Who's ready for President Trump!

[Yukon4Runner]

How does today's deficit compare to the deficit when Obama took office?

Ok, we give up. Obama is all aces. If it wasn't for that pesky 22nd amendment, he'd be grand pooba for life.

Lamentably, he will be looking elsewhere for work. We will all put in a good word for you, he can move into 24 Sussex and 'Make Canada great again!'

 

[-JD-]

you can keep claiming that, but you are factually incorrect. i don't misunderstand you in the least. the last presidential TERM in which the debt decreased? truman's first.

the debt/gdp ratio is increasing. the last term in which it decreased (slightly?) - clinton's

OH FFS!! PLEASE!!! PLEASE!!!!! explain to me how I am incorrect. I genuinely dont understand.

Ok, we give up. Obama is all aces. If it wasn't for that pesky 22nd amendment, he'd be grand pooba for life.

Lamentably, he will be looking elsewhere for work. We will all put in a good word for you, he can move into 24 Sussex and 'Make Canada great again!'

Please, just stop. You are not contributing anything to this debate except pulling it further towards petty arguing.

 

[cfranck1]

The REAL Debt clock!

 

[nevada]

Well markets are up, dollar is up, gas is down, unemployment way down, gm is alive, banks are lending again, foreclosures are down.

How are things worse?

Because he wasn't able to cut 800 billion out of the budget in two years? Isn't the current deficit roughly half what it was when he took office?

how much of that is directly because of Obama?

I believe he will go down as being the worst president ever. if not THE worst, then in the top 5. he is terrible. our country is weaker because of him.

 

[-JD-]

how much of that is directly because of Obama?

I believe he will go down as being the worst president ever. if not THE worst, then in the top 5. he is terrible. our country is weaker because of him.

Worse than the guy who went to war with the wrong country? Killed its leader and created an enormous power vacuum that has led to (at least) a decade of war and terror attacks? Keep that in mind when looking at the 'military' portion of the debt clock as that was a cost that will continue to be payed for for a long time.


How much is directly Obama? Tough to say, he doesn't get credit for the good, but gets blamed for the bad? You wont give him credit for the bailouts but will blame him for the cost? Hypocrisy at its finest.

 

[Yukon4Runner]

Please, just stop. You are not contributing anything to this debate except pulling it further towards petty arguing.

You don't want Obama to lead Canada?! Is there a problem with him?

You don't agree with his leadership, or is it something else? Hmmm...one has to wonder how enlightened you really are up there in the Great White North.

 

[Thai]

Worse than the guy who went to war with the wrong country? Killed its leader and created an enormous power vacuum that has led to (at least) a decade of war and terror attacks? Keep that in mind when looking at the 'military' portion of the debt clock as that was a cost that will continue to be payed for for a long time.


How much is directly Obama? Tough to say, he doesn't get credit for the good, but gets blamed for the bad? You wont give him credit for the bailouts but will blame him for the cost? Hypocrisy at its finest.

Libya Gaddafi death was on Bush too? Resulting Benghazi? Bush too? No vacuum there! Hoover is a good vacuum.

Give Obama credit for bailouts? Why?

 

[-JD-]

Libya Gaddafi death was on Bush too? Resulting Benghazi? Bush too? No vacuum there! Hoover is a good vacuum.

Give Obama credit for bailouts? Why?

You don't think the rise of the islamic state is connected to Sadaam's death?

Give Obama credit only because they are blaming him for the cost....I was being cheeky, because they seem to want it both ways.

 

[Thai]

You don't think the rise of the islamic state is connected to Sadaam's death?

Give Obama credit only because they are blaming him for the cost....I was being cheeky, because they seem to want it both ways.

I don't know...can you show me the source of your assertion?

Sorry, i don't see bailout as good in any sense.

 

[nevada]

Worse than the guy who went to war with the wrong country? Killed its leader and created an enormous power vacuum that has led to (at least) a decade of war and terror attacks? Keep that in mind when looking at the 'military' portion of the debt clock as that was a cost that will continue to be payed for for a long time.


How much is directly Obama? Tough to say, he doesn't get credit for the good, but gets blamed for the bad? You wont give him credit for the bailouts but will blame him for the cost? Hypocrisy at its finest.

yes, worse than all others.


that was terrible, and never should have happened.

I don't know...can you show me the source of your assertion?

Sorry, i don't see bailout as good in any sense.

exactly.

 

[-JD-]

I don't know...can you show me the source of your assertion?

Sorry, i don't see bailout as good in any sense.

I'm partly working, but a quick google search resulted in this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/opinion/how-saddam-hussein-gave-us-isis.html?_r=0


While, I might be inclined to agree about bailing out any private business, its also nearly impossible for any of us to know what would have happened had these institutions been allowed to fail. I can't claim to be an economic expert, but I do know that most of those who are felt that the bailout was better than the alternative.

 

[Yukon4Runner]

You don't think the rise of the islamic state is connected to Sadaam's death?

You must not have taken advantage of the history classes in your amazing education system.

The dissolving of middle eastern countries started the day the Treaty of Versailles drew their borders putting a whole whack of people together in the same play pen who hate each other. How do you handle them? Dictators to keep...not really the peace, let's call it stability while the oil wells pump.

Its just been one long game to keep it stable enough so the rest of the world can get the oil out of the sand as hassle free as possible. Capping Sadam help this? Nope.

But where the Middle East is now is way bigger than the death of some guy with a bushy mustache from Tikrit who liked to wear C.H.I.P.S. sunglasses.

 

[-JD-]

You must not have taken advantage of the history classes in your amazing education system.

The dissolving of middle eastern countries started the day the Treaty of Versailles drew their borders putting a whole whack of people together in the same play pen who hate each other. How do you handle them? Dictators to keep...not really the peace, let's call it stability while the oil wells pump.

Its just been one long game to keep it stable enough so the rest of the world can get the oil out of the sand as hassle free as possible. Capping Sadam help this? Nope.

But where the Middle East is now is way bigger than the death of some guy with a bushy mustache from Tikrit who liked to wear C.H.I.P.S. sunglasses.

But again, thats not what I said. I never implied that Sadaam's death caused all the unrest in the middle east. Merely that it created conditions that allowed them to gain power and influence to get where they are today.

 

[Thai]

You don't think the rise of the islamic state is connected to Sadaam's death?

I'm partly working, but a quick google search resulted in this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/opinion/how-saddam-hussein-gave-us-isis.html?_r=0

May you need to do better with your Google searches...but even that article from NY Times (ever so liberal slanted) is not even remotely supoorting what you are trying to say.

Try again i guess.

The rise of ISIS is multi-factorial and multi-national...death of one weird dude as Sadaam is likely not at the top of the factors, if at all.

 

[-JD-]

Then I would suggest you work on your reading comprehension if you don't see the relationship.


Here is another piece from a former Iraqi citizen:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...islamic-state-would-not-exist-under-his-rule/

After the U.S. toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003, some even dared to dream that the country would become as rich as Gulf States like Kuwait. There was no Iraqi government in place for a long time and, for several months, life in Baghdad was free of bombings and attacks.

To make things worse, the U.S. dissolved the Iraqi army and started a process to remove those politically aligned with Saddam, which ended up taking jobs away from thousands of Sunnis and seemed like an unfair witch hunt. Add to these political actions poverty and a lack of basic services, and you end up with a deep, sectarian divide in Iraq that I believe led to the insurgency and the problems that exist today.

I despised Saddam, but I don’t think an extremist group like the Islamic State would exist under his rule. Even if Saddam had gone crazy and killed a bunch of people, it wouldn’t be anywhere near the number who have died since he was overthrown. I see a civil war coming, and an Iraq divided into states.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/islamic-state-led-by-saddams-former-top-officers/

Patrick Skinner, a former CIA case officer who has served in Iraq, said Saddam-era military and intelligence officers were a “necessary ingredient” in the Islamic State group’s stunning battlefield successes last year, accounting for its transformation from a “terrorist organization to a proto-state.”

 

[Thai]

Then I would suggest you work on your reading comprehension if you don't see the relationship.


Here is another piece from a former Iraqi citizen:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...islamic-state-would-not-exist-under-his-rule/




Islamic State is led by more than 100 of Saddam's former officers | The Times of Israel

LOL...you do realize that the above article contradicted the NY Times, right? :fish:

 

[Yukon4Runner]

But again, thats not what I said. I never implied that Sadaam's death caused all the unrest in the middle east. Merely that it created conditions that allowed them to gain power and influence to get where they are today.

You've got all the little red pieces of yarn connecting all the pins on a map in your outhouse that ultimately all lead back to your master-villain...Bush II.

Take a break and air out your conspiracy room.

Use the time to finally get around to installing indoor plumbing. You might have time to learn a life skill other than beaver trapping, tapping maple syrup trees and google searches masquerading as pseudo-intellectualism.

 

[-JD-]

LOL...you do realize that the above article contradicted the NY Times, right? :fish:

In what way?

 

[wallytoo]

OH FFS!! PLEASE!!! PLEASE!!!!! explain to me how I am incorrect. I genuinely dont understand.

shouldn't it be "OFTLOP!!"??

i'm not sure what it is you don't understand, nor am i sure that with my inferior US education i will even be able to help.

the point is numbers, and understanding them. you keep claiming that obama has reduced the deficit [debt]. that isn't true. maybe the confusion lies in your use of a graph that only includes data up to FY 2012, and where that debt-allocation is placed (which president)? i'm not a shrub fan. he wasn't a good president. but claiming that obama has put the USofA in a better place is laughable. fwiw, you've listed a bunch of "debits" to shrub's terms, yet he also had to navigate, no matter how poorly, hurricane katrina and its aftermath [botched by FEMA]. obama has had no such natural disaster of that magnitude, as sandy doesn't come close.

neither of the two (bush/obama) are going to be remembered as great presidents in the immediate future.

wally

 

[-JD-]

shouldn't it be "OFTLOP!!"??

i'm not sure what it is you don't understand, nor am i sure that with my inferior US education i will even be able to help.

the point is numbers, and understanding them. you keep claiming that obama has reduced the deficit [debt]. that isn't true. maybe the confusion lies in your use of a graph that only includes data up to FY 2012, and where that debt-allocation is placed (which president)? i'm not a shrub fan. he wasn't a good president. but claiming that obama has put the USofA in a better place is laughable. fwiw, you've listed a bunch of "debits" to shrub's terms, yet he also had to navigate, no matter how poorly, hurricane katrina and its aftermath [botched by FEMA]. obama has had no such natural disaster of that magnitude, as sandy doesn't come close.

neither of the two (bush/obama) are going to be remembered as great presidents in the immediate future.

wally

You do understand that deficit and debt are not the same thing, right? Learning the difference should clarify this disagreement. I made no such claims about debt, and the statements I made about reducing the deficit are true, as is made evident by the charts I attached.

In what way?

I do hope you intend to reply to this question. I noticed you 'liked' it. Surely you have a factual explanation to back up your statement and aren't just trying to maintain superiority and avoid conceding by acting like you know something the rest of us dont, but just can't be bothered to tell us.