Comments
6,401 - 6,420 of 53,406 Comments Last updated 4 min ago
ChicknButt

Douglasville, GA

#6882 Apr 12, 2013
Bored wrote:
""Thank you, Bored for attempting to answer the question.
Bored wrote:
President Obama contributed the most to the debt, with cumulative deficits totaling $5.073 trillion in just four years.
However - that isn't addressing the question.""
Since you don't have a question worthy of comment, my answer will do for me.
"Bored wrote:
Obama's budgets included the economic stimulus package, which added $787 billion
Why was an Economic Stimulus package needed?""
Because he scared the crap out of business and business pratically shut down when he came into office.
"Wasn't he handed a great economy after 8-years of Republican Policy?"
Yes he was, but like all socialists he screwed it up.
"Can we blame Obama for destroying the economy,"
Yes, we can, and we do.
"or did this happen before he got into office?"
No, he screwed it up all by himself.
"Bored wrote:
extending unemployment benefits, and funding job-creating public works projects.
Why in the WORLD would extened unemployment benefits be needed as soon as he took office?"
Was not needed but was his choice. A bad choice.
"Didn't 8 years of Republican Policy hand over a pristine unemployment situation to Obama right when he entered office?"
Yes.
"Bored wrote:
The Obama tax cuts added $858 billion to the debt over two years.
Obama extended the BUSH tax cuts. It wasn't something he wanted to do in principle, it was something that he had to do in reality because of the economic situation. Unfortunately after 8 years of Republican Policy, the Economy of the United States of America was in shambles.""
His choice again, name a libtard who don't like big spending.
"Bored wrote:
Obama's budget included increased defense spending to around $800 billion a year.
He didn't commit the United States of America to two unfunded wars. That money was already being spent, it just wasn't on paper. It was unfunded."
Wrong again swammi.
"Bored wrote:
Federal income was down, thanks to lower tax receipts from the 2008 financial crisis.
This is a HUGE cause of deficit numbers. Should we blame the 2008 financial crisis on Obama?
NO, but he sure added to it.
"If not, which president SHOULD we attribute that portion of the deficit to, and which party did he belong to?"
Belonged to Bush, and I did attribute it to him. I posted the deficit numbers, sorry your brain is not capable of understanding the numbers.
"Bored wrote:
Obama also sponsored the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was designed to reduce the debt by $143 billion over 10 years. However, these savings don't show up until the later years. But now the cost of the Affordable Act has doubled in cost, wiping out any savings projected in later years.
That's future money, not money already spent, and part of a different conversation."
Wrong again swammi. Money is flying out the window as we speak and no one is even receiving the benefits yet.
And money spent is always a part of the conversation. Just because you don't like it, too bad.
"If you dissect the deficit and acknowledge that a MAJOR FINANCIAL COLLAPSE and TWO UNFUNDED WARS all happened during the previous administrations watch - Well then, the numbers that Republican propagandists keep throwing out there that blame the majority of the deficit on Obama start to look like clear-cut lies."
Dollar numbers don't lie, Obamas supporters do.
"We can now actually STOP blaming the deficit on Obama and correctly blame the majority of the existing deficit on George W. Bush. We've established something. That's good."
Only in a libtards mind is it good.
You've unequivocally proven my point.
domino

Anniston, AL

#6883 Apr 12, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
Pardon me if I'm wrong, but did you answer even ONE basic question?
Even one as simple as "Did the economy collapse during George Bush's presidency"? No. You did not.
That wasn't even a good job at deflection and avoidance.
Pardon me but you havent ask anything that hasnt been beat to death previously. Just read back. Its ongoing & has been answered many times. The economy wasnt nearly as bad under Bush as it is under Obama and unemloyment is much higher as is welfare.
And you have beat what Obama "inherited" to death. Hes in his 5th year. Time for him to take responsibility.
ChicknButt

Douglasville, GA

#6884 Apr 12, 2013
Thank you, Bored. You've unequivocally proven my point. I'm sure your fellow right-wingers will appreciate that.

By the way: Should anybody EVER behave as if they might try to have an intelligent conversation with you, please direct them to post 6880 before they spend too much time under the mistaken impression that you're worth the effort.

Post 6880. Absolute definitive proof.
ChicknButt

Douglasville, GA

#6885 Apr 12, 2013
domino wrote:
<quoted text>
The economy wasnt nearly as bad under Bush as it is under Obama
Oh. I see. 2008 doesn't exist in your world. How interesting.

Post 6883. Please refer people to the fact that you said this. They will find it helpful.
domino

Anniston, AL

#6886 Apr 12, 2013
I am certain Republicans have not fled. Most are probably tired and gone to bed because they had to get up early to go to their jobs this morning, unlike you Libtards. And had you been on this site as long as others, you would know that it slows down a good bit on weekends.
Farrell Landon

Washington, DC

#6887 Apr 12, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
Thank you, Bored. You've unequivocally proven my point. I'm sure your fellow right-wingers will appreciate that.
By the way: Should anybody EVER behave as if they might try to have an intelligent conversation with you, please direct them to post 6880 before they spend too much time under the mistaken impression that you're worth the effort.
Post 6880. Absolute definitive proof.
Yall heard the new song by young boonie and epic gang about tadpoles in your butt? Its about dude on dude action and puttin tadpoles in each other. Im proud of them for being inner city youth and singing about anal and their struggles. We need to get them a grant from the govt and encourage young boonie to express his love of implanting his tadpoles in other dudes butts
Farrell Landon Democrat

Washington, DC

#6888 Apr 12, 2013
I really think the republicans just dont realize that if we can just print more money and give it to our poor people then nobodys got to be poor anymore. It just be paper cant we print it and make everybody feel better and not be bein poor nomore
Farrell Landon Democrat

Washington, DC

#6889 Apr 12, 2013
My god i just pooted so hard i think i might have dislocateded my right eye. Can u call ken nugent my laywer can u say dis a bill a tee
ChicknButt

Douglasville, GA

#6890 Apr 12, 2013
Farrell Landon wrote:
<quoted text>
Yall heard the new song by young boonie and epic gang about tadpoles in your butt? Its about dude on dude action and puttin tadpoles in each other. Im proud of them for being inner city youth and singing about anal and their struggles. We need to get them a grant from the govt and encourage young boonie to express his love of implanting his tadpoles in other dudes butts
It's entirely possible that you've been probed by aliens one time too many. I'm jus' sayin'. It's possible.
Oh my

Young Harris, GA

#6891 Apr 13, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
I couldn't care less what tax percentage anyone pays as long as they are within the law. But the hypocrisy of the Left is astounding.
"Obama uses his own tax return to show what is wrong with the system." - except that I note he and Michelle claimed over $258,000 is deductions - if they believe they should pay more in taxes, there was their opportunity - they should have left deductions blank. But, nope - not them. That goes for anyone on the Left - if you believe the govt needs more money, feel free to send them a check.
Too funny, as if the PIOUS would have let that slip by.

Simple fact, Obama is among the wealthy and he has consistently advocated for raising the taxes of the wealthy.
Bored

Commerce, GA

#6892 Apr 13, 2013
domino wrote:
I am certain Republicans have not fled. Most are probably tired and gone to bed because they had to get up early to go to their jobs this morning, unlike you Libtards. And had you been on this site as long as others, you would know that it slows down a good bit on weekends.


Libtards don't sleep with their eyes closed, they expect everyone to toe their line.

Like all libtards Chicken Little declares himself a winner when others don't abide by his set parameters. He huffs and puffs his feathers full of hot air.

He wants to lay all blame on Bush like Obama does.
If he ever realizes it's a losing argument for him, he just might, and I say just might, get an understanding no one president is to blame for all the problems of the country's debt.

There's not a dimes difference between political libtards, they'll sink the ship everytime. All one need do is look at Europe to see how libtards can ruin a continent.
Bored

Commerce, GA

#6893 Apr 13, 2013
domino wrote:
<quoted text>
Pardon me but you havent ask anything that hasnt been beat to death previously. Just read back. Its ongoing & has been answered many times. The economy wasnt nearly as bad under Bush as it is under Obama and unemloyment is much higher as is welfare.
And you have beat what Obama "inherited" to death. Hes in his 5th year. Time for him to take responsibility.

Chickenbutt likes and admires Obama because he can fool most of the liberals, and because he has a teflon coating. Chickenbutt is envious, he wants the same teflon but all he has been able to get is goo on his feathers.

He likes to think he has the authority to set the parameters of an argument and everyone else abide by them. He reminds me of a Lemming, running to jump off the cliff with Obama.


Bored

Commerce, GA

#6894 Apr 13, 2013
A libtard DOJ uses the Commerce Clause to prosecute a pair of scissors crime.

"Amish prosecuted because scissors 'crossed state lines'"

Under this analogy, libtards will be using the Commerce clause to prosecute any and all local crimes in order to have federal control over all local authorities.


ChicknButt

Douglasville, GA

#6895 Apr 13, 2013
Good Morning Bored.

Post 6880 tells us everything we need to know about you.
Bored

Commerce, GA

#6896 Apr 13, 2013
Goofy Obamanomics.

Fiscal Policy: Shorn of its accounting gimmicks, the president's budget isn't a "balanced" plan to get the debt crisis under control. It's a monument to fiscal irresponsibility.

With much fanfare and a lot of media hype, President Obama unveiled his latest budget plan two months late. An IBD review of Obama's budget finds that, among other things, it:

Boosts spending and deficits over the next two years. Obama's own budget numbers show that he wants to hike spending over the next two years by $247 billion compared with the "baseline," which even after his proposed new tax hikes would mean $157 billion in additional red ink.

Obama claims he'll get tough on spending and deficits later, but every budget expert knows boosting spending today only makes it harder to cut later.

Vastly exaggerates spending cuts. The press has widely reported that Obama's budget would cut spending a total of $1.2 trillion over the next decade. But Obama's own budget shows that he actually cuts spending a mere $186 billion.(The relevant tables can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files... on Pages 187-190.)

Obama inflates his claimed savings by first canceling the automatic sequester spending cuts he previously signed into law, then reclaiming them as new savings, and by adding in cuts in interest payments on the debt.

Relies almost entirely on tax hikes. Obama's budget shows his plan would increase revenues by $1.14 trillion over the next decade. That means his budget proposes $6 in new taxes for every $1 in spending cuts.

Cuts the deficit less than claimed. "My budget will reduce our deficits by nearly another $2 trillion," Obama said Wednesday. But his budget shows total deficit reduction over the next decade would be just $1.4 trillion. Plus, deficits start rising again after 2018.

Creates a new entitlement without a reliable means to pay for it. Obama claims he can finance a new $76 billion "preschool for all" program by raising tobacco taxes again. But after an initial spike, tobacco tax revenues will start trending downward year after year as more people quit smoking, while the costs of this new program will keep climbing.

The last time Obama hiked tobacco taxes to pay for an expansion of Medicaid revenues came in $2.2 billion less than expected.

Boosts taxes on the middle class. Obama proposes to change the government's "consumer price index" in a way that will lower the official inflation rate. He's selling it as a way to cut Social Security annual "cost of living" adjustments, which are based on the CPI.

But because his "chained CPI" would also apply to annual tax bracket adjustments, it will end up hiking taxes by $124 billion mainly on the middle class over the next decade through bracket creep, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

In his remarks Wednesday after releasing his 65-day-overdue budget, Obama claimed: "The numbers work. There's not a lot of smoke and mirrors in here."

Fact is, if it weren't for smoke and mirrors, Obama would have no budget plan at all.
Bored

Commerce, GA

#6897 Apr 13, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
Good Morning Bored.
Post 6880 tells us everything we need to know about you.
Get a job.
Farrell Landon Democrat

Washington, DC

#6898 Apr 13, 2013
Bored wrote:
<quoted text>
Get a job.
Anybody know how to get upgraded section 8? I need a nicer house and more money cause my car is 4 years old and i want a newer one.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#6899 Apr 13, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a DRAMATIC change of subject from where we currently are.
You're a smart person. Can you acknowledge that Bush tanked the economy before he left office, that there was rampant job losses during his last year, and that he raised the deficit significantly?
Yes or no? Did those things happen?
Oh, since when can this thread only follow one topic at a time - and actually it is right on point, which I think is your real problem with the information. The state of NY has come to the realization that they can either raise taxes on the job producers and thus lose businesses or they can encourage businesses to come to their states by lowering taxes and thereby encourage job growth. That is what builds an economy.

Did Bush spend too much money in office - yep, was he to blame for the housing crisis which precipitated the downturn - nope - that you can blame on "feel good" Democrat policies that reflected Barney Frank's statement that "Everyone should get to own their own home." Would that be wonderful, yes - is it realistic, not by a long shot. In 2002, the Bush administration was warning that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not being regulated sufficiently and could have a ripple effect on the economy. Barney Frank - House Financial Services ranking member states - "these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac- are not facing any kind of financial crisis....The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure is on these companies, the less we will see in affordable housing." Well, we all know what happened.

TARP 1 was a mistake - it probably would have been better to let those financial institutions fail. That was Bush's mistake. TARP 2, where Obama doubled down, was also a mistake and really more of a joke - somehow those shovel ready jobs , as Obama acknowledged "weren't so shovel ready." And now we have the same people who shoved Obamacare down our throats acknowledging that "oops, it's costing more than we thought it would [big surprise], now we need another bill to bring in more money to pay for it."

So, no, Bush was not the fiscal conservative Republicans wanted, but he was certainly better than the man in office now who is following in the same steps as FDR when he inherited a troubled economy. FDR's policies exacerbated the problems and prolonged the Depression by years. Obama's policies are doing the same thing.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#6900 Apr 13, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Too funny, as if the PIOUS would have let that slip by.
Simple fact, Obama is among the wealthy and he has consistently advocated for raising the taxes of the wealthy.
Oh, no problem there. When they released their tax returns all they had to do was state they chose not to take their deductions - you know - lead by example and put their money where their mouths are. And you're right, he is wealthy. He followed the Democrat play book - get elected, get rich. He certainly hasn't done anything in the private sector to earn any money.
Bored

Commerce, GA

#6901 Apr 13, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, since when can this thread only follow one topic at a time - and actually it is right on point, which I think is your real problem with the information. The state of NY has come to the realization that they can either raise taxes on the job producers and thus lose businesses or they can encourage businesses to come to their states by lowering taxes and thereby encourage job growth. That is what builds an economy.
Did Bush spend too much money in office - yep, was he to blame for the housing crisis which precipitated the downturn - nope - that you can blame on "feel good" Democrat policies that reflected Barney Frank's statement that "Everyone should get to own their own home." Would that be wonderful, yes - is it realistic, not by a long shot. In 2002, the Bush administration was warning that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not being regulated sufficiently and could have a ripple effect on the economy. Barney Frank - House Financial Services ranking member states - "these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac- are not facing any kind of financial crisis....The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure is on these companies, the less we will see in affordable housing." Well, we all know what happened.
TARP 1 was a mistake - it probably would have been better to let those financial institutions fail. That was Bush's mistake. TARP 2, where Obama doubled down, was also a mistake and really more of a joke - somehow those shovel ready jobs , as Obama acknowledged "weren't so shovel ready." And now we have the same people who shoved Obamacare down our throats acknowledging that "oops, it's costing more than we thought it would [big surprise], now we need another bill to bring in more money to pay for it."
So, no, Bush was not the fiscal conservative Republicans wanted, but he was certainly better than the man in office now who is following in the same steps as FDR when he inherited a troubled economy. FDR's policies exacerbated the problems and prolonged the Depression by years. Obama's policies are doing the same thing.
And those libtards want to do the same thing again with easy lending home practices for those who otherwise pay their bills under normal lending practices.

Obama has not totally crashed America's economy yet so he's trying another trick out of the playbook of Franks.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ludowici Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Anyone want a free dog? (Jan '12) 23 hr Hailey rami 4
Debate: Gay Marriage - Hinesville, GA (Aug '10) Fri Local lady 59
GA Who do you support for Attorney General in Geor... (Oct '10) Aug 28 Pfffft 185
Buy Georgia White Dirt (Jan '13) Aug 27 Ladie T 7
arrested in ludowici Aug 27 That Guy 2
where's all the weed at? (Jan '14) Aug 21 The Truth 9
Men Wearing Thongs (Sep '08) Aug 18 CFM 240
•••
•••
•••

Ludowici Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Ludowici People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Ludowici News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Ludowici
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••