My crap -- not your crap. It might be political, social, or personal. If you don't like it, leave. Comment if you want. I might reply or I might not, but I do read them.
Facts do not matter to Right-Wingers. All that Republicans need do is put on a Kabkui performance wherein they decry his "1937 european socialism" and proclaim themselves the pro-science, that they will "Repair the Social Safety Net", and the Real Americans!And the duped and battered conservative voter will continue to vote for the Rick Perry's Michele Bachmann's Chuck Grassley's, Joe Barton's who apologize to BP and to other giant Corporate Criminals and Welfare recepients while they steal Billions of Tax payer dollars and the American people are reduced to penury and wage slavery.
My conclusion is that that a skilled chartest can support any argument. Thank you in advance for allowing me my own conclusion, sir.
With the proper manipulation of numbers and charts, you can rule the world
Socialism has never worked!(I'm getting ready to audition for Fox News.)
That chart seems to show the current administration is further increasing the debt.First it was blame Bush, than blame the GOP, now blame the rich. His plans to have more people on extended unemployment and use less gasoline is working. Now he needs to admit his real target is to destroy middle class so they will be on the public payroll.
You've figured it all out. President Obama desires and actively works to "destroy [the] middle class so they will be on the public payroll." It's a brilliant plan! Fortunately, we have people like you to reveal such conspiracies. Just don't let Obama find out that you're on to him, otherwise he might personally silence you. And remember: his spies are everywhere!
So much for conservative Republicans having exclusive rights to the mantle of fiscal responsibility. Conservative Republicans, as in those who supported their beloved W until doing so became an unacceptable political liability, long about late 2007.That helps explain why the GOP's traveling clowns mentioned Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy more than George W. Bush during the primary follies.
Hi Jerry... fun seeing you again!
SW hope you can keep a secret, W lost. It seems the democrats are going to run against him again but he did lose and Obama did win. Now Obama has to run on his record and that is not a good thing for him.He will try to pin it on the GOP but keep in mind, he had free reign for two years and couldn't get a thing done, except spend a trillion for no permanent jobs, buy a bunch of junker cars, sell off a car company and several brands and give half to the unions.He has been successful in having 4 years of 8+% unemployment, having the US credit rating reduced, bolster oil exploration in Brazil, force people out of work in the oil industry, cause the price of gas to high levels, spend hundreds of millions of solar power to pay off campaign contributors. Yep he is someone you should be proud of.
Sku, Aside from the other nonsense you listed, the credit rating getting reduced was not attributable to Obama, not by reason and not even by the people who reduced it. That specific conservative lie is a pet peeve of mine.
Also Skud, your memory isn't so good. Obama's opponent was McCain, not W.
Jerry,His ballot opponent was McCain but he ran against W. Even though Obama is a firm believer in the buck passes his desk and never stops, he was the man in charge when the rating was lowered so that makes it his. He takes credit for what has gone right, if only something has, so he has to take credit for something that has gone wrong.
On that basis, McCain ran against W also, and this season's crop of republicans won't even mention W. he is an embarrassment to the republican party.
Totally agree Jerry.
The amount of money that's been squandered on the Iraq War and Afghanistan mission-creep is now officially incalculable. And the fact that Mr. Romney has yet to adequately put forth a coherent foreign policy message (and, yes, of how/if his administration would differ from the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld administration) is probably reason alone to reject him.
So, for someone like me who was very unhappy with Republican spending during the Bush years, all I see in your chart is that Obama is part of the problem and making things worse when he promised to reduce deficits and balance the federal budget.
Okay, one more objection Jerry, since I know you're interested in facts. The tax cuts that Bush signed into law expired on December 31, 2010. As you know, Obama reauthorized them, so the cost of those tax cuts in 2011 are on Obama.It's also worth noting that Bush signed the status of forces agreement that had us leave Iraq by the end of 2011 (even though Obama took credit for it), so he would also get credit for that. Of course, that doesn't show up on this chart, but would make a difference in 2012.
And I think it's worth noting that Obama did not want to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy. He compromised in order to pass an extension for unemployment benefits and other assistance. Therefore, we should hold Republicans (though not Bush) responsible for part of the tax cut extension and thus part of the resulting deficit.
And using your same loosie goosie logic, Clinton could have killed Osama Bin Laden back in 1998 and thereby could have prevented 9-11 and the Afhganistan War. So the cost of that War lies with the Democrats. And George W Bush requested permission to use force in Iraq and could have never gone in without bi-partisan support, so split that cost with the DemocRATS. Also, tax revenue was decreasing 3 straight years with the Clinton tax policy in 2001, 2002, and 2003. Bush tax "cuts" actually increased tax "revenue" for 4 straight years in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. The $3 trillion cost of Bush tax cuts is completely bogus. Liberals trying to make excuses for themselves. So silly.
Heathen,I think the 2011 tax cut cost is included in Obama's share. See the blue chart in the lower right hand corner. It includes 250 billion in tax cuts.
I doubt it. Obama likes to brag about his own tax cuts, which are mostly payroll tax cuts, so his number would be different (and smaller). Plus, Bush's tax cuts make up almost half of his total, which looks 10-15x the size of Obama's "tax cuts."It's always hard to tell if there isn't a link to the source data.
Jerry,I'd have a little more confidence in your numbers if you first got the date right!Do you think there will ever be a national budget with Obama in charge?Do you have any charts on California's budget? We here in the east are ready for CA to slide in the ocean thanks to the progressives in charge.
The government cannot operate without a budget. Remember the threatened government shutdown? Just for you, Just My Two Cents, here are some links. You can read about it yourself and learn something. I've even included one from FOXNews so you know it must be true. They wouldn't lie to you.The 2010 Budgetthe 2011 BudgetThe 2012 Budget
You make some good points Jerry! We don't have any state budget problems in CA.
I say lets just spend and worry about the bill later. Our children will just have to figure it out. No skin off my ass.
Jerry, keep informing. Thank you.
"Critter's Crap" has been included in the Sites To See for this week. I hope this helps to attract many new visitors here.http://thetribulationtimesherald-exhorter.blogspot.com/
Sadly what else the charts show is that the stimulus was too small. Thanks GOP assholes!
People can't have it both ways...increase tax breaks for the rich and bring the economy back. Bush's tax breaks did nothing for the economy except make the rich richer..and they didn't create shit for jobs either. Oh and increase the damn defense budget too..unless we go with the GOP and take from the poor to give to the defense dept. Yeah, that will work.
You are a Peace Patroller, also known as an anti-war liberal or neo-hippie. You believe in putting an end to American imperial conquest, stopping wars that have already been lost, and supporting our troops by bringing them home.
Take the quiz at www.FightConservatives.com