BoatShoes;1257835 wrote:Here we go; Gut the "Fiscal Hawk" derides Barack Obama's proposal to cut $4 trillion from the debt over the next decade (which was stonewalled by Paul Ryan) because it's not enough. Then, Gut the "Fiscal Hawk" praises Paul Ryan who proposed a plan that will add $5 trillion to the debt of the next decade. :laugh:

Obama also said that Obamacare would lower the deficit.

If Obama's budget was so good please explain why not even 1 single democrat in the Senate voted FOR it? Zero votes.

jmog;1257895 wrote:Obama also said that Obamacare would lower the deficit.

If Obama's budget was so good please explain why not even 1 single democrat in the Senate voted FOR it? Zero votes.

Because the Democratic sages knew Obama the "deficit hawk" wasn't spending enough. Duh!!!!!

So let me get this straight - I'm supposed to be impressed that Barry is going to cut a portion of the debt that he created?

queencitybuckeye;1257908 wrote:So let me get this straight - I'm supposed to be impressed that Barry is going to cut a portion of the debt that he created?

Add an extra $10T in debt the next decade, then claim you offered to cut $4T and call yourself a budget hawk. How is that not impressive?

gut;1257918 wrote:Add an extra $10T in debt the next decade, then claim you offered to cut $4T and call yourself a budget hawk. How is that not impressive?

It's impressive to those who would claim that the economy is healthy because there are people still willing to lend us even more money.

queencitybuckeye;1257922 wrote:It's impressive to those who would claim that the economy is healthy because there are people still willing to lend us even more money.

Well, he could have submitted a budget for $100B, then blamed Congress for not implementing his plan to create a $2.5T surplus. I do wonder, however, if that might not have gotten more votes (I'm looking at you, Ron Paul) than what he actually did submit.

derek bomar;1257821 wrote:quaker, sometimes I read what you type and I can't tell if you're the greatest troll of all time or an insane person. kudos either way

Thanks; and have a great weekend. Looking forward to some beers!

Funny thing is, I used to be a believer in Keysian economics. But I see now it has limits. I've looked at the data and changed my position. To be fair, we've never practiced the surplus side of Keynesian economics. But that is PRECISELY why it is failing now. This should be so obvious, and it's why more spending isn't going to work. It's so obvious that the more crap you pile on the plate, the more people that leave the table. That's why there's no multiplier benefit.

Well said.

jmog;1257895 wrote:Obama also said that Obamacare would lower the deficit.

If that were true, why would he have to raid medicare for $780 billion?

Only in the liberal beltway world can utter foolishness reign supreme, and escape scrutiny. Imagine the outrageous outcry if President Bush had raided medicare of $780 billion; he would have been villified into resignation. But when you're a liberal democrat (or worse), it's different.

BoatShoes;1257816 wrote:Neat that you continue to play with the truth as much as Paul Ryan did last night.
.

I don't know if stating the truth equates to "playing with the truth", but it is apparent that the truth hurts, to some.

For review purposes, and for those who are puppeting the liberal media morning line, here it is again: the video highlights, and the written transcript in its entirety.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb4k97ARHpM

http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2012/aug/30/transcript-of-rep-paul-ryans-speech-at-rnc-ar-478270/



Enjoy and good luck.

QuakerOats;1257952 wrote:If that were true, why would he have to raid medicare for $780 billion?

.

Answer : To pay for the 2.2 trillion iin Bush era tax cuts.

Devils Advocate;1257959 wrote:Answer : To pay for the 2.2 trillion iin Bush era tax cuts.

He's already had 2 chances to let them expire.

Devils Advocate;1257959 wrote:Answer : To pay for the 2.2 trillion iin Bush era tax cuts.

Yes, eyes on the prize. Pay no attention to how we will pay for the $6 TRILLION in new debt Obama has created.

Devils Advocate;1257959 wrote:Answer : To pay for the 2.2 trillion iin Bush era tax cuts.

He could have ended them with a vote in both houses and his signature any time in the two years he had total control of the government.

fish82;1257969 wrote:He's already had 2 chances to let them expire.

He's kicked that can down the road just past November.

Must be fun to golf with Obama..."might I suggest you improve your lie, sir"

Devils Advocate;1257959 wrote:Answer : To pay for the 2.2 trillion iin Bush era tax cuts.

Funny, except tax revenues were $670 billion higher in '08, than before the marginal rate cuts, a 36% increase in revenues to the treasury! As always, marginal rate cuts generate incremental economic activity which results in higher tax revenues. Why, oh why, do we have to keep discussing and relaying these facts when they are quite readily available in myriad spreadsheets, such as the White House's own: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z1.xls

For those of you who are claiming that the President is screwed and cant win...answer me this-


WHY IS HE STILL LEADING IN 95 PERCENT OF NATIONAL POLLS AND STILL HAS LEADS IN FLORIDA,OHIO AND VIRGINIA?

Because those states (and 54 others according to your guy) are full of dullards.

Like you.

Instead of calling Obama supporters names.....Romney/Ryan and their supporters may wanna start talking to African American and Latino voters because if the latest poll to come out about them is true Romney had no chance in hell of winning

Ty Webb;1257988 wrote:For those of you who are claiming that the President is screwed and cant win...answer me this-


WHY IS HE STILL LEADING IN 95 PERCENT OF NATIONAL POLLS AND STILL HAS LEADS IN FLORIDA,OHIO AND VIRGINIA?

He's not leading in 95% of the national polls. He's leading in maybe 75% of them, and every single one is 1-2 points and well within the MOE. Latest polls in FL/OH/VA are essentially tied, and MI/WI have moved from solid blue to toss-up.

It's anyone's ballgame. That much is certain.

What, like two months ago Romney "had no chance" trailing by 10 pts or more in many polls? Fast forward and it's basically a dead heat within the margin of error, and now he gets to unleash all those campaign funds.

I guarantee Romney likes where he's at right now, and Obama doesn't.

QuakerOats;1257984 wrote:Funny, except tax revenues were $670 billion higher in '08, than before the marginal rate cuts, a 36% increase in revenues to the treasury! As always, marginal rate cuts generate incremental economic activity which results in higher tax revenues. Why, oh why, do we have to keep discussing and relaying these facts when they are quite readily available in myriad spreadsheets, such as the White House's own: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z1.xls

I answered your question and yet again ( go figure ) you divert attention some where else. Do youthink that the huge deficit increases appeared out of nowhere On Jan. 21 2008?

You yell your diatribe over and over again and yet you refuse to acknowledge that the BHO regime ( oneof your favorite terms) continued on the path that the King George the 2nd. created.

That path included exponentially increasing Government via Homeland Security and Medicare Part B and two wars all while giving out unprecidented tax cuts.

Until you accept that BHO's agenda is an extention of GWB's you lack all credibility. You unwillingness to accept any liability for your own parties flaws only adds to your already described Talibashed reputation.

You tone is representative of many on the far right and is in itself as much responsible for the mess that we are in as those on the far left.

Until there is common ground between the two factions, I will agree with you on only one point.

The sky is falling...

gut;1258034 wrote:What, like two months ago Romney "had no chance" trailing by 10 pts or more in many polls? Fast forward and it's basically a dead heat within the margin of error, and now he gets to unleash all those campaign funds.

I guarantee Romney likes where he's at right now, and Obama doesn't.

According to fivethirtyeight.com Romney only has a 29.8 percent chance of winning and RealClearPolitics only gives him a 32.3 percent chance of winning.

So who really likes where they are?

Ty Webb;1258045 wrote:According to fivethirtyeight.com Romney only has a 29.8 percent chance of winning and RealClearPolitics only gives him a 32.3 percent chance of winning.

So who really likes where they are?

LOL at extrapolations on polls that are a deadheat within the margin of error.

If Obama doesn't reverse the trend, the election isn't even going to be that close. Like I said, look how much ground he's lost before Romney even got the official nomination. Many voters still don't know Romney or Paul outside of the attack ads Obama has been spamming the last few months. They'll only continue gaining momentum unless Obama finds a gay hispanic goose that shi.ts gold.

Ty Webb;1258045 wrote:According to fivethirtyeight.com Romney only has a 29.8 percent chance of winning and RealClearPolitics only gives him a 32.3 percent chance of winning.

So who really likes where they are?

These guys are always right -

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/08/22/analysis-election-factors-points-romney-win-university-colorado-study-says

obama will get buried based on his current polling for an incumbent.