Tigermike 3,036 Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Geez. From some of these threads, you'd think from some of these posts that Obama was the one who whipped out the credit card when purchasing a war. +106%: Obama Has More Than Doubled Marketable U.S. Debt link Debt Up $6.666 Trillion Under Obama link a Rising Federal Debt The president is fond of boasting that annual federal deficits are falling rapidly. But they remain large by historical standards. And the fact is, they are piling up. Total federal debt now stands at nearly $17.3 trillion, which is 63 percent higher than when Obama took office. That figure includes money the government owes to itself, chiefly through the Social Security trust funds. A figure that economists consider more important — the debt the government owes to the public — has risen even more dramatically. That figure now stands at $12.3 trillion, an increase of 95 percent under Obama. At the current rate it will surely rise to a doubling during Obama’s presidency — possibly by the time of our next update three months hence. Net interest payments consumed 6.4 percent of all federal spending in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. And the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office officially projects that interest payments will gobble up an even bigger share of federal spending in the future. “CBO expects interest rates to rebound in coming years from their current unusually low levels, sharply raising the government’s cost of borrowing,” CBO said in its most recent long-term budget outlook document. Government Workers While cash-strapped state and local governments have been laying off teachers, firefighters, police and other workers, the federal government has increased the number of its employees under Obama. The most recent figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that as of December, workers on the federal payroll (excluding postal workers) numbered more than 2.1 million, up 3.2 percent since January 2009. During the same time, the number of workers on state payrolls went down 3 percent and those on local government payrolls declined by 3.5 percent. A big reason for the disparity is that state and local governments generally must balance their spending and income each year, while the federal government can keep up spending by borrowing. The figures also show that in recent months state and federal governments have been able to hire back some of their laid-off workers. Obama’s hiring spree also peaked in 2011 (ignoring spikes in hiring of temporary Census workers in 2010), and the number of non-postal federal workers has gone down more or less steadily during the budget battles of the past two years. But the number is above where it was when he took office. FactCheck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted July 29, 2014 Author Share Posted July 29, 2014 The thread is way off target but one thing is obvious....TexT is stung. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 So what is supposed to sting? Obama wouldn't win another election? Really? Hillary would win if she ran? Which one stings more? Explain the sting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,388 Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Geez. From some of these threads, you'd think from some of these posts that Obama was the one who whipped out the credit card when purchasing a war. +106%: Obama Has More Than Doubled Marketable U.S. Debt link Debt Up $6.666 Trillion Under Obama link a Rising Federal Debt The president is fond of boasting that annual federal deficits are falling rapidly. But they remain large by historical standards. And the fact is, they are piling up. Total federal debt now stands at nearly $17.3 trillion, which is 63 percent higher than when Obama took office. That figure includes money the government owes to itself, chiefly through the Social Security trust funds. A figure that economists consider more important — the debt the government owes to the public — has risen even more dramatically. That figure now stands at $12.3 trillion, an increase of 95 percent under Obama. At the current rate it will surely rise to a doubling during Obama’s presidency — possibly by the time of our next update three months hence. Net interest payments consumed 6.4 percent of all federal spending in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. And the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office officially projects that interest payments will gobble up an even bigger share of federal spending in the future. “CBO expects interest rates to rebound in coming years from their current unusually low levels, sharply raising the government’s cost of borrowing,” CBO said in its most recent long-term budget outlook document. Government Workers While cash-strapped state and local governments have been laying off teachers, firefighters, police and other workers, the federal government has increased the number of its employees under Obama. The most recent figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that as of December, workers on the federal payroll (excluding postal workers) numbered more than 2.1 million, up 3.2 percent since January 2009. During the same time, the number of workers on state payrolls went down 3 percent and those on local government payrolls declined by 3.5 percent. A big reason for the disparity is that state and local governments generally must balance their spending and income each year, while the federal government can keep up spending by borrowing. The figures also show that in recent months state and federal governments have been able to hire back some of their laid-off workers. Obama’s hiring spree also peaked in 2011 (ignoring spikes in hiring of temporary Census workers in 2010), and the number of non-postal federal workers has gone down more or less steadily during the budget battles of the past two years. But the number is above where it was when he took office. FactCheck Like I said, unfunded Medicare benefits, unfunded war and a financial collapse will do it every time. Now who's more responsible for those elements? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrights_Mill_Road 2 Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 What's to spin ? Folks sound eager for Hillary. How do you spin that? She is as incompetent as Obama. The difference between her and Obama is that Obama's past was so carefully crafted to where you could not attribute any history of performance to him. He had never done anything; so you couldn't hang any past sins onto him. He was a true blank slate; so people grafted what they wanted to in terms of expectations onto his rhetoric. For Hillary, she has a track record now...and it isn't pretty. Look at the headlines and you can see the Hillary foreigh policy track record at work. So if the American people had really awakened to anything; it would be you don't put incompetent people in a role that requires leading the largest enterprise in the history of human-kind. When you do; you get a train-wreck. Would you say W. is an example as well? yes president cheney was even worse than bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,463 Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 What's to spin ? Folks sound eager for Hillary. How do you spin that? She is as incompetent as Obama. The difference between her and Obama is that Obama's past was so carefully crafted to where you could not attribute any history of performance to him. He had never done anything; so you couldn't hang any past sins onto him. He was a true blank slate; so people grafted what they wanted to in terms of expectations onto his rhetoric. For Hillary, she has a track record now...and it isn't pretty. Look at the headlines and you can see the Hillary foreigh policy track record at work. So if the American people had really awakened to anything; it would be you don't put incompetent people in a role that requires leading the largest enterprise in the history of human-kind. When you do; you get a train-wreck. Would you say W. is an example as well? yes president cheney was even worse than bush. I agree. Without Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld, I think President Bush may have done a decent job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,463 Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 What's to spin ? Folks sound eager for Hillary. How do you spin that? She is as incompetent as Obama. The difference between her and Obama is that Obama's past was so carefully crafted to where you could not attribute any history of performance to him. He had never done anything; so you couldn't hang any past sins onto him. He was a true blank slate; so people grafted what they wanted to in terms of expectations onto his rhetoric. For Hillary, she has a track record now...and it isn't pretty. Look at the headlines and you can see the Hillary foreigh policy track record at work. So if the American people had really awakened to anything; it would be you don't put incompetent people in a role that requires leading the largest enterprise in the history of human-kind. When you do; you get a train-wreck. You wouldn't classify W. Bush's Presidency as a train-wreck? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted July 29, 2014 Author Share Posted July 29, 2014 alexava......the people it will sting are those who follow the Pied Piper Obama toward the cliff and still believe he could get elected again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,463 Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Geez. From some of these threads, you'd think from some of these posts that Obama was the one who whipped out the credit card when purchasing a war. +106%: Obama Has More Than Doubled Marketable U.S. Debt link Debt Up $6.666 Trillion Under Obama link a Rising Federal Debt The president is fond of boasting that annual federal deficits are falling rapidly. But they remain large by historical standards. And the fact is, they are piling up. Total federal debt now stands at nearly $17.3 trillion, which is 63 percent higher than when Obama took office. That figure includes money the government owes to itself, chiefly through the Social Security trust funds. A figure that economists consider more important — the debt the government owes to the public — has risen even more dramatically. That figure now stands at $12.3 trillion, an increase of 95 percent under Obama. At the current rate it will surely rise to a doubling during Obama’s presidency — possibly by the time of our next update three months hence. Net interest payments consumed 6.4 percent of all federal spending in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. And the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office officially projects that interest payments will gobble up an even bigger share of federal spending in the future. “CBO expects interest rates to rebound in coming years from their current unusually low levels, sharply raising the government’s cost of borrowing,” CBO said in its most recent long-term budget outlook document. Government Workers While cash-strapped state and local governments have been laying off teachers, firefighters, police and other workers, the federal government has increased the number of its employees under Obama. The most recent figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that as of December, workers on the federal payroll (excluding postal workers) numbered more than 2.1 million, up 3.2 percent since January 2009. During the same time, the number of workers on state payrolls went down 3 percent and those on local government payrolls declined by 3.5 percent. A big reason for the disparity is that state and local governments generally must balance their spending and income each year, while the federal government can keep up spending by borrowing. The figures also show that in recent months state and federal governments have been able to hire back some of their laid-off workers. Obama’s hiring spree also peaked in 2011 (ignoring spikes in hiring of temporary Census workers in 2010), and the number of non-postal federal workers has gone down more or less steadily during the budget battles of the past two years. But the number is above where it was when he took office. FactCheck Like I said, unfunded Medicare benefits, unfunded war and a financial collapse will do it every time. Now who's more responsible for those elements? That there antee American kenyun commie terrerist lovin scum suker owns the ecomey now. He hates America and hes gunna destroy it for his buddy Airs. All them libtards hates America. IMPEACH barry oblammer NOW You cant blame Bush no more. Nice try libtard but no segar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,463 Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 The thread is way off target but one thing is obvious....TexT is stung. Stung it aint stung. More like it berns. It berns reel bad dont it libtards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlueVue 177 Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 What's to spin ? Folks sound eager for Hillary. How do you spin that? She is as incompetent as Obama. The difference between her and Obama is that Obama's past was so carefully crafted to where you could not attribute any history of performance to him. He had never done anything; so you couldn't hang any past sins onto him. He was a true blank slate; so people grafted what they wanted to in terms of expectations onto his rhetoric. For Hillary, she has a track record now...and it isn't pretty. Look at the headlines and you can see the Hillary foreigh policy track record at work. So if the American people had really awakened to anything; it would be you don't put incompetent people in a role that requires leading the largest enterprise in the history of human-kind. When you do; you get a train-wreck. You wouldn't classify W. Bush's Presidency as a train-wreck? I wouldn't until after Katrina. That's when the press began working especially hard at making damned sure everyone sufficiently hated W. NO doubt he was not a great President, just a helluva lot better than what we have now which, sadly, doesn't really take much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,036 Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Geez. From some of these threads, you'd think from some of these posts that Obama was the one who whipped out the credit card when purchasing a war. :rolleyes:/> +106%: Obama Has More Than Doubled Marketable U.S. Debt link Debt Up $6.666 Trillion Under Obama link a Rising Federal Debt The president is fond of boasting that annual federal deficits are falling rapidly. But they remain large by historical standards. And the fact is, they are piling up. Total federal debt now stands at nearly $17.3 trillion, which is 63 percent higher than when Obama took office. That figure includes money the government owes to itself, chiefly through the Social Security trust funds. A figure that economists consider more important — the debt the government owes to the public — has risen even more dramatically. That figure now stands at $12.3 trillion, an increase of 95 percent under Obama. At the current rate it will surely rise to a doubling during Obama’s presidency — possibly by the time of our next update three months hence. Net interest payments consumed 6.4 percent of all federal spending in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. And the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office officially projects that interest payments will gobble up an even bigger share of federal spending in the future. “CBO expects interest rates to rebound in coming years from their current unusually low levels, sharply raising the government’s cost of borrowing,” CBO said in its most recent long-term budget outlook document. Government Workers While cash-strapped state and local governments have been laying off teachers, firefighters, police and other workers, the federal government has increased the number of its employees under Obama. The most recent figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that as of December, workers on the federal payroll (excluding postal workers) numbered more than 2.1 million, up 3.2 percent since January 2009. During the same time, the number of workers on state payrolls went down 3 percent and those on local government payrolls declined by 3.5 percent. A big reason for the disparity is that state and local governments generally must balance their spending and income each year, while the federal government can keep up spending by borrowing. The figures also show that in recent months state and federal governments have been able to hire back some of their laid-off workers. Obama’s hiring spree also peaked in 2011 (ignoring spikes in hiring of temporary Census workers in 2010), and the number of non-postal federal workers has gone down more or less steadily during the budget battles of the past two years. But the number is above where it was when he took office. FactCheck Like I said, unfunded Medicare benefits, unfunded war and a financial collapse will do it every time. Now who's more responsible for those elements? That there antee American kenyun commie terrerist lovin scum suker owns the ecomey now. He hates America and hes gunna destroy it for his buddy Airs. All them libtards hates America. IMPEACH barry oblammer NOW You cant blame Bush no more. Nice try libtard but no segar. Translation: I'm really, really butt hurt that Obama has made Jimmy Carter look like a great president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted July 31, 2014 Author Share Posted July 31, 2014 Could butt hurt be caused by a sting on the butt? Guess my title on the thread was accurate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Obama is a worse President than even most conservatives realize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 The one thing I found most interesting out of this is the fact that people don't think he shares their values. There was an exit poll after the 2012 election that had something like 80% thinking Obama cared more about them. That has dropped dramatically. Now he really doesn't care what people think of him. He is going full out until his time in office is over. The only recourse is the midterms and the dems are going to get shellacked. If the republicans had actually tried to fight for conservative values they could do even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 The one thing I found most interesting out of this is the fact that people don't think he shares their values. There was an exit poll after the 2012 election that had something like 80% thinking Obama cared more about them. That has dropped dramatically. Now he really doesn't care what people think of him. He is going full out until his time in office is over. The only recourse is the midterms and the dems are going to get shellacked. If the republicans had actually tried to fight for conservative values they could do even more. then why should anyone be "stung"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 The one thing I found most interesting out of this is the fact that people don't think he shares their values. There was an exit poll after the 2012 election that had something like 80% thinking Obama cared more about them. That has dropped dramatically. Now he really doesn't care what people think of him. He is going full out until his time in office is over. The only recourse is the midterms and the dems are going to get shellacked. If the republicans had actually tried to fight for conservative values they could do even more. then why should anyone be "stung"? I think the sting is more for the people that believe in Obama and democrat members of the House and Senate. I guess it does sting Obama to the degree that it irritates him that in his mind nobody sees his greatness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watsontiger98 9 Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 As long as the GOP clings to figureheads like Palin/Cruz/Paul/Ryan I will not vote for them. Their theatrics make my stomach churn. They are no better than the Democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 As long as the GOP clings to figureheads like Palin/Cruz/Paul/Ryan I will not vote for them. Their theatrics make my stomach churn. They are no better than the Democrats. Well then who does stand out to you as someone you would support? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.