ADVERTISEMENT

Republican Debate

I'm gonna go ahead and call BS. Obama inherited two expensive wars and the worst economy since the Great Depression. If you're going to blame the deficit on Obama you'd damn well better credit him for the recovery, as well.
Well that's the point, isn't it? With the kind of deficit spending we engaged in during the first 6 years of his presidency we should have had a roaring recovery. It has been very tepid and fragile.

The wars were roughy a $1T each, paid mostly during the Bush years. The dept has gone up $10T under Obama. Call BS if you want to but those are the rough numbers.
 
My wife and I have talked about it sadly. When we were younger we were looking into jobs over seas and looking into moving. Sadly kid #1 came and then #2. But if America gets any worse, I don't know what I will do. Can't stand all the free handouts and the fact that we have an open door to this country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1inamillion
My wife and I have talked about it sadly. When we were younger we were looking into jobs over seas and looking into moving. Sadly kid #1 came and then #2. But if America gets any worse, I don't know what I will do. Can't stand all the free handouts and the fact that we have an open door to this country.
My America isn't all that bad - quite good actually. Sorry yours is in shambles. Ts & Ps.
 
For perspective, Reagan, bush 1 and Bush 2 had deficits roughly 4% of GDP. Obamas have been almost 9% of GDP.

The $450B deficit that you claim is now "moving in the right direction" only came about because the Rs shut down the government. And all we have done is get the deficit close to what W was running up, and most agree that was too high.

Obama will leave office having doubled the federal debt, accumulating more debt than every other president before him combined. And all he has to show for it is a stock market bubble, millions permanently out of the workforce and 1% annual GDP growth. What a joke.
That's fine too. Rs only got serious about spending because the President had a D next to his name. Put one of these Rs in the WH and you will see tax cuts and more military spending for sure. If the Budget matters to you, Hillary is your choice. Divided government is a fiscal cons best friend.
 
Well that's the point, isn't it? With the kind of deficit spending we engaged in during the first 6 years of his presidency we should have had a roaring recovery. It has been very tepid and fragile.

The wars were roughy a $1T each, paid mostly during the Bush years. The dept has gone up $10T under Obama. Call BS if you want to but those are the rough numbers.
I don't think this is true. The wars were not paid for and Obama was prevented from spending in the way Reagan and Bush spent to recover from their recessions.
 
My wife and I have talked about it sadly. When we were younger we were looking into jobs over seas and looking into moving. Sadly kid #1 came and then #2. But if America gets any worse, I don't know what I will do. Can't stand all the free handouts and the fact that we have an open door to this country.

So, that makes you want to walk through an open door into another country?
Seems ironic...
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Hey if I can go live by the beach where its warm year around, hell yeah I'll go. At least I won't have to listen to Hilary Rodman Clinton speak. God our country will suck if she's elected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrianNole09
Hey if I can go live by the beach where its warm year around, hell yeah I'll go. At least I won't have to listen to Hilary Rodman Clinton speak. God our country will suck if she's elected.

Actually, it won't. The economy will continue to grow and Republicans will continue to rabidly attack her every time she sneezes - so nothing will really change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Davenport seems to have been sucked in by all of the wingnut gloom and doom mythology. The echo chamber seems to be working quite well for him:



President Obama suggested Tuesday that the United States may not, in fact, be on the verge of total collapse. The Republican presidential candidates responded in Thursday’s GOP debate by painting an even more dismal and dangerous picture than they had in the past. The president is a traitor. The military is a shell of a fighting force. The economy is a shambles. Average families are in grave danger. If Democrats win, the country is lost.

With only a few weeks left before the first primary contests, the GOP race has devolved into a competition for who can squeeze the most political advantage out of voter fear, no matter how over-the-top they sound and no matter how much damage they do by darkening the national mood. Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) “won” the latest round of this increasingly disgusting show, with Donald Trump and Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) coming in second. But being the most effective at exaggerating the dangers the country faces and preying on voter anger is not an achievement; it is a moral failure.

Here is the world according to GOP:

“Barack Obama does not believe that America is a great global power,” Rubio said. “Barack Obama believes that America is an arrogant global power that needs to be cut down to size.” This was a reprise of Rubio’s line last week that “Barack Obama has deliberately weakened America.”

Obama “acts as an apologist for radical Islamic terrorism,” Cruz said.

“The world has been torn asunder,” former Florida governor Jeb Bush insisted. “In this administration, every weapon system has been gutted,” he said. (Really? Every one?) Also, he said, “Hillary Clinton would be a national security disaster.”

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie hit that theme hard: “If you’re worried about the world being on fire, you’re worried about how we’re going to use our military, you’re worried about strengthening our military and you’re worried most of all about keeping your homes and your families safe and secure, you cannot give Hillary Clinton a third term of Barack Obama’s leadership.”

Former neurosurgeon Ben Carson said the president has “done everything he can to diminish” the military, and he speculated about the Islamic State hitting the United States with electromagnetic pulses, dirty bombs and cyber attacks so devastating that the country would cease to exist.

Donald Trump added: “Our military is a disaster. Our healthcare is a horror show…. We have no borders. Our vets are being treated horribly. Illegal immigration is beyond belief. Our country is being run by incompetent people.” Migrants, he also said, “could be the great Trojan Horse. It could be people that are going to do great, great destruction.”

“China is running over President Obama like he is a child,” Cruz added.

“The damage [Obama] has done to America is extraordinary,” Rubio said. “Let me tell you, if we don’t get this election right, there may be no turning back for America.”

If “a progressive gets in there and they get two or three Supreme Court picks, this nation is over as we know it,” Carson warned.

Here is a dose of reality: It is possible to disagree with the GOP base and be a patriot. The nation faces many challenges, but it is stronger economically and more secure from various foreign threats than nearly everywhere else in the world. In many ways, Americans are better off now than they ever have been. The continuing desire of non-Americans to move, work and do business here is a sign of strength, showing the appeal of the United States rather than demonstrating weakness.

For those of us with who don’t see national destruction looming around every corner, there were a couple of somewhat encouraging moments Thursday night. One of them: Bush insisted that Trump is “unhinged” for insisting that no Muslim should be allowed into the United States, arguing that the country needs to build relationships with peaceful Muslims.

But that moment of moral competence was only impressive by comparison with practically everything else the candidates — including Bush himself — said Thursday night.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...r-filled-world-republican-candidates-inhabit/
 
Did you really hate Bill that bad? Because that is what you are going to get. A moderate center left pro business domestic plan with a cautious International plan. I get that her personality is for crap, but she won't be ruling with her personality. Cons are going to like her policies. Cons are going to love having her as a punching bag even more. Hillary in the WH is a good thing for you on several levels. You might even want to secretly vote for her.

Maybe it is a Bro code sort of deal but while I like Bill i can't stand Hillary. Maybe that is why I blame her, and not him, for his sexual exploits. Be honest, she sounds like a total bitch.
 
Last edited:
I watched the first 45 minutes. As bad as Trump is, I think Cruz is worst. Cruz is just so full of it.

Cruz is a scary man. Trump is brash and not politically polished but I trust his uncompromised decision making above all outside Paul and Sanders. Everyone else is just dripping with DC slime that Americans have come to loathe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrianNole09
Which repub said TPP was a good idea last night? I think it was Jeb (lol Jeb). I've never see a bunch of people outside of Trump/Cruz look like such weak negotiators, when having the upper hand, than that repub field did last night. They basically said they were worried that strongly and unapologetically standing up for the good of Americans was a bad idea bc it might make those we are negotiating with angry.

Trump killed it on China/trade last night.

Can't believe i am saying it but he is going to win if Ted doesn't somehow stop him. Only Ted and Bernie can beat him now, Hillary will get boat raced by him.
 
Maybe it is a Bro code sort of deal but while like Bill i can't stand Hillary. Maybe that is why I blame her, and not him, for his sexual exploits. Be honest, she sounds like a total bitch.
Total. But she was the last time too. You will get the same Clinton policy of moderate triangulation you got last time. Nothing scary coming out of the Clinton team but the two of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: THE_DEVIL
My wife and I have talked about it sadly. When we were younger we were looking into jobs over seas and looking into moving. Sadly kid #1 came and then #2. But if America gets any worse, I don't know what I will do. Can't stand all the free handouts and the fact that we have an open door to this country.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out
 
Total. But she was the last time too. You will get the same Clinton policy of moderate triangulation you got last time. Nothing scary coming out of the Clinton team but the two of them.

A bitch woman in charge of anything is scary. She is on a CarlyF level of female scariness. Eff that noise....no thanks. There is a good reason Bill doesn't want to be around her, i'm trusting his manstincts on this one.
 
I don't think this is true. The wars were not paid for and Obama was prevented from spending in the way Reagan and Bush spent to recover from their recessions.
Wtf are you talking about? Are you just making things up? Who prevented Obama from spending? The D house and Senate? He was barely in office 3 months when he passed his stimulus package which was $750B. Almost as much as the wars. The worst part about the stimulus is that it went into the budget baseline. Since we didn't pass a budget for the next like 5 years, continuing resolutions just kept that $750 being spent every year.

Obama took the debt from $9T to $20T. Those are the numbers. Reagan and Bush together didn't do that kind of damage to the debt.
 
Wtf are you talking about? Are you just making things up? Who prevented Obama from spending? The D house and Senate? He was barely in office 3 months when he passed his stimulus package which was $750B. Almost as much as the wars. The worst part about the stimulus is that it went into the budget baseline. Since we didn't pass a budget for the next like 5 years, continuing resolutions just kept that $750 being spent every year.

Obama took the debt from $9T to $20T. Those are the numbers. Reagan and Bush together didn't do that kind of damage to the debt.
I don't think that's true either as this is the first claim I've heard of an ongoing stimulus each year. Can you back up this claim that the stimulus was really around 4 trillion? Most of that stimulus was tax cuts anyway. Aren't you for that? I love how when Obama gives a tax cut your side sees that as a cost. When Bush does it, not so much. Its not like that was $750B in Obama phones. The debt is mainly going up because of old people. Until we are ready to toss grandma over the cliff together, it will continue to go up.

My claim is that in past recessions under both Reagan and Bush the federal government fought the down turn by hiring more people, cops, teachers, bureaucrats, etc. During the W recession Obama inherited government cut the payroll at all levels making recovery slower. Are you backing away from the claim that the wars were paid for?
 
I don't think that's true either as this is the first claim I've heard of an ongoing stimulus each year. Can you back up this claim that the stimulus was really around 4 trillion? Most of that stimulus was tax cuts anyway. Aren't you for that? I love how when Obama gives a tax cut your side sees that as a cost. When Bush does it, not so much. Its not like that was $750B in Obama phones. The debt is mainly going up because of old people. Until we are ready to toss grandma over the cliff together, it will continue to go up.

My claim is that in past recessions under both Reagan and Bush the federal government fought the down turn by hiring more people, cops, teachers, bureaucrats, etc. During the W recession Obama inherited government cut the payroll at all levels making recovery slower. Are you backing away from the claim that the wars were paid for?
The wars were paid for in the sense they counted against the Bush budgets, largely. Of course Bush ran $300B deficits so it's hard to say they were "paid for". But they had little effect on Obamas budget deficits.

The Federal budget went from roughly $2.8T in Bush's 2ns term to basically $3.5T under Obama. The congress most years uses a continuing resolution to budget instead of a new budget every year. Basically that just says take what we did last year and add 2%. So you can see where the $750B Obama tacked on the 2009 budget just became the new baseline.

And Obama never cut any government payroll. Sequestration, again forced by the Rs, didn't happen until 2011.

This whole thing started because you made a comment that Obama has basically balanced the budget. The truth is his deficits are still higher than any W had even during war time. Obamas deficits as a % of GDP have been some of the highest in the history of our country.

We can agree that The President had tough circumstances to deal with at the start of his term. But to portray him as some kind of deficit hawk is ridiculous.
 
The wars were paid for in the sense they counted against the Bush budgets, largely. Of course Bush ran $300B deficits so it's hard to say they were "paid for". But they had little effect on Obamas budget deficits.

The Federal budget went from roughly $2.8T in Bush's 2ns term to basically $3.5T under Obama. The congress most years uses a continuing resolution to budget instead of a new budget every year. Basically that just says take what we did last year and add 2%. So you can see where the $750B Obama tacked on the 2009 budget just became the new baseline.

And Obama never cut any government payroll. Sequestration, again forced by the Rs, didn't happen until 2011.

This whole thing started because you made a comment that Obama has basically balanced the budget. The truth is his deficits are still higher than any W had even during war time. Obamas deficits as a % of GDP have been some of the highest in the history of our country.

We can agree that The President had tough circumstances to deal with at the start of his term. But to portray him as some kind of deficit hawk is ridiculous.
No, this whole thing started because Rs said they wanted to balance the budget by cutting taxes and spending more on the military. Two things Obama did which obviously didn't work.

I follow your logic on the stimulus, I just doubt your facts. Show me wall street journal or other reputable article that spells out how we really had a 4 trillion dollar stimulus. I don't think you can do that because I don't think its true. And I believe that because if it was true, we would hear it criticized all the time.

Yes Rs forced sequestration. But they did that because the President was a D. If you want policies like sequestration to continue, you need a D in the White House. Elect Cruz or the like and it will be a blank check from Congress.
 
The wars were not counted against the Bush budgets. He had them left out to help disguise the cost.

And then he cut taxes and sent everyone stimulus checks (twice) when the government really needed the money for the wars.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
The wars were not counted against the Bush budgets. He had them left out to help disguise the cost.

And then he cut taxes and sent everyone stimulus checks (twice) when the government really needed the money for the wars.

The original point was Obama being some kind of deficit hawks, which is obviously false. You have successfully changed the subject but I will indulge you.

The wars were not "off the books". Good grief. They were funded through separate supplemental appropriations so as not to intermingle with the normal Pentagon budget and let them keep all of their pet pork projects. We know how much money was spent on the wars. Keeping a separate set of books is called fraud, and no matter how corrupt you think the federal government is they do hide friggin wars on secret books. It's called GAAP.

You are right that Obama brought the cost of the wars under the Pentagons budget, but he did so to increase the budget baseline, no because he wanted to be Mr Transparent.

The net federal debt went from 9T to 20T under Obama. Part of that was of course due to tax receipts dropping off a cliff. But please get familiar with the actual numbers instead of platitudes and talking points.
 
This stuff is not hard to find.
  • FY2003 Supplemental: Operation Iraqi Freedom: Passed April 2003; Total $78.5 billion, $54.4 billion Iraq War
  • FY2004 Supplemental: Iraq and Afghanistan Ongoing Operations/Reconstruction: Passed November 2003; Total $87.5 billion, $70.6 billion Iraq War
  • FY2004 DoD Budget Amendment: $25 billion Emergency Reserve Fund (Iraq Freedom Fund): Passed July 2004, Total $25 billion, $21.5 billion (estimated) Iraq War
  • FY2005 Emergency Supplemental: Operations in the War on Terror; Activities in Afghanistan; Tsunami Relief: Passed April 2005, Total $82 billion, $58 billion (estimated) Iraq War
  • FY2006 Department of Defense appropriations: Total $50 billion, $40 billion (estimated) Iraq War.
  • FY2006 Emergency Supplemental: Operations Global War on Terror; Activities in Iraq & Afghanistan: Passed February 2006, Total $72.4 billion, $60 billion (estimated) Iraq War
  • FY2007 Department of Defense appropriations: $70 billion(estimated) for Iraq War-related costs
  • FY2007 Emergency Supplemental (proposed) $100 billion
  • FY2008 Bush administration has proposed around $190 billion for the Iraq War and Afghanistan
  • FY2009 Obama administration has proposed around $130 billion in additional funding for the Iraq War and Afghanistan.[5]
  • FY2010 Obama administration proposes around $159.3 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.[6]
 
Well that's the point, isn't it? With the kind of deficit spending we engaged in during the first 6 years of his presidency we should have had a roaring recovery. It has been very tepid and fragile.

The wars were roughy a $1T each, paid mostly during the Bush years. The dept has gone up $10T under Obama. Call BS if you want to but those are the rough numbers.

Mostly paid during the Bush years? You cant be serious?
 
Mostly paid during the Bush years? You cant be serious?
Dude, I just posted the specific appropriations bills that paid for the wars.

If you want to argue that they were paid for with 10 year T Bills, thats fine. Or if you want to say that we are paying for vet benefits for years to come, etc, fine. But the cost of combat operations were accounted for in the Bush years, absolutely. Those numbers "count" against his accumulated federal debt, which was outrageous in its own right until Obama came around.

The fact that everyone wants to talk about the Iraq war and not the original point, which is the exploding federal debt under Obama is quite striking.

By the way, I'm not a supporter of the Iraq war. Cheney and Bush said that it would only cost $80-$100B, which proved to be off any about $1.5T. Disgraceful.
 
This stuff is not hard to find.
  • FY2003 Supplemental: Operation Iraqi Freedom: Passed April 2003; Total $78.5 billion, $54.4 billion Iraq War
  • FY2004 Supplemental: Iraq and Afghanistan Ongoing Operations/Reconstruction: Passed November 2003; Total $87.5 billion, $70.6 billion Iraq War
  • FY2004 DoD Budget Amendment: $25 billion Emergency Reserve Fund (Iraq Freedom Fund): Passed July 2004, Total $25 billion, $21.5 billion (estimated) Iraq War
  • FY2005 Emergency Supplemental: Operations in the War on Terror; Activities in Afghanistan; Tsunami Relief: Passed April 2005, Total $82 billion, $58 billion (estimated) Iraq War
  • FY2006 Department of Defense appropriations: Total $50 billion, $40 billion (estimated) Iraq War.
  • FY2006 Emergency Supplemental: Operations Global War on Terror; Activities in Iraq & Afghanistan: Passed February 2006, Total $72.4 billion, $60 billion (estimated) Iraq War
  • FY2007 Department of Defense appropriations: $70 billion(estimated) for Iraq War-related costs
  • FY2007 Emergency Supplemental (proposed) $100 billion
  • FY2008 Bush administration has proposed around $190 billion for the Iraq War and Afghanistan
  • FY2009 Obama administration has proposed around $130 billion in additional funding for the Iraq War and Afghanistan.[5]
  • FY2010 Obama administration proposes around $159.3 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.[6]

For perspective, the total budget for the State of Iowa, where they fight over a 2.45% increase for education...is around 7 billion.
 
For perspective, the total budget for the State of Iowa, where they fight over a 2.45% increase for education...is around 7 billion.
The federal budget is $3.5T. Not sure of your point. The debt has gone up $11T by the time Obama leaves office, which is the point of this whole argument.
 
Dude, I just posted the specific appropriations bills that paid for the wars.

If you want to argue that they were paid for with 10 year T Bills, thats fine. Or if you want to say that we are paying for vet benefits for years to come, etc, fine. But the cost of combat operations were accounted for in the Bush years, absolutely. Those numbers "count" against his accumulated federal debt, which was outrageous in its own right until Obama came around.

The fact that everyone wants to talk about the Iraq war and not the original point, which is the exploding federal debt under Obama is quite striking.

By the way, I'm not a supporter of the Iraq war. Cheney and Bush said that it would only cost $80-$100B, which proved to be off any about $1.5T. Disgraceful.


I commend you for acknowledging the Iraq war and the costs associated with it. A lot of wingers with "party first stained glasses" wont admit fault with Dubya about costs and misleading the public.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT