Story Comments
Posted by: b-happy 6 months, 3 weeks ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
44%
b-happy6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Amazing to me that you Liberals can sit here and smirk at Palin while Obama completely lies to your face and you do nothing. Was it Obama or Palin who said that they would not let Lobbyists into their administration? Obama! What did he do? He goes out and hires not one, but seventeen former Lobbyists to work with him. Obama said he didn't want earmarks but then 9,000 are put into a bill that he was all for.
Reply
Obama said he wanted to cut our national debt, only to take it from 1 trillion to 3 trillion. But you know Palin is blogging and we can't have that in this world. I mean Obama just wasted 50 billion dollars of our tax payer money trying to bailout a company that 80% of AMericans new was a stupid idea. But hey, Palin bought some clothes so she is a rich elitist.
How can you Liberals look yourselves in the mirror when you are so blatantly hypocritical and naive to the facts of reality? Palin isn't president and who cares what she says unless you live in Alaska. I guess when you have such a bias as Liberals have then King Obama will always be clean as a whistle while Palin is painted Pinnochio. Even that doesn't hold.
REad the Article. The stupid idiot who wrote this thing says that Palin blamed the GM crash on Obama. But even in the quotes this idiot uses, there is nothing that Palin says that even comes close to saying that. What she says is he wasted our taxpayer money on a stupid bailout the no one wanted.-
64%
dunkirk6 months, 3 weeks ago
-
-
-
44%
dunkirk6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO you're kidding right?
Reply
"Let's just talk about Palin though because we wouldn't want to focus on the liar Pelosi. "
Maybe you missed it but the article is about Palin and the ;ies she continues to create to fiurther her own political career. PC25 has posted a lot about Pelosi and it seems as information continues to leak out about her that she wasn't lieing about not being told about torture, Damn all those facts just keep getting in the way of your spin.-
50%
tanglang6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The "article" is nothing but some bloggers attempt to distract the American public from the blatant lies and corruption of this administration.
Reply
"and it seems as information continues to leak out about her that she wasn't lieing about not being told about torture"
What in Gods name are you smoking???-
57%
dunkirk6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO, well Tangy why not put your rock solid proof about the corruption up online so everyone can have a good laugh oh wait I mean review your findings. Seems that blogger referenced legit sources for his conclusions which seems to be more then you are doing right now. SO id say Tangy its gotta suck to be a Republican now, marginalized from having views way out of line with reality, having economic policies that almost completely destroyed the economy, against a stimulus plan that is working. Yeah how are those tea parties going?
Reply-
0%
b-happy6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
See what your doing now. Just to protect Obama and you Liberal friends you start lying to yourself. Duh, Pelosi didn't know about torture? Are you Fing kidding me? She was briefed and she lied about that. Then it turns out she was told to her face and she lied about that. She is on tape doing this. We didn't make it up. Read facts and stop lying to YOURSELF.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
75%
wtagg6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It wasn't Obama who gave the funds (that have been committed) to GM. It was the president that you fully supported.
Reply
Just wanted to get you back on the path of the truth. When Obama actually signs legislation that gives more money to GM, then you can truthfully rant about that all you want and deservedly so. Let's just give credit to who it is due.
-
-
-
78%
Dave596 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually the one quote From Palin in the article said Obama closed a car dealership. These decisions are not being made by the White House. The decisions on closures are being made By the management at GM and Chrysler as well. While maybe not an out right lie on the Governor's part it is a misstatement of facts.
Reply
The thing not stated in this article that is also relevant to the discussion about the car makers is that Dick Cheney said the Bush administration was aware of the GM crisis and did nothing, apparently deciding to take a pass and let the new President deal with it.
As for the lobbyist claim you make have you by chance read the restrictions placed upon them by the administration? It makes a difference, a big difference.
As for the claim about national debt here is a quote from CBS news on 29 Sept, 2008 "On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The latest number from the Treasury Department shows the national debt now stands at more than $9.849 trillion. That’s a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush’s watch." Somehow I think you meant deficit which is different. Never the less if you are going to deal in numbers you should look a little deeper into your facts before making a blanket statement.-
50%
tanglang6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In 96 months the deficit increased by nearly 5 trillion under Bush. In 5 months under Obama it has increased by 1 trillion. At that pace if Obama is POTUS for 8 years the deficit will increase by 19 trillion under Obama. But thats all good right?
Reply-
88%
flyonthewallzz6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sorry to correct Tang.
Reply
first I assume you mean the "dept" and not the deficit.
Second the fiscal year began on Oct 1 2008, we are 8 months into this fiscal year.
I could run the numbers again....Crap I will!
I think it is important, to get this figured out.
It is totally cool to not like Obama, (in my book) but a lot of the numbers being thrown around are incorrect, and I feel compelled to "buzz" about it.-
-
100%
flyonthewallzz6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I figured that was what you meant.
Reply
I know I am talking to a smart dude when I am talking to you.
My brother is a surveyor as well and he says it drives him crazy when his collector numbers do not close.
I get a little nutty about numbers as well being a woodworker.
The Jan,. 20 number is worth considering because Obama's Fiscal year began Oct. 1, there are 107 extra days tagged onto the beginning of that year that is screwing with the data.
The Bail out bill was signed Oct. 3.
It could come back to bite folks, when the next year rolls around and revenue hopefully will be a bit higher.
But If I pretend that the revenue won't change, we keep having to spend the same amount of money each year bailing out folks, and we keep adding more Stimulus bills, and keep spending at the same rate....The dept would end at $16 Trillion not $18. that is a lot of IF'S, and it would not double the dept.
-
-
100%
flyonthewallzz6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?applicat...
Reply
Here are national dept numbers from a good source.
I did not get as lucky this time, usually when I check the numbers: Bush's a good bit higher,it seems we sold $78.5 billion worth of bonds on monday.
From Oct. 1 to Jan. 19 Bush increased the dept by $607 billion.
From Jan. 20 to June 3 Obama increased the dept by $747 billion.
Bush 107 days @ $5.64 billion per day.
Obama 134 days @ $5.57 billion per day.
Bush was raising the dept by $70 million more each day.
This is the closest I have ever seen it, and I check frequantly.
The link is a good one and easy to paste the data into a spread sheet.
Intragovernmental Holdings: Bush increased the dept here by $104.3 billion, Obama has reduced it by $44.5 billion. (jan. 20= $4.319 Trillion...June 3= $4.275 trillion).
Last fiscal year the dept increased by $1.323 trillion.
If I multiply by the daily average I hit $2.040 Trillion for this year, of which bush contributed $607 billion in the first 107 days of the fiscal year.
Please take the time to copy the data in a spreadsheet and look at it for yourself.
If you wish to make a tricky partisan argumanet there is th "Dept held by the public" angle.
The Heritage Foundation used these word tricks when it wrote the Repulican budget proposal.
It is true that Obama has increased Public dept at a faster rate, but not the overall dept; he has been replenishing the Intragovernmental Holdings trust funds.-
100%
flyonthewallzz6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/MTS.xls
Reply
This is a link to an excel file from the Treasury department.
(in Millions)
....Period...Receipts. Outlays..Deficit/Surplus (-)
....Oct-08...164,848..402,024..237,177
....Nov-08...144,782..309,179..164,397
....Dec-08...237,811..321,435..83,624
....Jan-09...226,109..309,924..83,815
....Feb-09....87,328..280,111..192,783
....Mar-09...128,957..321,230..192,273
....Apr-09...266,232..287,139..20,907
Bush avarage.193,388..335,641..142,253
Obama Average.196,192.314,670..118,478
This is whar last April looked like:
....Period...Receipts.Outlays..Deficit/Surplus (-)
....Apr-08...403,751..244,469..-159,282
In fairness if you backspace the link adress and look at the monthly treasury report..you will get differant numbers, and they would not support the Bush spent more argument but they would also show a smaller deficit. I do not like it but I guess The Obama administraion is starting to hide stuff too.
Sorry to all you folks that have seen this before, I can't help myself.-
100%
Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My understanding is that even though monthly deficits since Obama became president are comparable or less to those at the end of Bush's term, one of Obama's first acts was to change the way government accounting was recorded so that many expenditures that were previously left off the books (Social Security and the war in Iraq, for instance) were placed back on, in order to create more transparency and honesty in government figures.
Reply
I'm sure it would be illuminating to know how much apparent additional debt that simple rule change created, but haven't found anything stating those figures.
I know you're good at finding the real figures...have you run across anything like that?
-
-
-
-
75%
quackpot6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you tend to forget that Bush's deficits were run up during a time of prosperity - a time that the deficit should have been going DOWN, not up.
Reply
Your extrapolation of deficit increases during a time of economic calamity to an entire 8-year term (yes, I see you recognize that it WILL be an eight year term) is silly. -
83%
Dave596 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually part of the deficit you are talking about is that amount put into the Budget under Obama that was not in the budget under Bush. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The other parts are of course the spending on the bail out or TARP funds. The stimulus package is another part.
Reply
While I don't agree with all of the things proposed in the stimulus or some of the uses the TARP funds have been put to they were and still are needed. The fact is that if our economy completely collapses it will drag other nations along for the ride. Whether we like it or not we deal in global economics today. No it's not all good but it is what we are dealing with. To use that little word you like so much, if , ours and other nations economies should improve due to the expenditure of this money then our tax base will broaden and allow us to pay back the deficits we have incurred.
Over simplification of issues just like this are part of the problem. The media propagates that with small bits of sound and commentators who know almost nothing about the subject that they are talking about.
What I'm trying to say to people is try taking a look beyond your own backyard and actually think about these issues rather than being spoon fed mush by the various media outlets. I too wish that the world had more simple solutions to the problems we face but that just isn't the case. So tanglang it isn't all good and it may be worse than you think but not for the reasons you assume to be true. -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
sinophil496 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
b-happy - "Today, we learned that Obama's decisions continue to impact Alaskans; while we as taxpayers now own General Motors, Obama closes another dealership ."
Reply
The statement that we, the taxpayers, own GM due to Obama's decisions clearly links the failure of the auto industry to Obama rather than to Bush, under whom the economic collapse commenced. THAT is an irrefutable fact of history.
Let me present an analogy.
Let's say a construction firm is contracted to build a dam. They build a defective dam that develops dangerous cracks. This contractor is fired and a new contractor is hired to build a new dam.
While the new contractor prepares to build a new dam, the original dam completely collapses and the flood destroys all the towns downriver.
Should we blame the second contractor for not building the new dam in time to avoid the flood? Or should we blame the original contractor for building a faulty dam in the first place?
Should we blame Obama for not moving fast enough or not pushing an even higher stimulus package to save the auto industry while he is trying to revitalize the entire economy? Or should we blame Bush for not heeding the signs of impending collapse of the mortgage, credit, banking, housing, retail, and now auto industries in late 2007??
-
loading ...
Skeptic
vidman04
normallysilent
tanglang
Mr_Sir
vor
Charlson
oneironaut420
Radiofreeeuropa
fsev41
dunkirk
Progressive
fiftynine
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.