New York Primary Election Sept 14: Will you vote?

[Let me guess]

Teddy R wrote:

Oh, bullcrap.
Obama isn't just fiddling while Rome burns - he's pouring gas on the fire.
The country has a SPENDING problem.
Federal spending must be slashed - radically - back to historically sustainable norm of 18% of GDP.
Yet all this poor excuse for an incompetent Amateur-in-Chief has delivered in his time is office are demagoguing campaign speeches and MORE SPENDING.
$1 TRILLION in additional ObamaScare costs lumbered on the back of the American middle class.
Worse, now we have Obama's "balanced" plan actually counting hundreds of billions of new revenues from taxes, fees and rebates as "spending reductions."
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/0228...
The man is a pathological LIAR - worse than Nixon. And he's destroying the country.

Would I be correct in assuming you deify one Ronald Millhouse Reagan? The man who more than tripled the national debt in 8 years? Hell, this country didn't even HAVE a national debt until he came along. Then Clinton produces a surplus, Shrub doubles the national debt and the unemployment rate, and somehow it's all Obama's fault. Classic!

[Let me guess]

De Oppresso Liber wrote:

<quoted text>
The president stood in front of the press corps today and lied pathologically over and over again. He actually said " there will not be a catastrophe if sequestration take s place as some people have said" This guy lies so much he can't remember his own lies!
Secondly, your math is erroneous, you must be dumber than wood, and my apologies to all the forests. This deficit doesn't concern you, because you contribute nothing to the common good, you are leech on the ass of society.

Speaking of dumber than wood, Obama said that? Huh.

https://www.google.com/search...

[Teddy R]

Let me guess wrote:

<quoted text>
Would I be correct in assuming you deify one Ronald Millhouse Reagan? The man who more than tripled the national debt in 8 years? Hell, this country didn't even HAVE a national debt until he came along. Then Clinton produces a surplus, Shrub doubles the national debt and the unemployment rate, and somehow it's all Obama's fault. Classic!

Stuff your partisan propaganda and lame Alinskyite deflections where the sun don't shine.

Debt isn't the issue - federal SPENDING is. Data doesn't lie:

Fed spending has EXPLODED under Obama, from 18%-20% of GDP under Bush (and every previous post-war POTUS of BOTH parties) to 25% on Obama's watch, higher than any previous post-war administration, and still remains >22% of GDP.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_...

And all this incompetent Community-Organizer-in-Chief wants to talk about is MORE TAXES and MORE SPENDING!!

FUBO. Obama = EPIC FAILURE. The greatest threat to US security in a generation.

[De Oppresso Liber]

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[De Oppresso Liber]

Let me guess wrote:

<quoted text>
Speaking of dumber than wood, Obama said that? Huh.
https://www.google.com/search...

He may have used the word apocalypse, the point is he said "as other people have said" when he has been traveling on Air force One to Va to give campaign alarmist speeches! Now he pretends he didn't exaggerate the consequences! You have to be dumber than wood to believe this pathological Liar!

[Let me guess]

Teddy R wrote:

Debt isn't the issue - federal SPENDING is. Data doesn't lie:

That's an interesting position. So in other words if we raised taxes on everyone to 75% and wiped out the budget deficit in the stroke of a pen, you wouldn't have any problem with it? After all, debt isn't the issue, right? Or did you perhaps write this without thinking about it because you had no answer for the fact that Ronald H.W. Reagan tripled the national debt in 8 years?

Hmmm, I know which one I'm going with.

[De Odumbo Conser]

De Oppresso Liber wrote:

<quoted text>
He may have used the word apocalypse, the point is he said "as other people have said" when he has been traveling on Air force One to Va to give campaign alarmist speeches! Now he pretends he didn't exaggerate the consequences! You have to be dumber than wood to believe this pathological Liar!

You mean the point is you got caught in a lie and you're trying to hide it? Thought so.

[obama vomit]

De Odumbo Conser wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean the point is you got caught in a lie and you're trying to hide it? Thought so.

I checked, obama the liar said apocalypse, not catastrophe, big deal sue the guy, ya welfare anal retentive rat dropping.

[De Oppresso Liber]

De Odumbo Conser wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean the point is you got caught in a lie and you're trying to hide it? Thought so.

Plainly the president has exaggerated the consequences of sequestration and is being called on it by the formerly compliant media, so now the pathological liar pretends someone else said the sky was falling, and no one believes his exaggerations except you and Maxine Waters who said 170 million people would lose their jobs! Keep sending dopes to congress as long as you get your "gubberment" check, you miniscule paramecium.

[Teddy R]

Let me guess wrote:

<quoted text>
That's an interesting position. So in other words if we raised taxes on everyone to 75% and wiped out the budget deficit in the stroke of a pen, you wouldn't have any problem with it? After all, debt isn't the issue, right? Or did you perhaps write this without thinking about it because you had no answer for the fact that Ronald H.W. Reagan tripled the national debt in 8 years?
Hmmm, I know which one I'm going with.

That's a dumb-azz response.

I state the problem is SPENDING, but like a typical mindless Obamabot, you deflect and go right back to your programming with a foolish strawman argument about TAXES.

But let's pretend you're not a partisan flamer, give you the benefit of the doubt, and explore your mindless response so we can explore the full depth of its idiocy.

Raise taxes on everyone to 75%? A completely ridiculous idea.

The deficit would NOT be "wiped out" - that depends on what you do about SPENDING. You know, the subject you're squirming like a weasel to avoid.

Cut federal spending back to its historically sustainable norm of 18% of GDP, and the deficit takes care of itself.

After all, Bloomberg himself says not to worry - America can borrow "an infinte amount of money."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/...

As for your lame "Reagan Bush Reagan Bush WAAH WAAH WAAAAAHHHH!!!" partisan dodge - STUFF IT. Reagan's dead, and neither Bush is POTUS, running the country into penury for the past 4 years. What's next, you're going to try blaming the Harding Administration?

The lame blame game is OVER. Obama is POTUS, he is FAILING MISERABLY. And your rationale is that he's no worse that Bush? That's like claiming Larry is doing great because he's not doing worse that Moe.

GTFO.

Obama = epic FAIL.

[Reality Check]

One day you're surrounded by bodyguards, the next you're buying cheerios at CVS
http://i.imgur.com/PvpAYVc.jpg...
Romney EPIC FAIL!!!

[Wrong AGAIN Hillbilly]

De Oppresso Liber wrote:

<quoted text>
Secondly, your math is erroneous, you must be dumber than wood, and my apologies to all the forests. This deficit doesn't concern you, because you contribute nothing to the common good, you are leech on the ass of society.

Wrong AGAIN, Hillbilly !

Sequestration Anxiety? War Costs Could Have Paid for all Those Cuts
Takepart.com – 2 hrs 0 mins ago

No one likes a told-you-so or a Monday-morning Commander in Chief, but with Congress and the president bickering over which essential government programs to cut due to a looming budget sequester, it’s no time to worry about being popular.

The irritating question begs to be raised: Would the United States be in a budget crisis today if it hadn’t thrown so much of the public purse at overseas conflicts during the past dozen years? And were those foreign war expenditures worth the price?

The stated purpose of the post-9/11 wars was to eliminate the perceived threat posed to America from al Qaeda’s sanctuary in Afghanistan and Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. The conflicts displaced the equivalent of the populations of Oregon and Connecticut. Hundreds of thousands of civilians, and a lesser number of soldiers, have been killed. And beyond the human cost, more than $1 trillion in taxpayer funds have gone to increasing homeland security, overseas fighting and treating injured veterans.
The cost of the nation’s wars is being overshadowed in Washington these days as lawmakers flounder in a financial quandary of their own making. The Budget Control Act, passed in 2011 and signed by President Obama, mandates cuts to federal spending of $1.2 trillion over nine years starting in 2013. Eighty-five billion dollars of those across-the-board cuts are set to kick in on Friday, March 1, which has Washington in a shambles.
Those billions sound like big numbers by almost any standard of measure, but not when stacked against the financing of America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Brown University’s study of the costs of the post-9/11 conflicts puts the war bill, including the price of treating wounded veterans for years to come, at nearly $4 trillion.
Of that astronomical number, only 1 percent was for medical care for veterans and 5 percent for diplomacy and foreign aid programs.

A 2011 study by the Congressional Research Service found that Congress has approved $1.283 trillion for “military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks.”
Of that astronomical number, only 1 percent was for medical care for veterans and 5 percent for diplomacy and foreign aid programs. Meanwhile, military operations in Iraq received about $806 billion and the war in Afghanistan $444 billion.
The drone program’s budget contains one telling figure from the military expenditures. A study by Time magazine found that $30 billion in taxpayer money had gone to keep the drones in the air since 2001. Over the next decade, as the Pentagon advances a plan to purchase about 730 new medium-sized and large unmanned drones, that number will rise to $37 billion for a 10-year period.
Brown’s researchers estimate that some 313,890 individual human beings have died in the post-9/11 conflicts. That includes an estimated 152,280 to 192,550 civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.
Of the more than 300 thousand dead, 6,630 are American service members. Another 50,000 troops were wounded, and thousands more are suffering from emotional trauma related to combat.
If Congress is searching for places to cut budgetary corners, war spending is as good a place as any to start looking.

http://news.yahoo.com/sequestration-anxiety-w...

[Wrong AGAIN Hillbilly]

De Oppresso Liber wrote:

<quoted text>
Secondly, your math is erroneous, you must be dumber than wood, and my apologies to all the forests. This deficit doesn't concern you, because you contribute nothing to the common good, you are leech on the ass of society.

Wrong AGAIN, Hillbilly !

Sequestration Anxiety? War Costs Could Have Paid for all Those Cuts
Takepart.com – 2 hrs 0 mins ago

No one likes a told-you-so or a Monday-morning Commander in Chief, but with Congress and the president bickering over which essential government programs to cut due to a looming budget sequester, it’s no time to worry about being popular.

The irritating question begs to be raised: Would the United States be in a budget crisis today if it hadn’t thrown so much of the public purse at overseas conflicts during the past dozen years? And were those foreign war expenditures worth the price?

The stated purpose of the post-9/11 wars was to eliminate the perceived threat posed to America from al Qaeda’s sanctuary in Afghanistan and Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. The conflicts displaced the equivalent of the populations of Oregon and Connecticut. Hundreds of thousands of civilians, and a lesser number of soldiers, have been killed. And beyond the human cost, more than $1 trillion in taxpayer funds have gone to increasing homeland security, overseas fighting and treating injured veterans.
The cost of the nation’s wars is being overshadowed in Washington these days as lawmakers flounder in a financial quandary of their own making. The Budget Control Act, passed in 2011 and signed by President Obama, mandates cuts to federal spending of $1.2 trillion over nine years starting in 2013. Eighty-five billion dollars of those across-the-board cuts are set to kick in on Friday, March 1, which has Washington in a shambles.
Those billions sound like big numbers by almost any standard of measure, but not when stacked against the financing of America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Brown University’s study of the costs of the post-9/11 conflicts puts the war bill, including the price of treating wounded veterans for years to come, at nearly $4 trillion.
Of that astronomical number, only 1 percent was for medical care for veterans and 5 percent for diplomacy and foreign aid programs.

A 2011 study by the Congressional Research Service found that Congress has approved $1.283 trillion for “military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks.”
Of that astronomical number, only 1 percent was for medical care for veterans and 5 percent for diplomacy and foreign aid programs. Meanwhile, military operations in Iraq received about $806 billion and the war in Afghanistan $444 billion.
The drone program’s budget contains one telling figure from the military expenditures. A study by Time magazine found that $30 billion in taxpayer money had gone to keep the drones in the air since 2001. Over the next decade, as the Pentagon advances a plan to purchase about 730 new medium-sized and large unmanned drones, that number will rise to $37 billion for a 10-year period.
Brown’s researchers estimate that some 313,890 individual human beings have died in the post-9/11 conflicts. That includes an estimated 152,280 to 192,550 civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.
Of the more than 300 thousand dead, 6,630 are American service members. Another 50,000 troops were wounded, and thousands more are suffering from emotional trauma related to combat.
If Congress is searching for places to cut budgetary corners, war spending is as good a place as any to start looking.

[De Oppresso Liber]

I have a better idea, let's drug test anyone receiving government benefits, and all government employees, all teachers, and all Union members, all transportation workers, and all civil employees, random drug testing as a condition of employment.

There will be lots of jobs then, If you test positive, no welfare! Test positive lose your pension. We can start with the White House, and all of Congress.

[LetsGetReal]

De Oppresso Liber wrote:

I have a better idea, let's drug test anyone receiving government benefits, and all government employees, all teachers, and all Union members, all transportation workers, and all civil employees, random drug testing as a condition of employment.
There will be lots of jobs then, If you test positive, no welfare! Test positive lose your pension. We can start with the White House, and all of Congress.

Be careful what you ask for, your employer might implement a 'minimum 4 inch penis-size test"...then you'd be out of a job.

[xdrunk]

De Oppresso Liber wrote:

I have a better idea, let's drug test anyone receiving government benefits, and all government employees, all teachers, and all Union members, all transportation workers, and all civil employees, random drug testing as a condition of employment.
There will be lots of jobs then, If you test positive, no welfare! Test positive lose your pension. We can start with the White House, and all of Congress.

That's right, Change the subject. Twist it around. Republican suck.
xd

[De Oppresso Liber]

xdrunk wrote:

<quoted text>
That's right, Change the subject. Twist it around. Republican suck.
xd

We have a spending problem, cuts need to be made, entitlements are driving the costs more than anything else, if you are receiving assistance from the taxpayer, none of it should be going to recreational drug use or alcohol habits or cigarettes, think of the benefits sobriety would bring to these unfortunates, they could reclaim their lives and be productive citizens again. Or would you rather keep them on the democratic plantation dependent on government to sustain their addictions waiting to the call to vote democratic in another election?

Every day dependent children of welfare families go to school hungry, because money is being spent on drugs and alcohol, rather than the welfare of the child, when do we begin to enforce responsibility? The solution begins at home, if you receive assistance because you can't fend for yourself, is it too much to ask to be free of drugs and alcohol?

[De Oppresso Liber]

LetsGetReal wrote:

<quoted text>
Be careful what you ask for, your employer might implement a 'minimum 4 inch penis-size test"...then you'd be out of a job.

In that scenario, you would be chronically unemployed.

[Flags and Fireworks]

16 trillion? Who the heck would lend us 16 trillion?

Only someone with the power to create something that doesn't exist. Could it be the mysterious cabal of Jewish international bankers?

[Hingle McCringleberry]

Flags and Fireworks wrote:

16 trillion? Who the heck would lend us 16 trillion?
Only someone with the power to create something that doesn't exist. Could it be the mysterious cabal of Jewish international bankers?

Boy, this is some dumbass boosit, did you think of it all yo little dumbass self?