Vice president debate thread

Discussion in 'Audio Emcee Hook Ups' started by TheReturn, Oct 11, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jest Chillin

    Jest Chillin New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2011
    Messages:
    923
    What you're saying here is that Bills passed during Bush's presidency that continued into Obama's Presidency unmolested should be attributed to Obama due to the fact that he never repealed or modified them. It's murky at best to say that that would be Obama's spending.

    Irregardless of that, The rate of spending throughout the graph is organized in the exact same manner and it clearly shows that Bush's previous term had similar spending. The point that I'm making with the graph isn't about the specific amount spent under each term as much as it's the comparison trend of spending. The point I'm refuting was that Obama has been spending "rampantly" (as in much more than necessary) and that just doesn't add up, unless you're going to say that he spent more in 2009 than in all other years combined, which I've yet to see any evidence of.

    That he was less of a glutton is exactly the point I'm making when the statement I'm refuting would be that because the friend hit his apex of 315 under Obama, that all his weight gain is Obama's fault.
    test
  2. THEDONN

    THEDONN One Love

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    Messages:
    22,027
    Fuck a vice president
    test
  3. TheReturn

    TheReturn Life of the Party

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2006
    Messages:
    6,893
    Lol, really. In 2009 we had the second half of the bank bailout, a trillion dollar stimulus plan, and (maybe?) the auto industry bailout? Not all were Bush plans, and the one that was, Obama happily supported. The fact he still increased spending AFTER that outlay speaks volumes.

    But to try to post up an OMagic chart painting him as someone that isn't spending out of control is laughable. And the spending was always my biggest gripe about Bush, so it isn't like I'm in here playing politics. We're literally running ourselves off a cliff and we're too blind or too ignorant to realize it.
    test
  4. TheReturn

    TheReturn Life of the Party

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2006
    Messages:
    6,893
    That $5 trillion number BEEN exposed as a fraudulently obtained number though. That's the revenue loss for an entire decade under Romney's plan. I could find $500 billion in spending cuts JUST in defense spending. Of course Romney ain't touching that, but there's easily $500 billion in cuts that could be made without touching any "essential" programs.

    And on specifics, what specifics did Obama give in 2008? Who was hammering him for his specifics? He had everyone hypnotized, ain't nobody giving a fuck about specifics. The most specific thing he had was his healthcare plan and he campaigned on the idea of NO mandate, which is why a lot of people supported him over Hillary.

    Specifics don't matter until you face the reality of getting your ideas through Congress, but Romney's made the basics of his plans clear enough to have a good enough idea of what he wants to do.
    test
  5. TheReturn

    TheReturn Life of the Party

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2006
    Messages:
    6,893
    If we taxed 100% of everyone's income in the U.S., whether you make $20k or $20 mill, government revenue would be about $9.7 trillion dollars. The 2012 federal budget had $2.3 trillion in mandatory spending, and another $1.3 in discretionary spending.

    Our federal government spends 37% of the ENTIRE income of every working American citizen. Now consider that barely half of them pay ANY income tax. Our income tax revenue for 2012 was $1.16 trillion, that doesn't even cover the discretionary spending.

    My point in this is that the amount of tax revenue you can bring in is FINITE, so our spending has to be cut somewhere. Raise taxes too high and people leave, and then you REALLY have a revenue problem. So we may as well curtail our spending problem while we have a say in what programs we start winding down, as opposed to getting to a point 10 years from now where it blind sides us, inflation makes it where we can't afford any of our "essential" programs, or the money people receive from the "essential" programs is worthless anyways.

    You have to tax now. If we had maintained a limited federal government as originally intended, we wouldn't be where we're at. However, tax cannot be the solution to the problem. The tax revenue is not the problem. The increased spending is the problem.

    But thanks to "essential" federal programs whose costs balloon up over time with no accounting for increased revenue is the driving force behind our debt problems. Obviously you can't just come in and gut social security without a revolution starting, but it's the perfect example of an "essential" program that is only "essential" because we've forced people to pay into it for decades. Before that it was a just a well-intentioned idea that has turned sour. So rather than keep implementing shit like this (cough Obamacare), we need to be finding where's there is fat to trim.
    test
  6. double ML

    double ML plekz = wannabe thought police

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 1999
    Messages:
    97,021
    wow@how fraudulent that graph is:eek:

    obama was president in 2009.
    test
  7. Mr. Truth

    Mr. Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 1999
    Messages:
    56,713
    which ones are do you mean? With large scale programs? Obama seemed to back everything that came out of the end of the bush presidency economically with little objection. If there was some spending that obama opposed that went through because of some bush admin decision I'd be interested in hearing about it.

    I don't defend Bush at all though. Having similar spending to Bush is about as bad as it gets, spending wise. Obama's spending is comparable to the highest levels of spending during the Bush presidency, even adjusted for inflation. Using Bush as a comparison or reference point for diminished spending isn't saying anything at all.

    EXACTLY. The number is extremely skewed coming after the biggest spending administration of all time. From 2000-2007 federal outlays increased 1.2 trillion, according to the whitehouse:

    Historical Tables | The White House

    From 2008-2012 federal outlays have increased....almost a full trillion. The jump from 2008-2009 was .6 trillion. If there are some Bush policies in there that Obama disagreed with that were forced to go through under his presidency I'd like to know, and we can wipe those from the slate.



    My problem with this argument is that being less gluttonous is the right thing to do? We should reward him for spending marginally more retarded than bush?

    Clinton's spending may have grown more openly but I'd bet Clinton's federal spending was more productive than Obama or Bush.

    US Defense Spending Has Doubled In Past Decade | NEWS-izer
    test
  8. -MV-

    -MV- Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    18,194
    Politics is the only thing besides religion where multiple people believe their science as truth.
    I wish we had more scientist running our country.
    test
  9. MyKe SeaN

    MyKe SeaN Paula Deen is my hero.

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    23,175
    Man you are a fucking dumb ass!!! Go study that graph a little more. Don't you see the trend?????

    No wonder you're a fucking army cook.
    test
  10. TheReturn

    TheReturn Life of the Party

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2006
    Messages:
    6,893
    [​IMG]
    test
  11. double ML

    double ML plekz = wannabe thought police

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 1999
    Messages:
    97,021

    i did. that's why i said it was fraudulent.


    no wonder you're a toilet scrubber and i've never been a cook.
    test
  12. TheReturn

    TheReturn Life of the Party

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2006
    Messages:
    6,893
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)