Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Guess what, Obama still has to pay for Bush's war, and contend with the decrease in revenue due to Bush's economic collapse.
He could have brought the military home long ago. It was his decision to continue the wars that no one can explain the need for. He could have addressed the decreased revenue for those outside of Wall Street by now also.
Guess what, Obama still has to pay for Bush's war, and contend with the decrease in revenue due to Bush's economic collapse.
True, and Bush also had to pay for Bushs war, (despite the stupid liberal claims that he didnt)..
Tell me, how will the next President, deal with Obama spending?
To whine non stop and make excuses, and justify its not only continuing, but calling for more of it, is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen..
Especially considering the spending didnt skyrocket until Democrats took over Congress..
yes, look at that chart and you'll note
Interest exepnses is actually DOWN.. from what Bush used to spend, so blaming that is dumb
Revenues have only falling about $200B from when Democrats took over Congress
So to blame Bush for Obamas deficits is complete ignrance, especially considering I didnt support the growth of government under Bush either
You're lost in your own crazy rants. I haven't said anything about budgets all day, therefor this "claim" I'm making is purely imaginary.
So when you called me ignorant because I simply pointed out that budgets werent obligations
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordSquidworth
Certain posters "cough cough" have turned into some of the most ignorant members of society that I could imagine.. Almost like having a discussion with little children..
Do you know what the multiplier effect is?
What exactly did you mean by that.. other than the fact that you are now proclaiming to be back peddling on this claim...
What I'm saying is, we conduct our financial dealings based on what we project we will have available. We make our commitments based on that projected income and creditors make decisions about our relationships based on our projections as well. When a creditor asks for our annual income on an application, they construct an agreement based on the assumption that we will continue to make that amount, and we accept assuming the same. If something screws that up, like the loss of our jobs, we damage our relationship with our creditors if we can't uphold our agreements. Why doesn't that make sense?
And the federal budget is a PROJECTION.. not obligations.. not committments, not liabilities, despite what Democrats claim.
You might budget for a road project, but when the government shuts down, and the road project isnt completed, THERE IS NO OBLIGATION TO PAY FOR IT..
So when you called me ignorant because I simply pointed out that budgets werent obligations
What exactly did you mean by that.. other than the fact that you are now proclaiming to be back peddling on this claim...
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Democrats have turned into one of the most ignorant segments of society that I could imagine.. Almost like having a discussion with little children..
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordSquidworth
Certain posters "cough cough" have turned into some of the most ignorant members of society that I could imagine.. Almost like having a discussion with little children..
^^
That and the budget has nothing to do with the debt ceiling. Two different matters. This thread is about the debt ceiling.
Called you ignorant for just being ignorant. That and the budget has nothing to do with the debt ceiling. Two different matters. This thread is about the debt ceiling.
It's all intertwined. Much of the debt is things we do not actually have to spend the money on.
It's all intertwined. Much of the debt is things we do not actually have to spend the money on.
Right, we budget for national parks, but if there isnt money to open them, shutting them down, isnt going to crash the economy, nor harm the federal credit rating..
but thats what these left wing kooks want us to believe.
That and the budget has nothing to do with the debt ceiling. Two different matters. This thread is about the debt ceiling.
There is some connection, just as the Budget is a projection of spending, the Debt limit is a projection of what has been plus some of what could be added to the Debt. Neither really has to be completely attained, what could be added to the Debt, nor what the Budget allows for, has to be met. Only what has been added to the Debt has to be met.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
