dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Mar 5, 2016 12:56:51 GMT -5
Bush was bad. Obama is/was worse. That people don't see that is what's frustrating to me.
How horrible it must be for those that are so misguided they can believe Obama is worse than Bush. And that they are frustrated that others don't buy in is just shocking. I feel sorry for them.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 5, 2016 12:59:58 GMT -5
If it were possible to set aside Nixon's personal demons, he would be ranked MUCH higher as a President. He is one of if not the most qualified persons the Republicans have run in many decades, and I would rather have him today even knowing his personal failings than the current clown car on the GOP side.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Mar 5, 2016 13:03:01 GMT -5
In my personal life, with a majority of friends first eligible to vote in 1972, I often have stated that W sucked so bad he made Nixxon look good. If Tricky had just behaved himself instead of succumbing to his political paranoia, he might have gone down as one of the best.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 5, 2016 15:06:45 GMT -5
In my personal life, with a majority of friends first eligible to vote in 1972, I often have stated that W sucked so bad he made Nixxon look good. If Tricky had just behaved himself instead of succumbing to his political paranoia, he might have gone down as one of the best. yeah, the Watergate/overt racism/paranoia/resignation sealed his fate.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 0:09:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2016 19:54:27 GMT -5
Bush was bad. Obama is/was worse. That people don't see that is what's frustrating to me.
How horrible it must be for those that are so misguided they can believe Obama is worse than Bush. And that they are frustrated that others don't buy in is just shocking. I feel sorry for them. It's not "misguided" to see the truth for what it is. Obama IS worse than Bush. I'm not saying Bush was good, mind you. He sucked too. He just didn't suck quite as much as Obama... and, as I said, based on who is running in the primaries and where they are standing in their perspective races... the next President is highly likely to suck even more than Bush and Obama put together. when it comes to political office, I wish someone would run that's qualified for the job AND could do it in the best interests of the country/state/county/city (whatever they are running for). Unfortunately the quality of our choices has only been going downhill for the past two decades or so.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 6, 2016 12:54:11 GMT -5
Bush was bad. Obama is/was worse. That people don't see that is what's frustrating to me.
How horrible it must be for those that are so misguided they can believe Obama is worse than Bush. And that they are frustrated that others don't buy in is just shocking. I feel sorry for them. It's not "misguided" to see the truth for what it is. Obama IS worse than Bush. I'm not saying Bush was good, mind you. He sucked too. He just didn't suck quite as much as Obama... and, as I said, based on who is running in the primaries and where they are standing in their perspective races... the next President is highly likely to suck even more than Bush and Obama put together. when it comes to political office, I wish someone would run that's qualified for the job AND could do it in the best interests of the country/state/county/city (whatever they are running for). Unfortunately the quality of our choices has only been going downhill for the past two decades or so. ok, sorry, it is hard to keep in my head, if you have already answered this: by what measure is Bush better than Obama?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 6, 2016 13:00:03 GMT -5
Hillary split yesterday's primaries, but she THUMPED Sanders in Louisiana, so she is FURTHER ahead of him than she was on Friday.
i rode to Oakland last night with a bus full of Sanders supporters. one of them asked me who Sanders would choose as a running mate. i told him "i haven't the foggiest, but i don't think he will win the nomination so i am not going to think about it, much". one of the kids in the bus was a poly sci major, and even he thought that Sanders would win.
i don't know where they get these ideas. there must be an echo chamber out there on the left. Hillary already has half the delegates that she needs, and we are barely a month into primary season with 3 months to go. Sanders would have to win about 3/4 of the available delegates from here on out to win the nomination, and there is basically a 0% chance of that, imo, unless Clinton is indicted or something. the interesting thing about a 2 person race is that there is basically NO chance that the race will end up in the convention. Clinton will win it before then.
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,001
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Mar 6, 2016 14:46:20 GMT -5
Hillary split yesterday's primaries, but she THUMPED Sanders in Louisiana, so she is FURTHER ahead of him than she was on Friday. i rode to Oakland last night with a bus full of Sanders supporters. one of them asked me who Sanders would choose as a running mate. i told him "i haven't the foggiest, but i don't think he will win the nomination so i am not going to think about it, much". one of the kids in the bus was a poly sci major, and even he thought that Sanders would win. i don't know where they get these ideas. there must be an echo chamber out there on the left. Hillary already has half the delegates that she needs, and we are barely a month into primary season with 3 months to go. Sanders would have to win about 3/4 of the available delegates from here on out to win the nomination, and there is basically a 0% chance of that, imo, unless Clinton is indicted or something. the interesting thing about a 2 person race is that there is basically NO chance that the race will end up in the convention. Clinton will win it before then. There are tons of leftist echo chambers that are full of young people that keep reinforcing the same beliefs. If you would like an example, check out www.reddit.com/r/politics/ . A lot of them believe that they represent all millenials, and they are just crazy for Sanders. The conservative millenials are hiding out at www.reddit.com/r/conservative .
Either forum will down vote you until your comments can't be read if you disagree with the majority.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 0:09:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2016 19:29:28 GMT -5
It's not "misguided" to see the truth for what it is. Obama IS worse than Bush. I'm not saying Bush was good, mind you. He sucked too. He just didn't suck quite as much as Obama... and, as I said, based on who is running in the primaries and where they are standing in their perspective races... the next President is highly likely to suck even more than Bush and Obama put together. when it comes to political office, I wish someone would run that's qualified for the job AND could do it in the best interests of the country/state/county/city (whatever they are running for). Unfortunately the quality of our choices has only been going downhill for the past two decades or so. ok, sorry, it is hard to keep in my head, if you have already answered this: by what measure is Bush better than Obama? I can't say as I have answered it or not (don't remember, quite frankly)... but it's obvious to anyone paying attention. Here's a few points: > More than doubled the National debt (more than quadrupled Bush's part of it). > More racial division than there was before he was elected. > Obamacare is a dismal failure that will, in all likelihood, cripple our healthcare system (he forgot the old adage of "Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something... especially if that 'something' is the wrong thing"). > Less secure as a Nation (courtesy of his "apology tour", mostly), we are now seen as much weaker than we were before him > Worse employment numbers (not that imaginary/fantasy "unemployment rate" that they keep trotting out... the REAL numbers: Number of people working multiple jobs because they don't get paid enough at 1 job due to part-time status {in many cases, courtesy of Obamacare}, number of people that have given up even looking for a job and are thus not counted as "unemployed" anymore. > ISIS (granted, there is SOME fault to be laid at Bush's feet for invading Iraq in the first place, but Iraq and the region was "stable-ish" when Bush left office. ISIS didn't rise up until Obama tried pulling out of Iraq).
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Mar 6, 2016 20:14:57 GMT -5
The national debt has not "more than doubled". It was $10.7T when Bush left office after adding $5T. It's currently at $19T. To have quadrupled Bush's part, $5T while in office, would put our current debt at over $25+T.
Nothing Obama has done has increased racial division other than being Black and having White folks have a difficult time with that. Just the birther BS alone or the fact so many think he's the Anti-Christ easily prove that whitey is still having some issues on the racial front.
You personally have an issue with the ACA and so do others. All you needed was a catastrophic medical event that would have bankrupted you in the past and it might have changed your mind. In the meantime many millions have found it a godsend, especially those with a pre-existing condition. Unfortunately you continue to not speak for everyone.
The 'apology tour' canard is just rightwing propaganda. voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/obamas_apology_tour.html Just part of the attack Obama on every front possible approach that the repos have taken since the night of the inauguration. We are still the most secure nation on earth by far.
Considering the record number of months with private sector job growth from the Mariana Trench that the BushCo. Crash left behind, this is just ludicrous. And as you may recall, the last time we went through this is when you fake quoted me and claimed I had made other "implications" when I had not.
ISIS can hardly be blamed on Obama but haters hate so why not give it a shot. BushCo. destabilized the ME with two invasions and it may be tears before we find any equilibrium there. ISIS was coming no matter what, no matter who, no matter when.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 6, 2016 20:15:28 GMT -5
ok, sorry, it is hard to keep in my head, if you have already answered this: by what measure is Bush better than Obama? I can't say as I have answered it or not (don't remember, quite frankly)... but it's obvious to anyone paying attention. Here's a few points: 1> More than doubled the National debt (more than quadrupled Bush's part of it). Image result for national debt bush Congressional session President Debt-to-GDP ratio at start of period Debt-to-GDP ratio at end of period Change in debt (in billions of dollars) 107–108 Bush 56.4% 63.5% +2,135 109–110 Bush 63.5% 84.2% +3,971 so, Bush added $6T to the debt. Obama will have added $8-9T to it by the time he is done. that is not "quadrupling Bush". it is not even doubling him. but i will grant you that Obama was the worst deficit creator since FDR. but, of course, FDR was far WORSE by this measure. 2> More racial division than there was before he was elected. you are a poor student of history if you actually believe that. 3> Obamacare is a dismal failure that will, in all likelihood, cripple our healthcare system (he forgot the old adage of "Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something... especially if that 'something' is the wrong thing"). i would argue that Medicare is far worse than anything Obama did. so, we have Johnson and Bush, again, as worse than Obama. 4> Less secure as a Nation (courtesy of his "apology tour", mostly), we are now seen as much weaker than we were before him the "apology tour" is a complete lie, and it is embarrassing for you to trot it out: blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2012/08/again-with-the-apology-tour-lie.html5> Worse employment numbers (not that imaginary/fantasy "unemployment rate" that they keep trotting out... the REAL numbers: Number of people working multiple jobs because they don't get paid enough at 1 job due to part-time status {in many cases, courtesy of Obamacare}, number of people that have given up even looking for a job and are thus not counted as "unemployed" anymore. are you talking about U6? fine. let's talk about U6. examine the chart below and tell me: under what president were most of the jobs lost that created the situation we are in now? it is true that the number of unemployed people is at new highs under Obama. but the number of employed persons is, too. the way of counting didn't change under Obama. in fact, it has not changed for decades. 6> ISIS (granted, there is SOME fault to be laid at Bush's feet for invading Iraq in the first place, but Iraq and the region was "stable-ish" when Bush left office. ISIS didn't rise up until Obama tried pulling out of Iraq). this problem is 30+ years old. i am not going to get into it with you on this thread. maybe some other time. i am surprised you didn't bring up the only other point that i was willing to concede: drones. so, out of the six, i say: 1) that Obama was the 2nd worst president in history for deficits, narrowly beating out Reagan. 2) that there were generations of presidents that had worse problems with racism than Obama. he doesn't even come close. 3) Medicare Part B not only institutionalized the worst problems in medicine, but accelerated them. it is a much more damaging and costly program than ObamaCare will ever be. Medicare may yet bankrupt the US, so it ranks first. in terms of costly and ineffective, i rank Obama 3rd. 4) the apology tour is absolute rubbish. 5) the UE that you are drawing attention to happened mostly under Bush. but whereas Bush left office with the economy in full crisis, UE6 has fallen 7% under Obama, and continues to fall. is it back to the "glory days" under Bush? of course not! and that is a measure of BUSH'S EPIC FAILURE. you might also want to look into UE6 under Reagan. i think you will find that he also struggled with it. and then, of course, we have Hoover and FDR. i am not sure where Obama ranks, but taking a problem that was in full crisis mode and leaving it "bad" is far better of an achievement than taking a country in full employment and leaving it in crisis. 6) ISIS and the contagion from which it stems is a problem that dates back to the 50's, imo. Obama wasn't even born then. but i can see where you are coming from, Richard. if you ONLY care about these six things, AND you ignore the history before Obama, he is "the worst", but only if you combine those two things. and even then, there is no way Bush comes out ahead of Obama on UE, and most other presidents on all of these other issues (including altering "healthcare" to an unfixable mess).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 0:09:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2016 20:45:00 GMT -5
The national debt has not "more than doubled". It was $10.7T when Bush left office after adding $5T. It's currently at $19T. To have quadrupled Bush's part, $5T while in office, would put our current debt at over $25+T.
Nothing Obama has done has increased racial division other than being Black and having White folks have a difficult time with that. Just the birther BS alone or the fact so many think he's the Anti-Christ easily prove that whitey is still having some issues on the racial front.
You personally have an issue with the ACA and so do others. All you needed was a catastrophic medical event that would have bankrupted you in the past and it might have changed your mind. In the meantime many millions have found it a godsend, especially those with a pre-existing condition. Unfortunately you continue to not speak for everyone.
The 'apology tour' canard is just rightwing propaganda. voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/obamas_apology_tour.html Just part of the attack Obama on every front possible approach that the repos have taken since the night of the inauguration. We are still the most secure nation on earth by far.
Considering the record number of months with private sector job growth from the Mariana Trench that the BushCo. Crash left behind, this is just ludicrous. And as you may recall, the last time we went through this is when you fake quoted me and claimed I had made other "implications" when I had not.
ISIS can hardly be blamed on Obama but haters hate so why not give it a shot. BushCo. destabilized the ME with two invasions and it may be tears before we find any equilibrium there. ISIS was coming no matter what, no matter who, no matter when.
On the debt: By the time he leaves office it will have doubled (sorry I wasn't clear on it being his whole presidency, not "to date"), and the debt will be 4 times that of Bush's contribution. Many black people have just as much of a problem with him in the White House as white people do. The rest of my points are accurate, contrary to your attempt to discredit them. And, for the record, again, I've never "fake quoted" you... I wish you'd quit accusing me of things I've not done.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 6, 2016 20:48:41 GMT -5
oh, one last thing. UE6 is at 9.7% right now, which was about AVERAGE under Bush. it is better than the 15% it was at when Obama took office, and it is not as good as the very lowest point in Bush's presidency: 8%.
i have no problem adopting UE6 as a measure of UE. none whatsoever. but let's make sure to look at what it was under other presidents. and if you want to do a pointilistic perspective, starting and ending works for me:
Bush Start = 7 Bush End = 15 Obama Start = 15 Obama End = less than 15, obviously.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 0:09:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2016 20:49:09 GMT -5
It's not a lie... It actually happened. Anyone that says otherwise wasn't paying attention during it.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 6, 2016 20:50:44 GMT -5
ok, sorry, it is hard to keep in my head, if you have already answered this: by what measure is Bush better than Obama? I can't say as I have answered it or not (don't remember, quite frankly)... but it's obvious to anyone paying attention. Here's a few points: > More than doubled the National debt (more than quadrupled Bush's part of it). > More racial division than there was before he was elected. > Obamacare is a dismal failure that will, in all likelihood, cripple our healthcare system (he forgot the old adage of "Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something... especially if that 'something' is the wrong thing"). > Less secure as a Nation (courtesy of his "apology tour", mostly), we are now seen as much weaker than we were before him > Worse employment numbers (not that imaginary/fantasy "unemployment rate" that they keep trotting out... the REAL numbers: Number of people working multiple jobs because they don't get paid enough at 1 job due to part-time status {in many cases, courtesy of Obamacare}, number of people that have given up even looking for a job and are thus not counted as "unemployed" anymore. > ISIS (granted, there is SOME fault to be laid at Bush's feet for invading Iraq in the first place, but Iraq and the region was "stable-ish" when Bush left office. ISIS didn't rise up until Obama tried pulling out of Iraq). Again, you may think it obvious. It is also simplistic.
First, the not-even-near-doubling of the national debt is due to several factors. Primarily it is due to the lowering of revenues due to previous but also the monstrously ill-advised Bush tax cuts, as well as the cratering of revenues during the Great Recession under Bush. Trying to counter that recession cost a lot. In addition, it was the creating of two wars by the Bush administration. One can argue how much Obama tried to wind those down quickly, but there is no doubt he was prevented from rolling back the tax cuts. Federal revenue in 2009 was actually lower than in 2000. So were 2001-2003.
Also, discretionary spending under Bush more than doubled from what it was under Clinton. I recall reading that discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP under Obama is lower than any president since Eisenhower, and that most of the increased spending under Obama is related to things that would be in effect under any president. It is irresponsible to not take those things into account.
As others said, the racial division is due far more to his opponents than to the President.
Obamacare may or may not turn out to be a dismal failure. That remains to be seen. It is not yet.
Again, as others have said, the whole "apology tour" bull**** is just that.
You have a blind spot because of your hatred for Obamacare. I get it, but it causes you to have a problem with all things Obama. Unfortunate, since our fact-checking and response time could be cut tremendously if that were not the case....
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 6, 2016 20:51:38 GMT -5
The national debt has not "more than doubled". It was $10.7T when Bush left office after adding $5T. It's currently at $19T. To have quadrupled Bush's part, $5T while in office, would put our current debt at over $25+T.
Nothing Obama has done has increased racial division other than being Black and having White folks have a difficult time with that. Just the birther BS alone or the fact so many think he's the Anti-Christ easily prove that whitey is still having some issues on the racial front.
You personally have an issue with the ACA and so do others. All you needed was a catastrophic medical event that would have bankrupted you in the past and it might have changed your mind. In the meantime many millions have found it a godsend, especially those with a pre-existing condition. Unfortunately you continue to not speak for everyone.
The 'apology tour' canard is just rightwing propaganda. voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/obamas_apology_tour.html Just part of the attack Obama on every front possible approach that the repos have taken since the night of the inauguration. We are still the most secure nation on earth by far.
Considering the record number of months with private sector job growth from the Mariana Trench that the BushCo. Crash left behind, this is just ludicrous. And as you may recall, the last time we went through this is when you fake quoted me and claimed I had made other "implications" when I had not.
ISIS can hardly be blamed on Obama but haters hate so why not give it a shot. BushCo. destabilized the ME with two invasions and it may be tears before we find any equilibrium there. ISIS was coming no matter what, no matter who, no matter when.
On the debt: By the time he leaves office it will have doubled (sorry I wasn't clear on it being his whole presidency, not "to date"), and the debt will be 4 times that of Bush's contribution.. i will bet you $1,000 that by the time Obama leaves office the debt will be less than 2x what it was in January of 2009 (10.6T). i will also bet you the same amount that Obama will not have added $20T to the debt by then. you must be imagining the numbers are different than they actually were. let me help you with that: www.snopes.com/politics/politicians/nationaldebt.asp
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 6, 2016 20:54:24 GMT -5
It's not a lie... It actually happened. Anyone that says otherwise wasn't paying attention during it. ad hominem. this is not about my "attention". i provided an article, and dondub provided a link. please stop repeating that nonsense. it undermines your argument.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 0:09:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2016 21:01:01 GMT -5
On the debt: By the time he leaves office it will have doubled (sorry I wasn't clear on it being his whole presidency, not "to date"), and the debt will be 4 times that of Bush's contribution.. i will bet you $1,000 that by the time Obama leaves office the debt will be less than 2x what it was in January of 2009 (10.6T). i will also bet you the same amount that Obama will not have added $20T to the debt by then. you must be imagining the numbers are different than they actually were. let me help you with that: www.snopes.com/politics/politicians/nationaldebt.aspI'd take that first bet... but I don't have an actual $1,000 to put up. (and I won't bet with money I couldn't lose... even when I KNOW I'll win... which I would here). I never said he'd add 20T to the debt. I meant to say (and later I did clarify) that the debt will be 4 times Bush's contribution... Meaning even though Bush doubled the debt he got, Obama doubling it is WORSE because there's twice as much TO double (2x2 making 4 thus making the debt quadruple Bush's contribution).
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 6, 2016 21:03:10 GMT -5
Hillary split yesterday's primaries, but she THUMPED Sanders in Louisiana, so she is FURTHER ahead of him than she was on Friday. i rode to Oakland last night with a bus full of Sanders supporters. one of them asked me who Sanders would choose as a running mate. i told him "i haven't the foggiest, but i don't think he will win the nomination so i am not going to think about it, much". one of the kids in the bus was a poly sci major, and even he thought that Sanders would win. i don't know where they get these ideas. there must be an echo chamber out there on the left. Hillary already has half the delegates that she needs, and we are barely a month into primary season with 3 months to go. Sanders would have to win about 3/4 of the available delegates from here on out to win the nomination, and there is basically a 0% chance of that, imo, unless Clinton is indicted or something. the interesting thing about a 2 person race is that there is basically NO chance that the race will end up in the convention. Clinton will win it before then. There are tons of leftist echo chambers that are full of young people that keep reinforcing the same beliefs. If you would like an example, check out www.reddit.com/r/politics/ . A lot of them believe that they represent all millenials, and they are just crazy for Sanders. The conservative millenials are hiding out at www.reddit.com/r/conservative .
Either forum will down vote you until your comments can't be read if you disagree with the majority.
Sounds like a really enlightened crowd over there.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 6, 2016 21:08:34 GMT -5
i will bet you $1,000 that by the time Obama leaves office the debt will be less than 2x what it was in January of 2009 (10.6T). i will also bet you the same amount that Obama will not have added $20T to the debt by then. you must be imagining the numbers are different than they actually were. let me help you with that: www.snopes.com/politics/politicians/nationaldebt.aspI'd take that first bet... but I don't have an actual $1,000 to put up. (and I won't bet with money I couldn't lose... even when I KNOW I'll win... which I would here). so, just to be clear- you think that our national debt will be $21.2T by 1/21/17? please confirmI never said he'd add 20T to the debt. I meant to say (and later I did clarify) that the debt will be 4 times Bush's contribution... Meaning even though Bush doubled the debt he got, Obama doubling it is WORSE because there's twice as much TO double (2x2 making 4 thus making the debt quadruple Bush's contribution). Bush did double the debt, but his contribution was $5T. if Obama doubles the debt, then his CONTRIBUTION is 2x that of Bush, not 4x.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 6, 2016 21:09:21 GMT -5
There are tons of leftist echo chambers that are full of young people that keep reinforcing the same beliefs. If you would like an example, check out www.reddit.com/r/politics/ . A lot of them believe that they represent all millenials, and they are just crazy for Sanders. The conservative millenials are hiding out at www.reddit.com/r/conservative .
Either forum will down vote you until your comments can't be read if you disagree with the majority.
Sounds like a really enlightened crowd over there. i kinda decided that i would not be visiting reddit after reading that post, myself.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 6, 2016 21:09:43 GMT -5
i will bet you $1,000 that by the time Obama leaves office the debt will be less than 2x what it was in January of 2009 (10.6T). i will also bet you the same amount that Obama will not have added $20T to the debt by then. you must be imagining the numbers are different than they actually were. let me help you with that: www.snopes.com/politics/politicians/nationaldebt.aspI'd take that first bet... but I don't have an actual $1,000 to put up. (and I won't bet with money I couldn't lose... even when I KNOW I'll win... which I would here). I never said he'd add 20T to the debt. I meant to say (and later I did clarify) that the debt will be 4 times Bush's contribution... Meaning even though Bush doubled the debt he got, Obama doubling it is WORSE because there's twice as much TO double (2x2 making 4 thus making the debt quadruple Bush's contribution). Wow. I would recommend NEVER placing a bet the rest of your life if you seriously think you would win that. But if you do, please, PLEASE keep me in mind.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 0:09:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2016 21:21:29 GMT -5
I'd take that first bet... but I don't have an actual $1,000 to put up. (and I won't bet with money I couldn't lose... even when I KNOW I'll win... which I would here). so, just to be clear- you think that our national debt will be $21.2T by 1/21/17? please confirmI never said he'd add 20T to the debt. I meant to say (and later I did clarify) that the debt will be 4 times Bush's contribution... Meaning even though Bush doubled the debt he got, Obama doubling it is WORSE because there's twice as much TO double (2x2 making 4 thus making the debt quadruple Bush's contribution). Bush did double the debt, but his contribution was $5T. if Obama doubles the debt, then his CONTRIBUTION is 2x that of Bush, not 4x. You keep missing where I'm getting the 4x from. The overall debt after Obama will be 4x that of what Bush alone contributed... showing how much worse Obama's doubling of it is compared to Bush's doubling of it. Maybe it was a bad point to try and make... I'll grant that. And yes. I believe it will be essentially doubled from what it was on the date of Obama's inauguration. Maybe not to the penny or anything.. but "in the ballpark" and "close enough for government work" (as the sayings go)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 6, 2016 21:25:53 GMT -5
Bush did double the debt, but his contribution was $5T. if Obama doubles the debt, then his CONTRIBUTION is 2x that of Bush, not 4x. You keep missing where I'm getting the 4x from. The overall debt after Obama will be 4x that of what Bush alone contributed... showing how much worse Obama's doubling of it is compared to Bush's doubling of it. Maybe it was a bad point to try and make... I'll grant that. i see. you are saying if we use the numbers that Bush inherited rather than the ones Obama inherited, without any regard for the utter train wreck that Bush was, that he would look twice as bad? of course! i am sure that Obama would look worse compared to almost anyone other than Bush. And yes. I believe it will be essentially doubled from what it was on the date of Obama's inauguration. Maybe not to the penny or anything.. but "in the ballpark" and "close enough for government work" (as the sayings go) no, i am looking for "meet or exceed" 100% increase. now, if you want to use the Bush standard of 86% increase in the debt, i think you might have a real contest.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 6, 2016 21:27:55 GMT -5
It would have to reach 21.2T in 10.5 months. It is currently more than two trillion below that. The estimated deficit for 2016 is 616 billion. It will not even hit 20T by the time Obama leaves office. But what's a trillion or two among friends, right?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 6, 2016 21:30:57 GMT -5
It would have to reach 21.2T in 10.5 months. It is currently more than two trillion below that. The estimated deficit for 2016 is 616 billion. It will not even hit 20T by the time Obama leaves office. But what's a trillion or two among friends, right? precisely. i think it is far more likely to NOT reach $19.5T than to exceed $20T. his total debt addition will be "around" $9T, or about 85% increase. edit: and no, we really can't keep doing that. another (8) years of that kind of increase will be a disaster for the US. so, we really need to get a handle on it. (16) years is enough.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 0:09:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2016 21:32:51 GMT -5
You keep missing where I'm getting the 4x from. The overall debt after Obama will be 4x that of what Bush alone contributed... showing how much worse Obama's doubling of it is compared to Bush's doubling of it. Maybe it was a bad point to try and make... I'll grant that. i see. you are saying if we use the numbers that Bush inherited rather than the ones Obama inherited, without any regard for the utter train wreck that Bush was, that he would look twice as bad? of course! i am sure that Obama would look worse compared to almost anyone other than Bush. And yes. I believe it will be essentially doubled from what it was on the date of Obama's inauguration. Maybe not to the penny or anything.. but "in the ballpark" and "close enough for government work" (as the sayings go) no, i am looking for "meet or exceed" 100% increase. now, if you want to use the Bush standard of 86% increase in the debt, i think you might have a real contest. I was using "double" in it's general sense. I have a good feeling it will exceed $21.2T... but it's by no means a certainty. And I only bet on certainties. I'd take a bet of "within 3% margin of error" (making it need to get to $2.037T, to count) though (if I had the $1,000 to wager).
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 6, 2016 21:34:33 GMT -5
no, i am looking for "meet or exceed" 100% increase. now, if you want to use the Bush standard of 86% increase in the debt, i think you might have a real contest. I was using "double" in it's general sense. I have a good feeling it will exceed $21.2T... but it's by no means a certainty. And I only bet on certainties. I'd take a bet of "within 3% margin of error" (making it need to get to $2.037T, to count) though (if I had the $1,000 to wager). i don't think it will even hit $20T. let's use that and check in next Jan, provided we both survive it. we can use THIS: www.usdebtclock.org/(PS- never mind the $1,000. i know what you make. i will buy you a nice dinner out with your wife if i lose, and you will buy me a drink if you do. find a place that serves Angel's Envy.)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 0:09:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2016 21:37:16 GMT -5
I was using "double" in it's general sense. I have a good feeling it will exceed $21.2T... but it's by no means a certainty. And I only bet on certainties. I'd take a bet of "within 3% margin of error" (making it need to get to $2.037T, to count) though (if I had the $1,000 to wager). i don't think it will even hit $20T. let's use that and check in next Jan, provided we both survive it. (PS- never mind the $1,000. i know what you make. i will buy you a nice dinner out with your wife if i lose, and you will buy me a drink if you do) I can afford a drink... as long as it's reasonable and not something like The Winston Cocktail. So within reason... you're on. ETA: Actually I could go "even odds" if it's a Steak Dinner. $50 gift card to local favorite restaurant instead?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 6, 2016 21:38:06 GMT -5
On the bright side though, Trump will be the nominee. That will not only give the election to Hillary but also cost Republicans the Senate and much of their advantage in the House. Far more likely to get focus on combatting the debt once we get the Borrower Kings out of office and can actually talk about revenues. Don't you think?
|
|