. Apart from hard core, vocational agitators, there hasn't been much of an antiwar movement. Its ranks were swelled by good Democrats in 2006. Where did all of the outrage go?

It abated greatly due to the Sunni Awakening, and the reduction in casualty rates.

Irony, given that the touchy feely, academically elitist counter-insurgency doctrine that comprised the main principles of the Surge and successful change in strategy are of the kind that are an anethema to the red meat conservatives.

[DarrinS]

Biden just called the entire GOP terrorists. It's part of the "new tone". MSM could care less based on nonexistent coverage.

[ChumpDumper]

Biden just called the entire GOP terrorists. It's part of the "new tone". MSM could care less based on nonexistent coverage.Link?

[Winehole23]

Biden just called the entire GOP terrorists. It's part of the "new tone"Go cry me a river. The new tone was established much earlier, at least as far back as critics of the Iraq debacle being called traitors and "objective supporters" of UBL.

[hater]

Biden just called the entire GOP terrorists. It's part of the "new tone". MSM could care less based on nonexistent coverage.

props to Biden for standing up against the terrorists instead of negotiating with them like the rest of Washington.

Let's not forget the bombers of women's clinics. They are also tea party terrorism acts

[RandomGuy]

Link?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html

[RandomGuy]

Biden is, of course, backing off the remarks about tea party terrorists.

He shouldn't.

The word isn't being used enough.

Tea party traitors or tea party terrorists

Either fits, IMO.

[DarrinS]

Biden is, of course, backing off the remarks about tea party terrorists.

He shouldn't.

The word isn't being used enough.

Tea party traitors or tea party terrorists

Either fits, IMO.


You're getting more boutons-esque by they day.

And over what? Some measly insignificant cuts over 10 years, which gave Dems another blank check and opened the door to increase taxes?

:devil Terrorists :devil

[ElNono]

In a way, this is the same point. Apart from hard core, vocational agitators, there hasn't been much of an antiwar movement. Its ranks were swelled by good Democrats in 2006. Where did all of the outrage go?

They might not be as vocal. But I'm fairly sure the displeasure is still there. The problem now is that neither this guy or whoever comes from the other aisle is going to do shit about it. Futility has a way to discourage people.

[coyotes_geek]

Calling anyone a terrorist other than actual terrorists is pretty juvenile TBH.

[ElNono]

As far as the OP, it's not just necessarily the nation that gets the short end of the stick with these guys. I think Boehner will concur that their irrationality is doing the GOP some critical damage too.

[Winehole23]

Futility has a way to discourage people.If it is the way of people to become discouraged by prolonged adversity so much the worse for them.

[DarrinS]

As far as the OP, it's not just necessarily the nation that gets the short end of the stick with these guys. I think Boehner will concur that their irrationality is doing the GOP some critical damage too.


What exactly are they irrational about?

They're for smaller, more frugal government. Ooooooohhhh. Boogeymen.

[nkdlunch]

threatening to let USA default for the first time in its history. Yeah, nothing irrational about that.

[RandomGuy]

What exactly are they irrational about?

They're for smaller, more frugal government. Ooooooohhhh. Boogeymen.

Does anything that *isn't* a logical fallacy ever escape your brain?

The strawman here is that no one is criticizing the tea party asshats for believing that smaller government is better.

They are criticizing them for the reckless irresponsibility in pursuing that agenda.

Terrorists always have political agendas, but what differentiates them from more accepted political movements is that what they are willing to do to further those aims.

[ElNono]

What exactly are they irrational about?
They're for smaller, more frugal government. Ooooooohhhh. Boogeymen.

There's a difference between advocating your position, and putting the country on the brink of defaulting on it's obligations.

There's nothing inherently wrong in what they want. What's irrational is to put their personal wishes over the country.

[clambake]

didn't hear a word from them until a black moved into the house.

[DarrinS]

threatening to let USA default for the first time in its history. Yeah, nothing irrational about that.


Does anything that *isn't* a logical fallacy ever escape your brain?

The strawman here is that no one is criticizing the tea party asshats for believing that smaller government is better.

They are criticizing them for the reckless irresponsibility in pursuing that agenda.

Terrorists always have political agendas, but what differentiates them from more accepted political movements is that what they are willing to do to further those aims.



There's a difference between advocating your position, and putting the country on the brink of defaulting on it's obligations.

There's nothing inherently wrong in what they want. What's irrational is to put their personal wishes over the country.


Voting on the debt ceiling in 2006.


Every single Dem voted no. Every last one.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/dem-debt-2006.jpg

[DarrinS]

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better

[DarrinS]

The fact is, you guys calling people terrorists are just parroting what you hear the shills say on the nighly news or on NYT blogs. Were any of you actually preparing for economic armageddon? :lmao

[clambake]

did you ask your mas...errr boss if you're a part of his economic armageddon plan?

[ElNono]

Voting on the debt ceiling in 2006.

Every single Dem voted no. Every last one.

Dems didn't control the chamber back then. There was no risk of not passing.
Any other strawman comparison you want to throw out there?

[ElNono]

The fact is, you guys calling people terrorists are just parroting what you hear the shills say on the nighly news or on NYT blogs. Were any of you actually preparing for economic armageddon? :lmao

I don't know that armageddon is the word. There's certainly consequences for not paying your bills. Try it yourself and you'll see.

And I'm not calling them terrorists, BTW. I qualify their action (or inaction) as irrational. At the very least, irresponsible.

[Wild Cobra]

Voting on the debt ceiling in 2006.


Every single Dem voted no. Every last one.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/dem-debt-2006.jpg
Was that for FY 2006 or FY 2007? The deficit was 1.9% of GDP for 2006 and 1.2% for 2007. I don't know the numbers for FY 2011, but they are huge! Previous CBO estimate has it at 10.9%.

Anyone know the numbers for any debt ceiling increase in 2008?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Where were all the teabaggers when Bush was creating record national deficits?
:lol all the Republican posts in this thread and not one response to this question
:lol Republicans pretending Bush and his trillion dollar war didn't contribute to the national deficit

[Spurminator]

What exactly are they irrational about?

They're for smaller, more frugal government. Ooooooohhhh. Boogeymen.

:lmao

Sheep.

[ElNono]

Anyone know the numbers for any debt ceiling increase in 2008?

We know no Republican opposed it.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Anyone know the numbers for the national surpluses Bush inherited and turned into national deficits?

[Wild Cobra]

We know no Republican opposed it.
Numbers matter though. What was the ceiling compared to the revenue and spending?

[DarrinS]

Anyone know the numbers for the national surpluses Bush inherited and turned into national deficits?

I know that the current debt ceiling is more than 60% higher than the one BHO opposed in 2006.

[ElNono]

Numbers matter though. What was the ceiling compared to the revenue and spending?

It was larger than the previous ceiling. I thought debt was debt.
Or you're only opposed to raising the debt when the blue team asks for it?

[Wild Cobra]

It was larger than the previous ceiling. I thought debt was debt.
Or you're only opposed to raising the debt when the blue team asks for it?
No, I have been opposed all along with a few stated exceptions I have said before. You are sidestepping my point.

When is it too much?

I say it's been too much since TARP II. I was under the false impression it was too much before Tarp I, but most that money has been paid off, and the authority required the money returning not be spent, but pay back down the deficit. Therefore, the 2009 deficit isn't really as high as stated sine in reality, the paid back money should be applied to reducing it. Not Obama's deficits like it has been.

If you remember my statements of the past, I have been consistent that deficit spending is only OK during times of war and recession. However, bailing out the rich is not part of that intent. The house has been run by democrats from Jan 2007 to Jan 2011. All spending bills originate in the House. It is this period of time that the debt has got out of control. It has never been this high since WWII. Now just because I understand these facts does not mean I support the republicans. It just justifies my hatred of the democrats in congress.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I know that the current debt ceiling is more than 60% higher than the one BHO opposed in 2006.
I wasn't talking about Obama. He's done a terrible job letting the national debt get even more outa control and I won't be voting for him again because of it.

I'm curious why Republicans such as yourself didn't show one iota of concern over the national deficit from 2001 to 2008.

[Wild Cobra]

I know that the current debt ceiling is more than 60% higher than the one BHO opposed in 2006.
That is significant, especially since the economy didn't improve by 60%.

[ElNono]

No, I have been opposed all along with a few stated exceptions I have said before. You are sidestepping my point.

When is it too much?

When you spend more than you take in.

Cowboy JR was handed a surplus, something he could work with. I'm pretty sure you were one more cheerleading when he said he would take the surplus and give it back to taxpayers in the form of tax cuts instead of starting to pay off debt with it.

Or are you on the Cheney boat that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"?

[ElNono]

That is significant, especially since the economy didn't improve by 60%.

The economy certainly didn't improve at record rates with Bush Jr. The deficits did though.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

If you remember my statements of the past, I have been consistent that deficit spending is only OK during times of war and recession.
:lmao what a fuckin crock of shit using the War in Iraq as an excuse for Bush's deficit spending

[Wild Cobra]

I wasn't talking about Obama. He's done a terrible job letting the national debt get even more outa control and I won't be voting for him again because of it.

I'm curious why Republicans such as yourself didn't show one iota of concern over the national deficit from 2001 to 2008.
Well, I'm an Independent, and I didn't think much about it because of 9/11 and Iraq. What excuse does Obama have besides bailing out the rich, and Obamacare?

[ElNono]

If you're ok with deficit spending during times of war, why are you complaining?

After all, we're still in Afghanistan, aren't we?

I also don't recall you supporting Barry's stimulus package, which clearly was during a recession.

[ElNono]

Well, I'm an Independent

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/20/b832400bde33865f326979672bc63c84.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

When you spend more than you take in.

So the last president you like is Nixon then...


Cowboy JR was handed a surplus, something he could work with. I'm pretty sure you were one more cheerleading when he said he would take the surplus and give it back to taxpayers in the form of tax cuts instead of starting to pay off debt with it.

When youll you libtards stop repeating that lie?

President Clinton may have had a budget that had smaller outlies than the revenue received, but he still had real deficits. Surplus on paper doesn't count. We have been over this at least a half dozen times now, but you continue to lie.

National debt ($millions) from table 7.1 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist07z1.xls):

1991 3,598,178
1992 4,001,787
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700
2001 5,769,881
2002 6,198,401


Where is the surplus you ignorant libtard?


Or are you on the Cheney boat that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"?
That's right. Take that out of context for what the difference was, you partisan liberal.

[Wild Cobra]

If you're ok with deficit spending during times of war, why are you complaining?

After all, we're still in Afghanistan, aren't we?

I also don't recall you supporting Barry's stimulus package, which clearly was during a recession.
Because our extra high deficit spending is due to these corporate bailouts rather than letting them suffer for their mistakes.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Well, I'm an Independent, and I didn't think much about it because of 9/11 and Iraq. What excuse does Obama have besides bailing out the rich, and Obamacare?
:lmao Iraq isn't an excuse when it's a war Bush fuckin started

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

If you're ok with deficit spending during times of war, why are you complaining?

After all, we're still in Afghanistan, aren't we?

I also don't recall you supporting Barry's stimulus package, which clearly was during a recession.
Barry Obama started a war with Libya, therefore his deficit spending is OK :lmao

[ElNono]

So the last president you like is Nixon then...

Clinton.


When youll you libtards stop repeating that lie?

...

Where is the surplus you ignorant libtard?

Why are you looking at debt when looking for a budget surplus?
You can have a surplus and not pay down debt.
That's actually exactly what happened.

Why didn't Bush Jr took that budget surplus and pay down debt?


That's right. Take that out of context for what the difference was, you partisan liberal.

What's right is that you're as dumb as advertised.

[ElNono]

Because our extra high deficit spending is due to these corporate bailouts rather than letting them suffer for their mistakes.

But the corporate bailouts by Bush JR, like the TARP, were ok?

You didn't answer the questions:
- Are we still at war in Afghanistan or not?
- You supported Barry's stimulus package during the recession?

[ElNono]

Barry Obama started a war with Libya, therefore his deficit spending is OK :lmao

Clearly. Not only that, Wild Cobra endorses such deficit spending.

[Wild Cobra]

Why are you looking at debt when looking for a budget surplus?
You can have a surplus and not pay down debt.
That's actually exactly what happened.

Is that the new math they teach in the government indoctrinated schools these days?

If there was an actual surplus, the debt would have decreased. Just that simple Moore-on.

[Wild Cobra]

But the corporate bailouts by Bush JR, like the TARP, were ok?

No, I didn't say they were OK. I was against them at the time if you recall. I am saying at least the republicans voted "NO" until the provision was placed that all money returned you go back to paying off the debt rather than being spent on something else. In was still against it at the time, but at least it wasn;t a total loss of money.

Isn't your side claiming kost of that money was paid back? In my book, that means the Bush deficits aren't as big as listed, since the money is mostly paid back.

I will state that I was wrong in opposing that one, because of that particular provision actually paid off.

[Wild Cobra]

Clearly. Not only that, Wild Cobra endorses such deficit spending.
Twist, spin, etc.

You must be a master of the game "Twister."

I have stated my reasons for supporting the expanded Desert Storm, and I am on record for opposing this action on Libya since day one.

If you continue to lie about my reasons, then so be it. Your lack of integrity is well noted.

[ElNono]

Is that the new math they teach in the government indoctrinated schools these days?
If there was an actual surplus, the debt would have decreased. Just that simple Moore-on.

Really? :lol
Is that the math that they taught you at school?

Let me give you an example: If your income is greater than your expenses, are you forbidden from buying something on a credit card?
Does buying something on a credit card means you're not making more than what you're spending?

Again, why are you looking at debt when looking for a budget surplus/deficit?
They're apple and oranges.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Twist, spin, etc.

You must be a master of the game "Twister."

I have stated my reasons for supporting the expanded Desert Storm, and I am on record for opposing this action on Libya since day one.

If you continue to lie about my reasons, then so be it. You lack of integrity is well noted.
So here's the new rule:

Deficit spending is OK if we are involved in a war Wild Cobra approves of.

:tu got it

[Wild Cobra]

Really? :lol
Is that the math that they taught you at school?

Let me give you an example: If your income is greater than your expenses, are you forbidden from buying something on a credit card?
Does buying something on a credit card means you're not making more than what you're spending?

Again, why are you looking at debt when looking for a budget surplus/deficit?
They're apple and oranges.
Doesn't part of that credit card include "interest?"

[ElNono]

No, I didn't say they were OK. i was against them at the time if you recall. I am saying at least the republicans voted "NO" until the provision was placed that all money returned you go back to paying off the debt rather than being spent on something else. In was still against it at the time, but at least it wasn;t a total loss of money.

Isn't your side claiming kost of that money was paid back? In my book, that means the Bush deficits aren't as big as listed, since the money is mostly paid back.

I will state that I was wrong in opposing that one, because of that particular provision actually paid off.

What Bush deficits were paid back? Look at the debt when Bush Jr walked in and when he walked out. Also, there was no stipulation to pay back debt with the money. There's a recoupment clause to potentially prevent adding to the national debt. That's it.

And no, it all hasn't been paid back. $245 billion were invested in banks and so far only $169 billion came back. AIG still owes billions.

Not surprised you now support something you still know nothing about, though.

[ElNono]

Doesn't part of that credit card include "interest?"

Debt interest payments are included in the budget. You know, the balanced budget that paid for such interests, and still spent less than what was coming in.

[Wild Cobra]

So here's the new rule:

Deficit spending is OK if we are involved in a war Wild Cobra approves of.

:tu got it
I see you are also part of that group ho lacks integrity, and a spinner. Yes, i am against this action against Libya. I would be if it happened under a republicans watch too.

Please note, the insignificant money we are supplying NATO and the UN with on this campaign against Libya doesn't matter. I have been consistent in my complaints about Obamacare and the bailouts.

Spin away, in that circle jerk all you want. Just leave me out of it. I want no part of your fantasies.

[Wild Cobra]

What Bush deficits were paid back? Look at the debt when Bush Jr walked in and when he walked out. Also, there was no stipulation to pay back debt with the money. There's a recoupment clause to potentially prevent adding to the national debt. That's it.

And no, it all hasn't been paid back. $245 billion were invested in banks and so far only $169 billion came back. AIG still owes billions.

Not surprised you now support something you still know nothing about, though.
Again, yopu spin my intent. I'm not going to bother looking the numbers up again. Let's assume your $245/$169 is correct. Wasn't the bailout about $700 billion?

Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't $169 billion of $700 billion (24%), not allowed to go back into other spending, better than any of the plans Obama and the democrats authorized?

[Wild Cobra]

Debt interest payments are included in the budget. You know, the balanced budget that paid for such interests, and still spent less than what was coming in.
Then you are still lying, else the debt would not have increased.

Do you not understand that the last time the debt actually went down was under president Nixon?

[ElNono]

Please note, the insignificant money we are supplying NATO and the UN with on this campaign against Libya doesn't matter. I have been consistent in my complaints about Obamacare and the bailouts.

The bulk of Obamacare doesn't really starts until 2014. What are your thoughts on the deficit spending of Medicare Part D, which will cost probably more than Obamacare?

[ElNono]

Then you are still lying, else the debt would not have increased.
Do you not understand that the last time the debt actually went down was under president Nixon?

I'm not lying :lmao

Do you understand that budget and debt are two different things?

You could have more income than expenses, and decide to use the surplus to give more to charity instead of paying off a credit card. Like Bush decided to use all that surplus to enact the tax cuts (paraphrasing, back then he said that money was better in American's pockets).

I feel like I'm talking to a 10 year old retard. Maybe I need an analogy with parts?. :lol

[ElNono]

Again, yopu spin my intent. I'm not going to bother looking the numbers up again. Let's assume your $245/$169 is correct. Wasn't the bailout about $700 billion?

Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't $169 billion of $700 billion (24%), not allowed to go back into other spending, better than any of the plans Obama and the democrats authorized?

But Obama's spending was during a recession, which is a deficit spending you approve of.

Or you're going to flip again in this very same thread?

[Wild Cobra]

The bulk of Obamacare doesn't really starts until 2014. What are your thoughts on the deficit spending of Medicare Part D, which will cost probably more than Obamacare?
It may not kick in till 2014, but corporations make their decisions based on the future. Lack of hiring employees and choosing to work employees like me 50-60+ hrs a week are one on the indications. As for part D. I am on record saying I don't mind footing the national bill for our seniors and handicapped. It is the able bodied workers who I want to see put back to work.

Why do you dislike the expenses for our poor, but champion the welfare state for able bodied workers?

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not lying :lmao

Do you understand that budget and debt are two different things?

You could have more income than expenses, and decide to use the surplus to give more to charity instead of paying off a credit card. Like Bush decided to use all that surplus to enact the tax cuts (paraphrasing, back then he said that money was better in American's pockets).

I feel like I'm talking to a 10 year old retard. Maybe I need an analogy with parts?. :lol
So....

You are disingenuous in calling it a surplus then.

I don't care how you want to interpret it. There was no actual surplus.

[Wild Cobra]

But Obama's spending was during a recession, which is a deficit spending you approve of.

Or you're going to flip again in this very same thread?
I have originally stated that the only time I agreed with deficit spending was during times of recession and war. Once the debate of the 2008 bailout started, I was on record as opposing it. Not all recession spending is equal. If it was actual work projects that put money in the pockets of the working USA citizen, I would not have opposed it. Deficit spending to bail out the elite is never what my past general statement was intended for, and you have to twist my words to make such a jump.

Carry on Mr. Slanderer.

[ElNono]

It may not kick in till 2014, but corporations make their decisions based on the future. Lack of hiring employees and choosing to work employees like me 50-60+ hrs a week are one on the indications. As for part D. I am on record saying I don't mind footing the national bill for our seniors and handicapped. It is the able bodied workers who I want to see put back to work.

But this is another instance where reality doesn't agree with you. Unemployment is now lower than when Obamacare was enacted. It was actually higher before it was enacted. All in all, Obamacare hasn't changed much of anything when it comes to unemployment. Outsourcing predates Obamacare by a long mile.


Why do you dislike the expenses for our poor, but champion the welfare state for able bodied workers?

False argument. Quote where I said I support welfare for 'able bodied workers'.

BTW, you still haven't answered the questions:
- Are we still at war in Afghanistan or not?
- You supported Barry's stimulus package during the recession?

[ElNono]

I have originally stated that the only time I agreed with deficit spending was during times of recession and war.

Okay, so you're on the record agreeing with the current deficit spending.
Should've just said so and stop beating around the bush, tbh.

[ElNono]

So....
You are disingenuous in calling it a surplus then.
I don't care how you want to interpret it. There was no actual surplus.

:rollin

Wow, just wow. I don't know how to explain it any easier really.
I have to think this is really over your head.

Also, I gather you're calling Bush a liar when he said:
"We recognize, loud and clear, the surplus is not the government's money," he said. "The surplus is the people's money. And we ought to trust them with their own money."

[Wild Cobra]

:rollin

Wow, just wow. I don't know how to explain it any easier really.
I have to think this is really over your head.

Also, I gather you're calling Bush a liar when he said:
"We recognize, loud and clear, the surplus is not the government's money," he said. "The surplus is the people's money. And we ought to trust them with their own money."
It's just this simple.

Did the national debt decrease at any time under president Clinton?

[ElNono]

It's just this simple.
Did the national debt decrease at any time under president Clinton?

You're asking the wrong question. We're not talking about debt, are we?
We're talking about a budget surplus.

This is the right question:
Did more money come in than what was spent at any time under president Clinton? And the answer would be YES.

[Wild Cobra]

You're asking the wrong question. We're not talking
This is the right question:
Did more money come in than what was spent at any time under president Clinton? And the answer would be YES.
You're joking, right?

The answer in "NO."

If the answer was yes, the debt would have decreased.

Where did you learn math?

[ElNono]

You're joking, right?
The answer in "NO."

The answer is YES...

1998:
Revenues: 1,721.7 bn
Outlays: 1,652.5 bn
Public Debt: 3,721.1 bn

1999:
Revenues: 1,827.5 bn
Outlays: 1,701.8 bn
Public Debt: 3,632.4 bn

2000:
Revenues: 2,025.2 bn
Outlays: 1,789.0 bn
Public Debt: 3,409.8 bn

2001:
Revenues: 1,991.1 bn
Outlays: 1,862.9 bn
Public Debt: 3,319.6 bn

link (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/HistoricalTables.pdf)


If the answer was yes, the debt would have decreased.

The public debt would. Which it did. That's not the whole debt the government has though. And that's exactly why you're comparing apples to oranges.


Where did you learn math?

Probably somewhere where they can tell the difference between debt and deficit/surplus. You should try going there sometime.

[Wild Cobra]

The answer is YES...

1998:
Revenues: 1,721.7 bn
Outlays: 1,652.5 bn
Public Debt: 3,721.1 bn

1999:
Revenues: 1,827.5 bn
Outlays: 1,701.8 bn
Public Debt: 3,632.4 bn

2000:
Revenues: 2,025.2 bn
Outlays: 1,789.0 bn
Public Debt: 3,409.8 bn

2001:
Revenues: 1,991.1 bn
Outlays: 1,862.9 bn
Public Debt: 3,319.6 bn

link (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/HistoricalTables.pdf)



The public debt would. Which it did. That's not the whole debt the government has though. And that's exactly why you're comparing apples to oranges.



Probably somewhere where they can tell the difference between debt and deficit/surplus. You should try going there sometime.

LOL....

When you get your credit card bills each month, do you ignore the interest charges?

No wonder the debt doesn't matter to you. You don't understand compound interest!

[ElNono]

LOL....
When you get your credit card bills each month, do you ignore the interest charges?
No wonder the debt doesn't matter to you. You don't understand compound interest!

lol stuck on stupid talking about debt... :rollin

Did more money come in than what was spent at any time under president Clinton?

Yes or No. Simple question.

[Wild Cobra]

lol stuck on stupid talking about debt... :rollin

Did more money come in than what was spent at any time under president Clinton?

Yes or No. Simple question.
No.

Not a single year, after all costs were paid.

Every year the debt increased.

[ElNono]

No.
Not a single year, after all costs were paid.

lol yes it was and you're just MAAAAD that you got called out on your bullshit. :lol

Debt doesn't mean your obligation is to pay it on those years.
You can 'owe' Social Security that you'll have to pay many years later. That's debt, but not due in those years.

Obviously, I don't expect somebody that doesn't even have a basic grasp of what a surplus/deficit is to come to that realization.

BTW, if what you're disputing are the numbers, show me your revenue vs outlay numbers...


Every year the debt increased.

But the budget had a surplus. FACT.

[Wild Cobra]

But the budget had a surplus. FACT.
You know, I can write a monthly budget for my household. I can write it such that I take my nominal income is more than I plan to spend. I have created a budget surplus for the month. But then I decide to buy things I didn't budget for. Maybe I didn't budget for the interest I pay for my car loan, house loan, and credit cards. If I continue to do so, at some point, I no longer have a surplus, but a deficit. However, my written budget didn't change, and still shows a surplus.

You can cherry pick all you want, and there can be one or more of several reasons that the actual expenditures exceed what was in the budget.

The bottom line is the final line. In that final line, the nation debt increased. You can deny the truth all you want, but the rest of us know it's true.

[ElNono]

You know, I can write a monthly budget for my household. I can write it such that I take my nominal income is more than I plan to spend. I have created a budget surplus for the month. But then I decide to buy things I didn't budget for. Maybe I didn't budget for the interest I pay for my car loan, house loan, and credit cards. If I continue to do so, at some point, I no longer have a surplus, but a deficit. However, my written budget didn't change, and still shows a surplus.

But that's not the case here. The actual budget is included in those figures, and in some cases it went over and in some cases it went under.
The point is that if you write down your income and your outlays and the former is bigger than the latter, you effectively have a surplus. You might still have debt to pay in the future, and interest on that debt that would make that debt grow. But you still have a surplus. You might choose to start paying off the debt with that surplus, or you might choose to spend it on hookers. It doesn't change the fact that you still have more money coming in than coming out. That's called a surplus.


You can cherry pick all you want

Please point out what I cherry picked? We were talking about a budget surplus, and you brought up the debt. Who was cherry picking?


The bottom line is the final line. In that final line, the nation debt increased. You can deny the truth all you want, but the rest of us know it's true.

The bottom line is that DoK was spot on when he said that Bush was handed a budget surplus, which he even acknowledged receiving. You didn't answer the question: Was Bush Jr a liar too?

[Wild Cobra]

Again...

If it was a surplus, then why did the debt increase?

Isn't that a simple enough question?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Wild Cobra, do you fuckin know how basic accrual accounting works? A positive income doesn't automatically mean debt goes down.

[Wild Cobra]

Wild Cobra, do you fuckin know how basic accrual accounting works? A positive income doesn't automatically mean debt goes down.
So you agree, there was no actual surplus, right?

[ElNono]

Again...
If it was a surplus, then why did the debt increase?
Isn't that a simple enough question?

It really is, and I already explained why. Multiple times. I have to assume the topic is way over your head. Unfortunately, I can't seem to come up with a good analogy for parts-changers.

[ElNono]

Wild Cobra, do you fuckin know how basic accrual accounting works? A positive income doesn't automatically mean debt goes down.

He has no clue :lmao

[Wild Cobra]

Hey...

I don't care what terminology you want to use. In my world, if you have a budget surplus, your debt is less than before. Not more. I don't care what you want to believe from your government school indoctrination. A debt is a debt.

What planet are you two from?

This is just accounting practices. Not real indications outside of mathematical lies.

Understanding Similarities and Differences between Accrual and Cash Deficits (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07117sp.pdf)

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

So you agree, there was no actual surplus, right?
No. If you've ever taken even the most basic intro level accounting course, you'd know income (or in this case a surplus) is based on more than debt/cash balance. You can increase your debt/liabilities but still be generating a positive income.

[ElNono]

Hey...

I don't care what terminology you want to use. In my world, if you have a budget surplus, your debt is less than before. Not more. I don't care what you want to believe from your government school indoctrination. A debt is a debt.

What planet are you two from?

This is just accounting practices. Not real indications outside of mathematical lies.

Understanding Similarities and Differences between Accrual and Cash Deficits (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07117sp.pdf)

Under both Accrual and Cash accounting there were surpluses on those years.

But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion (http://fms.treas.gov/fr/98frusg/98frusg.pdf) in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion (http://fms.treas.gov/fr/99frusg/99frusg.pdf) in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion (http://fms.treas.gov/fr/00frusg/00frusg.pdf) for fiscal year 2000.

Your lack of understanding of how government operates and the different kind of debts is pretty appalling. Any surpluses in trust funds such as Social Security are automatically translated into US bonds and becomes intra-government debt (money the government owes itself). The president has no say in it. Obviously, by doing so, you're turning in a surplus into more longer-term debt. When people like you bitch about deficit spending, you're talking about annual government financing: revenue vs outlays. The president has no say on long term commitments like Social Security. Only Congress can reform those.

As DoK said, a positive income doesn't mean you use it all to pay down debt. As a matter of fact, while a good chunk of public debt was paid down with the Clinton surpluses, not all of it was spent on that (i.e.: in fiscal year 2000, there was a $23.5 billion differential between money coming in from trust funds vs public debt paid down). That doesn't mean you didn't have a surplus.

[ElNono]

No. If you've ever taken even the most basic intro level accounting course, you'd know income (or in this case a surplus) is based on more than debt/cash balance. You can increase your debt/liabilities but still be generating a positive income.

It was either parts-changer class or basic accounting class... you know what he picked... :lmao

[Wild Cobra]

No. If you've ever taken even the most basic intro level accounting course, you'd know income (or in this case a surplus) is based on more than debt/cash balance. You can increase your debt/liabilities but still be generating a positive income.
Yes I know. Accounting tricks. It putting a bill off till the next reporting cycle. The debt is still real.

[Wild Cobra]

Under both Accrual and Cash accounting there were surpluses on those years.

Bullshit. Not under both accounting systems, because the gross debt never decreased.