US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

[Robert_S]

T'would have been nice if the car was insured I guess.

[Coito ergo sum]

A couple trillion bucks.

The CBO estimated $1 trillion to $2 trillion in total

We're done here.

The first lie is you saying this is wrong. You just admitted, before you said it, that I'm right.

Gee, this time we didn't even have to actually read the lie again. Nice.

You need to reread that -

I asked, "how much did the Iraq War cost UNDER BUSH -" The CBO estimate of $1-$2 trillion was the forward looking ESTIMATE of total costs through 2050. Bush left the White House after 2008, in January, 2009. The cost of the Iraq War through the end of 2008 was $600 billion, approximately.

So, stop it with the fucking false accusations of lying. You're wrong. You're dead, flat out, wrong. I did not admit that you were right - I proved you wrong.

Now, I would be pleased if you would either deal civilly with me - this is about the 3rd request of mine in that regard - or just don't say anything at all to me.

[Schneibster]

Sorry Bush spent money we'll still be paying forty years downstream and you're trying to make that be money Obama "spent." Another lie. Good luck with that shit.

All you have to do if you want to talk is stop. Until you do I'm going to keep pointing it out and making fun of you.

[Coito ergo sum]

Sorry Bush spent money we'll still be paying forty years downstream and you're trying to make that be money Obama "spent." Another lie. Good luck with that shit.

No no. You missed it. Money Obama spent is money Obama spent. You can't, for example, claim that Obama's spending in Afghanistan and Pakistan is Bush's spending. Nobody is forcing him to continue the Bush policies - but he has.

All you have to do if you want to talk is stop. Until you do I'm going to keep pointing it out and making fun of you.

You're babbling again. "All you have to do if you want to talk is stop..." Nice.

Anyway - you're obviously wrong, and everyone can see that. Bush did not spend "a couple trillion dollars" in Iraq. That's just flat out wrong. I won't, as you are wont to do, call you a liar, because I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you may have a sincerely held, but flat out wrong understanding. You may well be honestly ignorant.

And, I know you're a troll, and you just admitted it. Thank you.

[Schneibster]

Sorry Bush spent money we'll still be paying forty years downstream and you're trying to make that be money Obama "spent." Another lie. Good luck with that shit.

No no. You missed it. Money Obama spent is money Obama spent.

First lie, sport. Every time.

[Seth]

Apparently Seth, you've never been in an auto accident where a dirt poor deadbeat nailed you.

but they never, ever pay off when things go sour, they just say "Oops, sorry, we already spent your money on somebody else."

So, how often does this actually happen?

I was talking about government...

[Seth]

Apparently Seth, you've never been in an auto accident where a dirt poor deadbeat nailed you.

I have.

I have too. That's why I insure myself against that peril. It's called "uninsured motorist coverage." But I only carry it on my new vehicles, not my old ones.

but they never, ever pay off when things go sour, they just say "Oops, sorry, we already spent your money on somebody else."

So, how often does this actually happen?

In my case, the insurance company paid about half the cost of repairs. While that's not quite "never" paying off, it's not really what most people think they are getting from insurance, either.

Um, the "never pay off" comment was directed at the notion that "governments are insurance companies with armies."

Insurance companies pay off according to the contract. If they don't, you can sue them. It's not their fault if you don't really understand the contract though.

[Coito ergo sum]

The NBC affiliate in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, WTMJ TV announced yesterday they will not be airing Obama's jobs speech at 7 PM EST Thursday night. instead they are opting for their own pre-game coverage of the Packers Saints game scheduled to kick off at 8 PM. Green Bay's NBC affiliate, NBC 26, will also go with the Packers pre-game show over Obama.

Saints fans do not appear to be as devoted to their team. WDSU, the New Orleans NBC affiliate, plans to stick with Obama.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer. ... -milwaukee

[Coito ergo sum]

Republican debate last night - did anyone watch it?

I think Perry did a good job, and appealed to his base. He didn't back down from some of his more extreme statements, like the Ponzi scheme social security thing. But, since that's in print, to back off it now would have hurt him more than sticking to his guns. Always stick to your guns, never apologize for your beliefs, it only empowers the opposition. That being said, I don't like Perry's message, substantively, or his anti-science posture.

Romney, I think, did better than Perry and sounded more reasonable and more Presidential.

Bachmann took a step back, I think, and thankfully so since she is my least favorite of the field.

Gingerich is a smart guy, and well-qualified, but I think he just did a neutral job in the debate.

Ron Paul seems to have gotten the most accolades for his performance last night, although I think he sounds like a crotchety old man, and he is just far too Libertarian to have any sort of chance at the election.

Jon Huntsman was, I think, the best performer in the debate, and out of all the Republican candidates, I think he is the best qualified.

[Coito ergo sum]

"It's a major leadership moment for Obama," said Terry Madonna, a political scientist at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. "He's running out of months before voters settle in on whether his presidency has failed."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/ ... 6520110908

[Schneibster]

Sorry Bush spent money we'll still be paying forty years downstream and you're trying to make that be money Obama "spent." Another lie. Good luck with that shit.

No no. You missed it. Money Obama spent is money Obama spent.

First lie, sport. Every time.

Peoplewho claim that Obama "tripled the deficit" are either misled or are trying to mislead.

Source: http://www.truth-out.org/three-charts-e ... 1314626142

An additional note because it's topical: all data in that article are from the government, not from a partisan source.

[Coito ergo sum]

Sorry Bush spent money we'll still be paying forty years downstream and you're trying to make that be money Obama "spent." Another lie. Good luck with that shit.

No no. You missed it. Money Obama spent is money Obama spent.

First lie, sport. Every time.

Peoplewho claim that Obama "tripled the deficit" are either misled or are trying to mislead.

Source: http://www.truth-out.org/three-charts-e ... 1314626142

An additional note because it's topical: all data in that article are from the government, not from a partisan source.

Non sequitur.

You'll need to think about this very hard.

The assertion that "people who claim that Obama tripled the deficit are either misled or are trying to mislead" does not contradict in any way the statement that "Money Obama spent is money Obama spent." You do see that, right?

Moreover, "truthout" -- as reputable and convincing a source as that is - is just wrong about this.

See this article: http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508 ... sh-on-debt

According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.

Note: all data in that article are from the government, not from a partisan source

[Schneibster]

Sorry Bush spent money we'll still be paying forty years downstream and you're trying to make that be money Obama "spent." Another lie. Good luck with that shit.

No no. You missed it. Money Obama spent is money Obama spent.

First lie, sport. Every time.

Peoplewho claim that Obama "tripled the deficit" are either misled or are trying to mislead.

Source: http://www.truth-out.org/three-charts-e ... 1314626142

An additional note because it's topical: all data in that article are from the government, not from a partisan source.

Non sequitur.

You'll need to think about this very hard.

The assertion that "people who claim that Obama tripled the deficit are either misled or are trying to mislead" does not contradict in any way the statement that "Money Obama spent is money Obama spent." You do see that, right?

Moreover, "truthout" -- as reputable and convincing a source as that is - is just wrong about this.

See this article: http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508 ... sh-on-debt

According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.

Note: all data in that article are from the government, not from a partisan source

Ummm, do you know what "programmed spending" is?

Just sayin'.

ETA: Obama could break the law I guess and not spend money required under laws and policies enacted before he took office.

I had a fucking fit when Bush did it, and I'd have another one if Obama did. Not "down with" it. Sorry.

[Coito ergo sum]

No no. You missed it. Money Obama spent is money Obama spent.

First lie, sport. Every time.

Peoplewho claim that Obama "tripled the deficit" are either misled or are trying to mislead.

Source: http://www.truth-out.org/three-charts-e ... 1314626142

An additional note because it's topical: all data in that article are from the government, not from a partisan source.

Non sequitur.

You'll need to think about this very hard.

The assertion that "people who claim that Obama tripled the deficit are either misled or are trying to mislead" does not contradict in any way the statement that "Money Obama spent is money Obama spent." You do see that, right?

Moreover, "truthout" -- as reputable and convincing a source as that is - is just wrong about this.

See this article: http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508 ... sh-on-debt

According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.

Note: all data in that article are from the government, not from a partisan source

Ummm, do you know what "programmed spending" is?

Sure, but you need to phrase your arguments in the form of....well, an argument. Issue: "people who claim that Obama tripled the deficit are either misled or are trying to mislead" - My position based on the White House Office of Management and Budget: "Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush." - looks like more than triple.

Your response, taking the position that the deficit has not tripled is: ?

Now, I'm certainly willing to entertain the notion that it hasn't tripled. If it hasn't, it hasn't. It seems, though, that the White House's own numbers are pretty clear. I am willing to be educated, though. Feel free.

Just sayin'.

Sure, you were "just sayin'" something that didn't address the issue.

ETA: Obama could break the law I guess and not spend money required under laws and policies enacted before he took office.

No no. That's not what happened. If that were the case, then we would have to give Bush a pass on how many years of spending that was "programmed" from the previous administration?

Further, Obama is a Democrat and Democrats clearly controlled the US Congress while he was President from January 2009, to November 2010 - as such there was not a penny of "programmed spending" that could not have been changed. Instead, they increased spending.

I had a fucking fit when Bush did it, and I'd have another one if Obama did. Not "down with" it. Sorry.

Non sequitur.

[Schneibster]

First lie, sport. Every time.

Peoplewho claim that Obama "tripled the deficit" are either misled or are trying to mislead.

Source: http://www.truth-out.org/three-charts-e ... 1314626142

An additional note because it's topical: all data in that article are from the government, not from a partisan source.

Non sequitur.

You'll need to think about this very hard.

The assertion that "people who claim that Obama tripled the deficit are either misled or are trying to mislead" does not contradict in any way the statement that "Money Obama spent is money Obama spent." You do see that, right?

Moreover, "truthout" -- as reputable and convincing a source as that is - is just wrong about this.

See this article: http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508 ... sh-on-debt

According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.

Note: all data in that article are from the government, not from a partisan source

Ummm, do you know what "programmed spending" is?

Sure, but you need to phrase your arguments in the form of....well, an argument. Issue: "people who claim that Obama tripled the deficit are either misled or are trying to mislead" - My position based on the White House Office of Management and Budget: "Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush." - looks like more than triple.

Your response, taking the position that the deficit has not tripled is: ?

"people who claim that Obama tripled the deficit are either misled or are trying to mislead"

Are we done here?