Patriots Planet - New England Patriots Forums and Message Boards

Patriots Planet - New England Patriots Forums and Message Boards (http://www.patriotsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Politics and Religion Forum (http://www.patriotsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   Why not Ron Paul? (http://www.patriotsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=60815)

Steve-o 06-16-2011 03:10 PM

Yeah, good luck with that ridiculous Obama = Bush schtick.

Baron Samedi 06-16-2011 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1696866)
Yeah, good luck with that ridiculous Obama = Bush schtick.

I'm sorry...did I say something inaccurate?

Steve-o 06-16-2011 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi (Post 1696868)
I'm sorry...did I say something inaccurate?

Not in BaronLand™, which differs from reality in every way imaginable.

Baron Samedi 06-16-2011 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1696869)
Not in BaronLand™, which differs from reality in every way imaginable.

Is Obama deficit spending higher than Bush?

Yes..in fact, quadrupled annually.

Did Obama renew the Patriot Act, which he opposed when Bush did it?

Yes, in fact expanding the powers in it by FBI regulation rather than legislation.

Did Obama engage us in conflicts in new countries?

Yes, so far Libya and Yemen just in the last 2 months.

Has unemployment gone up or down since Obama took office?

Up..about 2% I think.

Aside from the "rooting for my team, the Republicans or Democrats"....there is no policy difference between the two...except for Obama wanting higher taxes.

Steve-o 06-16-2011 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi (Post 1696876)
Is Obama deficit spending higher than Bush?

Yes..in fact, quadrupled annually.

Did Obama renew the Patriot Act, which he opposed when Bush did it?

Yes, in fact expanding the powers in it by FBI regulation rather than legislation.

Did Obama engage us in conflicts in new countries?

Yes, so far Libya and Yemen just in the last 2 months.

Has unemployment gone up or down since Obama took office?

Up..about 2% I think.

Aside from the "rooting for my team, the Republicans or Democrats"....there is no policy difference between the two...except for Obama wanting higher taxes.

Nope. Bush left the budget with a $1.7 trillion deficit, dude. The FY 2009 budget was proposed by Bush, and Bush was in office for half of that budget. The deficit has been lowered under Obama.

If you want to debate, you're going to have to, at a bare minimum, accept very basic facts.

Oswlek 06-16-2011 03:57 PM

The deficit has been lowered under Obama? :huh:

Steve-o 06-16-2011 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oswlek (Post 1696886)
The deficit has been lowered under Obama? :huh:

Yes, the annual deficit is lower than it was in FY 2009, Bush's last budget.

This is not rocket science.

Steve-o 06-16-2011 04:26 PM

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JTzMqm2TwgE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Oswlek 06-17-2011 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1696890)
Yes, the annual deficit is lower than it was in FY 2009, Bush's last budget.

This is not rocket science.

This is some sweet sleight of hand. Your initial post was intended to insinuate that Obama is actually lowering the deficit, when all you are really saying is "he is increasing the deficit at a slightly lower rate than it was under Bush's final year". Radically different concepts, especially considering the historic economic spending of 2009 that I recall Barack being a proponent of.

On top of that, considering the fact that we've entered two new wars, continued the stimulus, continued with extended unemployment and intiated a gigantic new cost in the health care bill, I'm not sure how much I buy those numbers.

Baron Samedi 06-17-2011 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1696890)
Yes, the annual deficit is lower than it was in FY 2009, Bush's last budget.

This is not rocket science.

The 2009 budget included the 700 billion dollar TARP program, which Obama voted in favor of, and is theoretically a one time expense.

Then in February 2009, Obama added 787 billion to the budget with his American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

So, of that 1.7 Trillion....

Obama is solely responsible for 787 billion....46% of the deficit.

Obama and Bush collaborated on TARP..700 billion...41% of the deficit.

Even if we give Obama a pass on TARP, he inherited a budget deficit of about 900 billion. He personally pushed it to 1.7 Trillion. He alone.

That was some pretty weak spin, Steve-O. You had to know you were going to get called on it before you even posted it.

Baron Samedi 07-19-2011 07:33 AM

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hqZbbqK2KzA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Steve-o 07-19-2011 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi (Post 1697026)
The 2009 budget included the 700 billion dollar TARP program, which Obama voted in favor of, and is theoretically a one time expense.

Then in February 2009, Obama added 787 billion to the budget with his American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

So, of that 1.7 Trillion....

Obama is solely responsible for 787 billion....46% of the deficit.

Obama and Bush collaborated on TARP..700 billion...41% of the deficit.

Even if we give Obama a pass on TARP, he inherited a budget deficit of about 900 billion. He personally pushed it to 1.7 Trillion. He alone.

That was some pretty weak spin, Steve-O. You had to know you were going to get called on it before you even posted it.

Baron, you have a real habit of just making shit up.

In FY 2009, 19% of the stimulus had been spent, according to wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...nt_Act_of_2009

Quote:

As of the end of August 2009, 19% of the stimulus had been outlaid or gone to American taxpayers or businesses in the form of tax incentives.[5]
So, in FY 2009, less that $200 billion of the stimulus was spent. The majority of that 2009 money was in the form of tax breaks, which you guys always claim isn't spending. Unless, of course, a Democrat does it.

Now THAT was some pretty weak spin, Baron. Now, by all means, make up more shit in response to this post.

Baron Samedi 07-19-2011 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1705619)
Baron, you have a real habit of just making shit up.

In FY 2009, 19% of the stimulus had been spent, according to wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...nt_Act_of_2009



So, in FY 2009, less that $200 billion of the stimulus was spent. The majority of that 2009 money was in the form of tax breaks, which you guys always claim isn't spending. Unless, of course, a Democrat does it.

Now THAT was some pretty weak spin, Baron. Now, by all means, make up more shit in response to this post.

You understand the difference between "spent", and "allocated"?

If it was allocated in 2009, the full amount goes to the 2009 budget, regardless of whether it gets spent or not, or how much.

Steve-o 07-19-2011 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi (Post 1705659)
You understand the difference between "spent", and "allocated"?

If it was allocated in 2009, the full amount goes to the 2009 budget, regardless of whether it gets spent or not, or how much.

Yep. Make up more shit, it is!

No, money that is "allocated" doesn't count against that year's budget.

Most of the stimulus was in the 2010 budget.

I will wait as you figure out how to count the stimulus money in the 2009 budget AND the 2010 budget AND the 2011 budget...

TommyD420 07-19-2011 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1696866)
Yeah, good luck with that ridiculous Obama = Bush schtick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi (Post 1696868)
I'm sorry...did I say something inaccurate?

Not really. Yet people want to paint Obama as a pinko commie and Bush as some sort of job-creating conservative.

They're both NeoCons. This shouldn't be new information.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Patriots Planet is not affiliated with the NFL or with the New England Patriots. The views and opinions on this forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the owners and/or operators of this forum and website.