earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

holfresh wrote:Im watching CSpan right now..Republicans in the house talking about corporate tax cuts to help the deficit..It's comical..I had math in school..A negative number plus another negative number makes a bigger negative number..

Talking about elimination of the death tax..Trump's kids must be creaming themselves..

I wonder what's in it for these congressmen..Maybe the lobbyist just working them before they kick out that Christmas bonus..

Trickle down...one more time. Never worked...never will, but the GOP has an addiction to it.

Holfresh too (Was that article not clear?)

One of the creators of the tax plan, which I posted before (here is the link: Trump's Plan Isn't Trickle-Down Economics http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StephenMoore/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-trickle-down-economics/2016/10/04/id/751523/) said it isn't trickle down economics. Just because corporations are getting a tax cut, that doesn't make it trickle down. The cuts are across the board.

EMS, read up on what happened in the state of Kansas. It was hailed as the great experiment in 2010 for governor Brown. Tax cuts across the board; and indeed this is trickle down.

https://newrepublic.com/article/119574/sam-brownbacks-conservative-utopia-kansas-has-become-hell

The midterm elections of 2010 were good for Republicans nearly everywhere, but amid the national Tea Party insurgency, it was easy to overlook the revolution that was brewing in Kansas. That year, the GOP won every federal and statewide office. Sam Brownback, a genial U.S. senator best known for his ardent social conservatism, captured the governor’s mansion with nearly double the votes of his Democratic opponent.And having conquered Kansas so convincingly, he was determined not to squander the opportunity. His administration, he declared, would be a “real live experiment” that would prove, once and for all, that the way to achieve prosperity was by eliminating government from economic life.

Brownback’s agenda bore the imprint of three decades of right-wing agitation, particularly that of the anti-government radicals Charles and David Koch and their Wichita-based Koch Industries, the single largest contributors to Brownback’s campaigns. Brownback appointed accountant Steve Anderson, who had developed a model budget for the Kochs’ advocacy arm, Americans for Prosperity, as his budget director. Another Koch-linked group, the Kansas Policy Institute, supported his controversial tax proposals. As Brownback later explained to The Wall Street Journal, “My focus is to create a red-state model that allows the Republican ticket to say, ‘See, we’ve got a different way, and it works.’”

Brownback established an Office of the Repealer to take a scythe to regulations on business, he slashed spending on the poor by tightening welfare requirements, he rejected federal Medicaid subsidies and privatized the delivery of Medicaid, and he dissolved four state agencies and eliminated 2,000 state jobs. The heart of his program consisted of drastic tax cuts for the wealthy and eliminating taxes on income from profits for more than 100,000 Kansas businesses. No other state had gone this far. He was advised by the godfather of supply-side economics himself, the Reagan-era economist Arthur Laffer, who described the reforms as “a revolution in a cornfield.”

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-kansas-tea-party-disaster-20141023

Extremist Republicans turned their government into a lab experiment of tax cuts and privatization. And now they may be losing control of one of the reddest states in the nation

The devastation to that state is unreal. Tax cuts in this manor do not work.

Also, math must be done so that we can realize the % of money that represents savings when tax cuts are given from top to bottom. Even if you give a tax cut to the bottom 75% of everyone, that still only represents a proportionally small amount of total.

Thanks for sharing that with me. Not sure why you would share anything with someone with such low intelligence and whose posts you just skip over.
But seriously, what is going to work? Obama (for whatever reason) has tripled the debt. The banking system is on the edge, really just being kept afloat since 2008 in this experiment called Quantitative Easing (better known as money printing to the banks, whose bad debt is bought.) I'm serious with this btw. No matter who got in as president, the cards are stacked against them.

There seems to be, and has been, a Globalist Agenda going on for years. There are some nice things for people regarding globalization, namely less of a chance of war (I think) but mostly it has raised unemployment in the States, but "helped" Mexico, China and some other manufacturing places that are "cheaper".

So, what would be best? What could get us out of this hole? Honestly.

In a very basic way, if we lower taxes across the board, and cut governments spending by a percentage of that amount (we don't need to cut it all by that, as spending will of course go up. Poor, people, lower middle class, who don't have enough would have more, they would spend that money.) Companies would spend more (I hope) and if they just planned on stock buy backs, perhaps we need to have clauses regarding these cuts. I'm not for more "laws" but we are between a rock and a hard place. We can't do what we've been doing, during a terrible economic and global situation and expect good results.

EMS

It just seems like a lot of the information you are working off is just plain wrong, therefore your conclusions are generally wrong.....You can help yourself to be more informed by finding new places to get your information...You may want to consult more than one source or consult sources that are reputable and known to put out accurate information..This can go along way in clearing up many of your questions..Just a suggestion...

Maybe I should attached the reasons..
1. The level of debt Obama met when he took office is incorrect, it could not be tripled
2. The reason the debt continued to increase, look it up..Also look up spending by Presidents going back to 1980...
3. The purpose of Quantitative Easing is incorrect
4. The health of the banking system is incorrect, they are as sound as ever and hitting all time highs..
Just a few and there are more I can highlight...

It seems like you only accept your data and your posts using MSM are the standard. The very thing you often accuse me of is what you do.

You try to find a flaw in my post and attack that, just like many here do, instead of looking at the larger point. As in #1, you don't mention Obama doubled (or is it 1.7X?) the deficit, just that my number was wrong.

1. He basically doubled the debt. Sorry about that I had the context wrong (from article). Now it becomes me being wrong and not the actual terrible statistic.
The tripling should have been applied to going back under Bush, as is stated below.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/apr/09/rand-paul/rand-paul-debt-has-tripled-bush-took-office/

2. "But more to the point, a major factor in the debt explosion has been the decline in government revenues because of the recession. "
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/is-obama-responsible-for-a-5-trillion-increase-in-the-debt/2012/05/15/gIQACA0QSU_blog.html?utm_term=.5aa4999cf522
So, Obama should have been doing what Trump just started as President Elect and bring some jobs home. Trump is already starting to be President and that is sick. Obama should be doing his job. Nobel Peace Prize???

Look at what has happened under Obama:
8 years of near zero economic growth (is that near the worst in our history?)
Invaded and helped overturn a couple of governments in foreign countries.
illegal gun trafficking operation into Mexico that resulted in the deaths of Americans
IRS targeted political opponents (was Obama involved?)
Targeted Americans with Drones, now we have drones bombing in what, 8 countries? (Ron Paul got on him about this)
More lower paying jobs, just keep moving them overseas. More people working more PT jobs and losing benefits.

So, I'm not really happy about the last 8 years.

3. I didn't give the purpose of QE, I'm aware of that, I gave in simple terms (some) of what they do. The banking system was so broken in 2008 (or there abouts), that they started trying to control the economy by printing money, instead of adjusting interest rates; hence the term quantitative easing. They are trying to control the economy by controlling the supply of money and they are just really liberal with helping the banks buy back bad debt (in part) but seem to have a problem giving it to the common Joe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing

Quantitative easing (QE) is a monetary policy used by central banks to stimulate the economy. It is usually used when standard monetary policy has become ineffective.[1][2][3][4] A central bank implements quantitative easing by buying financial assets from commercial banks and other financial institutions, thus raising the prices of those financial assets and lowering their yield, while simultaneously increasing the money supply.[5][6] This differs from the more usual policy of buying or selling short-term government bonds to keep interbank interest rates at a specified target value.[7][9][10]

Expansionary monetary policy to stimulate the economy typically involves the central bank buying short-term government bonds to lower short-term market interest rates.[11][12][13][14] However, when short-term interest rates reach or approach zero, this method can no longer work.[15] In such circumstances, monetary authorities may then use quantitative easing to further stimulate the economy by buying assets of longer maturity than short-term government bonds, thereby lowering longer-term interest rates further out on the yield curve.

4. America could go bankrupt. If you were America, you could file bankruptcy, and we might actually have to look into that, in part anyway, as the system is broken. Don't listen to MSM here. Just because the stock market is going up that doesn't mean things are good.

A newly published paper by a researcher for the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis warns that a ballooning budget deficit and pension and welfare timebomb is growing into a $65.9 trillion fiscal gap that will force the United States into bankruptcy.
In the view of Prof. Laurence Kotlikoff of Boston University, the U.S. is already bankrupt – at least the government is.
Snippet
“The U.S. government is, indeed, bankrupt,” he writes, “insofar as it will be unable to pay its creditors, who, in this context, are current and future generations to whom it has explicitly or implicitly promised future net payments of various kinds.”

...

“The proper way to consider a country’s solvency is to examine the lifetime fiscal burdens facing current and future generations. If these burdens exceed the resources of those generations, get close to doing so, or simply get so high as to preclude their full collection, the country’s policy will be unsustainable and can constitute or lead to national bankruptcy.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2006/07/37037/#iAAw2abdILz8SBmj.99

http://www.wnd.com/2006/07/37037/

Not perfect but it's a start...

Answering Point 1. Obama walked in the doors of the white house with 10.5 trillion in debt on hand, this is before the recession and the banking crisis impact. agreed??..After the recession, which we can all credit Bush with, the debt skyrockets to 15+ trillion dollars, agreed???..So with War, spending, and economic conditions Obama added 4 trillion dollars, agreed???..So in 8 years, with Wars he didn't start, he spent 4 trillion to Bush's 15 trillion, agreed???

Answering point 2. Obama saved the Auto industry when most Republicans were against it???..Did you forget???Obama helped prevent a global depression, were you not paying attention???..So he was a little busy saving the global economy when you ate trying to compare him to Trump save 1000 jobs at the same time after winning....
Under Obama 15 million jobs were created...Trump has 14.999 million to go...Not counting the saving of Auto and Banking jobs...

Answering 3..So read what you posted about what Quantitative Easing does and you will realize it was to help stimulate the economy because lowering interest further wasn't an option and was not intended to fund the banks as you suggested...

Answering 4. Congressional Republicans didn't want to work with Obama to address these issues...Look it up...They didn't want to agree to a compromise to tackle social security and all the entitlements, look it up, this is exactly where John Boehner started to lose his power in Congress, look it up, He and Obama was about to strike the "Grand Bargain" and Republicans lost their minds at the planned comprimise...It would have cut 4 trillion in debt over 10 years but they didn't want to give Obama the victory, they balked, LOOK IT UP MAN!!!!!..The reason you know it was a good deal was that Democrats were upset at Obama for striking such a deal...LOOK IT UP!!!..I'll help...


Showdown scars: How the $4 trillion ‘grand bargain’ collapsed

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/268857-showdown-scars-how-the-4-trillion-grand-bargain-collapsed

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/resnikoff/status/804673959170080769

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/804473168522018816

France will be next...Swastikas and Jackboots soon to come, as the Soviet Union is resurrected.

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

holfresh wrote:Im watching CSpan right now..Republicans in the house talking about corporate tax cuts to help the deficit..It's comical..I had math in school..A negative number plus another negative number makes a bigger negative number..

Talking about elimination of the death tax..Trump's kids must be creaming themselves..

I wonder what's in it for these congressmen..Maybe the lobbyist just working them before they kick out that Christmas bonus..

Trickle down...one more time. Never worked...never will, but the GOP has an addiction to it.

Holfresh too (Was that article not clear?)

One of the creators of the tax plan, which I posted before (here is the link: Trump's Plan Isn't Trickle-Down Economics http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StephenMoore/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-trickle-down-economics/2016/10/04/id/751523/) said it isn't trickle down economics. Just because corporations are getting a tax cut, that doesn't make it trickle down. The cuts are across the board.

EMS, read up on what happened in the state of Kansas. It was hailed as the great experiment in 2010 for governor Brown. Tax cuts across the board; and indeed this is trickle down.

https://newrepublic.com/article/119574/sam-brownbacks-conservative-utopia-kansas-has-become-hell

The midterm elections of 2010 were good for Republicans nearly everywhere, but amid the national Tea Party insurgency, it was easy to overlook the revolution that was brewing in Kansas. That year, the GOP won every federal and statewide office. Sam Brownback, a genial U.S. senator best known for his ardent social conservatism, captured the governor’s mansion with nearly double the votes of his Democratic opponent.And having conquered Kansas so convincingly, he was determined not to squander the opportunity. His administration, he declared, would be a “real live experiment” that would prove, once and for all, that the way to achieve prosperity was by eliminating government from economic life.

Brownback’s agenda bore the imprint of three decades of right-wing agitation, particularly that of the anti-government radicals Charles and David Koch and their Wichita-based Koch Industries, the single largest contributors to Brownback’s campaigns. Brownback appointed accountant Steve Anderson, who had developed a model budget for the Kochs’ advocacy arm, Americans for Prosperity, as his budget director. Another Koch-linked group, the Kansas Policy Institute, supported his controversial tax proposals. As Brownback later explained to The Wall Street Journal, “My focus is to create a red-state model that allows the Republican ticket to say, ‘See, we’ve got a different way, and it works.’”

Brownback established an Office of the Repealer to take a scythe to regulations on business, he slashed spending on the poor by tightening welfare requirements, he rejected federal Medicaid subsidies and privatized the delivery of Medicaid, and he dissolved four state agencies and eliminated 2,000 state jobs. The heart of his program consisted of drastic tax cuts for the wealthy and eliminating taxes on income from profits for more than 100,000 Kansas businesses. No other state had gone this far. He was advised by the godfather of supply-side economics himself, the Reagan-era economist Arthur Laffer, who described the reforms as “a revolution in a cornfield.”

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-kansas-tea-party-disaster-20141023

Extremist Republicans turned their government into a lab experiment of tax cuts and privatization. And now they may be losing control of one of the reddest states in the nation

The devastation to that state is unreal. Tax cuts in this manor do not work.

Also, math must be done so that we can realize the % of money that represents savings when tax cuts are given from top to bottom. Even if you give a tax cut to the bottom 75% of everyone, that still only represents a proportionally small amount of total.

Thanks for sharing that with me. Not sure why you would share anything with someone with such low intelligence and whose posts you just skip over.
But seriously, what is going to work? Obama (for whatever reason) has tripled the debt. The banking system is on the edge, really just being kept afloat since 2008 in this experiment called Quantitative Easing (better known as money printing to the banks, whose bad debt is bought.) I'm serious with this btw. No matter who got in as president, the cards are stacked against them.

There seems to be, and has been, a Globalist Agenda going on for years. There are some nice things for people regarding globalization, namely less of a chance of war (I think) but mostly it has raised unemployment in the States, but "helped" Mexico, China and some other manufacturing places that are "cheaper".

So, what would be best? What could get us out of this hole? Honestly.

In a very basic way, if we lower taxes across the board, and cut governments spending by a percentage of that amount (we don't need to cut it all by that, as spending will of course go up. Poor, people, lower middle class, who don't have enough would have more, they would spend that money.) Companies would spend more (I hope) and if they just planned on stock buy backs, perhaps we need to have clauses regarding these cuts. I'm not for more "laws" but we are between a rock and a hard place. We can't do what we've been doing, during a terrible economic and global situation and expect good results.

EMS

It just seems like a lot of the information you are working off is just plain wrong, therefore your conclusions are generally wrong.....You can help yourself to be more informed by finding new places to get your information...You may want to consult more than one source or consult sources that are reputable and known to put out accurate information..This can go along way in clearing up many of your questions..Just a suggestion...

Maybe I should attached the reasons..
1. The level of debt Obama met when he took office is incorrect, it could not be tripled
2. The reason the debt continued to increase, look it up..Also look up spending by Presidents going back to 1980...
3. The purpose of Quantitative Easing is incorrect
4. The health of the banking system is incorrect, they are as sound as ever and hitting all time highs..
Just a few and there are more I can highlight...

It seems like you only accept your data and your posts using MSM are the standard. The very thing you often accuse me of is what you do.

You try to find a flaw in my post and attack that, just like many here do, instead of looking at the larger point. As in #1, you don't mention Obama doubled (or is it 1.7X?) the deficit, just that my number was wrong.

1. He basically doubled the debt. Sorry about that I had the context wrong (from article). Now it becomes me being wrong and not the actual terrible statistic.
The tripling should have been applied to going back under Bush, as is stated below.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/apr/09/rand-paul/rand-paul-debt-has-tripled-bush-took-office/

2. "But more to the point, a major factor in the debt explosion has been the decline in government revenues because of the recession. "
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/is-obama-responsible-for-a-5-trillion-increase-in-the-debt/2012/05/15/gIQACA0QSU_blog.html?utm_term=.5aa4999cf522
So, Obama should have been doing what Trump just started as President Elect and bring some jobs home. Trump is already starting to be President and that is sick. Obama should be doing his job. Nobel Peace Prize???

Look at what has happened under Obama:
8 years of near zero economic growth (is that near the worst in our history?)
Invaded and helped overturn a couple of governments in foreign countries.
illegal gun trafficking operation into Mexico that resulted in the deaths of Americans
IRS targeted political opponents (was Obama involved?)
Targeted Americans with Drones, now we have drones bombing in what, 8 countries? (Ron Paul got on him about this)
More lower paying jobs, just keep moving them overseas. More people working more PT jobs and losing benefits.

So, I'm not really happy about the last 8 years.

3. I didn't give the purpose of QE, I'm aware of that, I gave in simple terms (some) of what they do. The banking system was so broken in 2008 (or there abouts), that they started trying to control the economy by printing money, instead of adjusting interest rates; hence the term quantitative easing. They are trying to control the economy by controlling the supply of money and they are just really liberal with helping the banks buy back bad debt (in part) but seem to have a problem giving it to the common Joe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing

Quantitative easing (QE) is a monetary policy used by central banks to stimulate the economy. It is usually used when standard monetary policy has become ineffective.[1][2][3][4] A central bank implements quantitative easing by buying financial assets from commercial banks and other financial institutions, thus raising the prices of those financial assets and lowering their yield, while simultaneously increasing the money supply.[5][6] This differs from the more usual policy of buying or selling short-term government bonds to keep interbank interest rates at a specified target value.[7][9][10]

Expansionary monetary policy to stimulate the economy typically involves the central bank buying short-term government bonds to lower short-term market interest rates.[11][12][13][14] However, when short-term interest rates reach or approach zero, this method can no longer work.[15] In such circumstances, monetary authorities may then use quantitative easing to further stimulate the economy by buying assets of longer maturity than short-term government bonds, thereby lowering longer-term interest rates further out on the yield curve.

4. America could go bankrupt. If you were America, you could file bankruptcy, and we might actually have to look into that, in part anyway, as the system is broken. Don't listen to MSM here. Just because the stock market is going up that doesn't mean things are good.

A newly published paper by a researcher for the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis warns that a ballooning budget deficit and pension and welfare timebomb is growing into a $65.9 trillion fiscal gap that will force the United States into bankruptcy.
In the view of Prof. Laurence Kotlikoff of Boston University, the U.S. is already bankrupt – at least the government is.
Snippet
“The U.S. government is, indeed, bankrupt,” he writes, “insofar as it will be unable to pay its creditors, who, in this context, are current and future generations to whom it has explicitly or implicitly promised future net payments of various kinds.”

...

“The proper way to consider a country’s solvency is to examine the lifetime fiscal burdens facing current and future generations. If these burdens exceed the resources of those generations, get close to doing so, or simply get so high as to preclude their full collection, the country’s policy will be unsustainable and can constitute or lead to national bankruptcy.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2006/07/37037/#iAAw2abdILz8SBmj.99

http://www.wnd.com/2006/07/37037/

Not perfect but it's a start...

Answering Point 1. Obama walked in the doors of the white house with 10.5 trillion in debt on hand, this is before the recession and the banking crisis impact. agreed??..After the recession, which we can all credit Bush with, the debt skyrockets to 15+ trillion dollars, agreed???..So with War, spending, and economic conditions Obama added 4 trillion dollars, agreed???..So in 8 years, with Wars he didn't start, he spent 4 trillion to Bush's 15 trillion, agreed???

Answering point 2. Obama saved the Auto industry when most Republicans were against it???..Did you forget???Obama helped prevent a global depression, were you not paying attention???
Under Obama 15 million jobs were created...Trump has 14.999 million to go...Not counting the saving of Auto and Banking jobs...

Answering 3..So read what you posted about what Quantitative Easing does and you will realize it was to help stimulate the economy because lowering interest further wasn't an option and was not intended to fund the banks as you suggested...

Answering 4. Congressional Republicans didn't want to work with Obama to address these issues...Look it up...They didn't want to agree to a compromise to tackle social security and all the entitlements, look it up, this is exactly where John Boehner started to lose his power in Congress, look it up, He and Obama was about to strike the "Grand Bargain" and Republicans lost their minds at the planned comprimise...It would have cut 4 trillion in debt over 10 years but they didn't want to give Obama the victory, they balked, LOOK IT UP MAN!!!!!..The reason you know it was a good deal was that Democrats were upset at Obama for striking such a deal...LOOK IT UP!!!..I'll help...


Showdown scars: How the $4 trillion ‘grand bargain’ collapsed

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/268857-showdown-scars-how-the-4-trillion-grand-bargain-collapsed

I want to see some good links. I'm not going to verify all your data.

WaltLongmire wrote:Russians still at it...using their favorite fool, er tool, Julian Assange.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/resnikoff/status/804673959170080769

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/804473168522018816

France will be next...Swastikas and Jackboots soon to come, as the Soviet Union is resurrected.

Please Walt. Don't talk like that. That is an extremely strong thing to be saying about a country or land.
If you don't want any Pepe's, then stop bringing up hate.

edit - from your link:

“A number of the documents show how intelligence agencies find ways to work around their own government,” reads a statement accompanying the release.

This needs to be looked into. The German people should know if their Country is working with the NSA, especially considering recent history.
And they should know, and now they do, if their government is giving money to the Clinton Foundation. (Was all over the news here)

earthmansurfer wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:Russians still at it...using their favorite fool, er tool, Julian Assange.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/resnikoff/status/804673959170080769

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/804473168522018816

France will be next...Swastikas and Jackboots soon to come, as the Soviet Union is resurrected.

Please Walt. Don't talk like that. That is an extremely strong thing to be saying about a country or land.
If you don't want any Pepe's, then stop bringing up hate.

edit - from your link:

“A number of the documents show how intelligence agencies find ways to work around their own government,” reads a statement accompanying the release.

This needs to be looked into. The German people should know if their Country is working with the NSA, especially considering recent history.
And they should know, and now they do, if their government is giving money to the Clinton Foundation. (Was all over the news here)

Putin is trying to reconstitute the Soviet sphere of influence, and is working to get non-interventionist nationalists into power.

I would not be surprised if he had something to do with Brexit.

On Jan. 20, 2009, when Obama was inaugurated, the total debt of the federal government was $10,626,877,048,913.08. On Nov. 23, 2015, it was $18,722,746,583,118.03 Thus, so far in Obama’s presidency, the federal debt has increased $8,095,869,534,204.95.



I'll find where 4+ trillion more was added because of the recession...Gotta hop, I'll be back...

Answering point 2. Obama saved the Auto industry when most Republicans were against it???..Did you forget???Obama helped prevent a global depression, were you not paying attention???..So he was a little busy saving the global economy when you ate trying to compare him to Trump save 1000 jobs at the same time after winning....
Under Obama 15 million jobs were created...Trump has 14.999 million to go...Not counting the saving of Auto and Banking jobs...

Answering 3..So read what you posted about what Quantitative Easing does and you will realize it was to help stimulate the economy because lowering interest further wasn't an option and was not intended to fund the banks as you suggested...

Answering 4. Congressional Republicans didn't want to work with Obama to address these issues...Look it up...They didn't want to agree to a compromise to tackle social security and all the entitlements, look it up, this is exactly where John Boehner started to lose his power in Congress, look it up, He and Obama was about to strike the "Grand Bargain" and Republicans lost their minds at the planned compromise...It would have cut 4 trillion in debt over 10 years but they didn't want to give Obama the victory, they balked, LOOK IT UP MAN!!!!!..The reason you know it was a good deal was that Democrats were upset at Obama for striking such a deal...LOOK IT UP!!!..I'll help...

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:Answering Point 1. Obama walked in the doors of the white house with 10.5 trillion in debt on hand, this is before the recession and the banking crisis impact. agreed??..After the recession, which we can all credit Bush with, the debt skyrockets to 15+ trillion dollars, agreed???..So with War, spending, and economic conditions Obama added 4 trillion dollars, agreed???..So in 8 years, with Wars he didn't start, he spent 4 trillion to Bush's 15 trillion, agreed???..The recession/crash ended in 2013, I credited that to Bush, It's only fair...
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/debt-under-obama-8000000000000

On Jan. 20, 2009, when Obama was inaugurated, the total debt of the federal government was $10,626,877,048,913.08. On Nov. 23, 2015, it was $18,722,746,583,118.03 Thus, so far in Obama’s presidency, the federal debt has increased $8,095,869,534,204.95.



I'll find where 4+ trillion more was added because of the recession...Gotta hop, I'll be back...

Answering point 2. Obama saved the Auto industry when most Republicans were against it???..Did you forget???Obama helped prevent a global depression, were you not paying attention???..So he was a little busy saving the global economy when you ate trying to compare him to Trump save 1000 jobs at the same time after winning....
Under Obama 15 million jobs were created...Trump has 14.999 million to go...Not counting the saving of Auto and Banking jobs...

Answering 3..So read what you posted about what Quantitative Easing does and you will realize it was to help stimulate the economy because lowering interest further wasn't an option and was not intended to fund the banks as you suggested...

Answering 4. Congressional Republicans didn't want to work with Obama to address these issues...Look it up...They didn't want to agree to a compromise to tackle social security and all the entitlements, look it up, this is exactly where John Boehner started to lose his power in Congress, look it up, He and Obama was about to strike the "Grand Bargain" and Republicans lost their minds at the planned comprimise...It would have cut 4 trillion in debt over 10 years but they didn't want to give Obama the victory, they balked, LOOK IT UP MAN!!!!!..The reason you know it was a good deal was that Democrats were upset at Obama for striking such a deal...LOOK IT UP!!!..I'll help...

What are we arguing here? How bad Obama was to the debt or just the official number? Different sites list different figures, but for the sake of argument, I'll agree with your numbers and say they are scary terrible.

Obama increased the debt from 10 TRILLION to app. 18.7 TRILLION in 8 years?
From your article:

The total federal debt, which was $18,722,746,583,118.03 at the close of business on Monday, now equals about $159,007 per household.
It has increased approximately $68,756 per household during Obama’s presidency.

How is that even possible? In 8 years every American was "taxed" around $8,600 per year? That is insane. 320 million people or so.

Unbelievable, good company too. (Bush)

It took the United States, which declared independence in 1776, 229 years to accumulate its first $8,000,000,000,000 in federal debt—with the debt first surpassing that level in October 2005.

nixluva wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:Answering Point 1. Obama walked in the doors of the white house with 10.5 trillion in debt on hand, this is before the recession and the banking crisis impact. agreed??..After the recession, which we can all credit Bush with, the debt skyrockets to 15+ trillion dollars, agreed???..So with War, spending, and economic conditions Obama added 4 trillion dollars, agreed???..So in 8 years, with Wars he didn't start, he spent 4 trillion to Bush's 15 trillion, agreed???..The recession/crash ended in 2013, I credited that to Bush, It's only fair...
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/debt-under-obama-8000000000000

On Jan. 20, 2009, when Obama was inaugurated, the total debt of the federal government was $10,626,877,048,913.08. On Nov. 23, 2015, it was $18,722,746,583,118.03 Thus, so far in Obama’s presidency, the federal debt has increased $8,095,869,534,204.95.



I'll find where 4+ trillion more was added because of the recession...Gotta hop, I'll be back...

Answering point 2. Obama saved the Auto industry when most Republicans were against it???..Did you forget???Obama helped prevent a global depression, were you not paying attention???..So he was a little busy saving the global economy when you ate trying to compare him to Trump save 1000 jobs at the same time after winning....
Under Obama 15 million jobs were created...Trump has 14.999 million to go...Not counting the saving of Auto and Banking jobs...

Answering 3..So read what you posted about what Quantitative Easing does and you will realize it was to help stimulate the economy because lowering interest further wasn't an option and was not intended to fund the banks as you suggested...

Answering 4. Congressional Republicans didn't want to work with Obama to address these issues...Look it up...They didn't want to agree to a compromise to tackle social security and all the entitlements, look it up, this is exactly where John Boehner started to lose his power in Congress, look it up, He and Obama was about to strike the "Grand Bargain" and Republicans lost their minds at the planned comprimise...It would have cut 4 trillion in debt over 10 years but they didn't want to give Obama the victory, they balked, LOOK IT UP MAN!!!!!..The reason you know it was a good deal was that Democrats were upset at Obama for striking such a deal...LOOK IT UP!!!..I'll help...

What are we arguing here? How bad Obama was to the debt or just the official number? Different sites list different figures, but for the sake of argument, I'll agree with your numbers and say they are scary terrible.

Obama increased the debt from 10 TRILLION to app. 18.7 TRILLION in 8 years?
From your article:

The total federal debt, which was $18,722,746,583,118.03 at the close of business on Monday, now equals about $159,007 per household.
It has increased approximately $68,756 per household during Obama’s presidency.

How is that even possible? In 8 years every American was "taxed" around $8,600 per year? That is insane. 320 million people or so.

Unbelievable, good company too. (Bush)

It took the United States, which declared independence in 1776, 229 years to accumulate its first $8,000,000,000,000 in federal debt—with the debt first surpassing that level in October 2005.

The 8 trillion under Obama includes the recession and wars he inherited from Bush..I'll get those figures for you but I know you know that...But it's about 4 trillion...From 2001-2010 the wars cost 1.1 trillion...Up to day the wars cost 4.8 trillion..So 3.7 trillion of Obama's debt is Bush's war debt...
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22926.pdf
Cost of wars until 2010 in this document...^^^^^
The United States federal government has spent or obligated 4.8 trillion dollars on the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. This figure includes: direct Congressional war appropriations; war-related increases to the Pentagon base budget; veterans care and disability; increases in the homeland security budget; interest payments on direct war borrowing; foreign assistance spending; and estimated future obligations for veterans’ care.

http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/economic

8 trillion- 3.7 trillion = 4.3 trillion of Obama blame for debt so far...

Don't worry cost of the recession comes...

You're doing a GREAT JOB but I'm afraid you're wasting your time!!! The truth is there for anyone who seriously wants to know but not everyone is serious about FACTS or TRUTH.

People that so quickly forget how we got so messed up have just repeated the same dumb mistake cuz they didn't learn the last lesson.

They left Obama with the WORST set of conditions and after he stabilized things they went right back to the Republicans who TRASHED things. Just like they did after Bill Clinton left Bush with a Surplus!!!