Proof! President Obama Will Win 2012

[westend1]

[quote name="stevenash" post="1060108" timestamp="1316386217"]
How convenient that you can change your answer.  Part of my comments were opinions( for which there is no such thing as factually incorrect- as for the specific numbers I gave, they are on the record and available to anyone) I gave specific numbers on inflation in the Carter- Reagan years and some sales numbers for Solyndra.  Quite anxious to find out the fallacy in what I offered in that respect.
[/quote]  You clearly have no understanding of the Carter years.  He choked the economy to stave off inflation which had been building for many years.  Look it up. 

[77]

If this was anybody in office besides Obama rep. or dem. these people taking up for him would be all over their butt. You cant defend things they are doing no matter how you spin it, this deal with Solyndra company cant be defended the emails from the doe saying they would go broke in sept. and they gave them the money anyway. This has gotten beyond ridiculous. The media has invested to much into this admin. to report the way it should be reported. I guess I'am just a racist because I dont like any of his policies. Nothing they have done since they have been their has helped.

[westend1]

[quote name="77" post="1060218" timestamp="1316393212"]
If this was anybody in office besides Obama rep. or dem. these people taking up for him would be all over their butt. You cant defend things they are doing no matter how you spin it, this deal with Solyndra company cant be defended the emails from the doe saying they would go broke in sept. and they gave them the money anyway. This has gotten beyond ridiculous. The media has invested to much into this admin. to report the way it should be reported. I guess I'am just a racist because I dont like any of his policies. Nothing they have done since they have been their has helped [b]repair the damage done by the prior administration.[/b]
[/quote]  Fixed it for you. 

[stevenash]

[quote name="westend1" post="1060188" timestamp="1316391166"]
[quote author=stevenash link=topic=87540.msg1060108#msg1060108 date=1316386217]
How convenient that you can change your answer.  Part of my comments were opinions( for which there is no such thing as factually incorrect- as for the specific numbers I gave, they are on the record and available to anyone) I gave specific numbers on inflation in the Carter- Reagan years and some sales numbers for Solyndra.  Quite anxious to find out the fallacy in what I offered in that respect.
[/quote]  You clearly have no understanding of the Carter years.  He choked the economy to stave off inflation which had been building for many years.  Look it up.
[/quote]

Dont need to look it up.    You could say I have a better than average  understanding of inflation because my employment demands it.  But I understand your spin.  Its not much different than " its Bush's fault".  Its a FACT that inflation was at its worst during the Carter presidency(that is undeniable), so if what you say is true, his method in fighting inflation was as counter-productive  as Obamas effort to spur the economy.  Furthermore, the market (in this case, the election market) did not accept your theory and thus awarded Carter a one term presidency. 

[stevenash]

[quote name="westend1" post="1060226" timestamp="1316393956"]
[quote author=77 link=topic=87540.msg1060218#msg1060218 date=1316393212]
If this was anybody in office besides Obama rep. or dem. these people taking up for him would be all over their butt. You cant defend things they are doing no matter how you spin it, this deal with Solyndra company cant be defended the emails from the doe saying they would go broke in sept. and they gave them the money anyway. This has gotten beyond ridiculous. The media has invested to much into this admin. to report the way it should be reported. I guess I'am just a racist because I dont like any of his policies. Nothing they have done since they have been their has helped [b]repair the damage done by the prior administration.[/b]
[/quote]  Fixed it for you.
[/quote]

Translation- It's Bush's fault    YADA YADA YADA

[westend1]

[quote name="stevenash" post="1060228" timestamp="1316394110"]
[quote author=westend1 link=topic=87540.msg1060188#msg1060188 date=1316391166]
[quote author=stevenash link=topic=87540.msg1060108#msg1060108 date=1316386217]
How convenient that you can change your answer.  Part of my comments were opinions( for which there is no such thing as factually incorrect- as for the specific numbers I gave, they are on the record and available to anyone) I gave specific numbers on inflation in the Carter- Reagan years and some sales numbers for Solyndra.  Quite anxious to find out the fallacy in what I offered in that respect.
[/quote]  You clearly have no understanding of the Carter years.  He choked the economy to stave off inflation which had been building for many years.  Look it up.
[/quote]

Dont need to look it up.    You could say I have a better than average  understanding of inflation because my employment demands it.  But I understand your spin.  Its not much different than " its Bush's fault".  Its a FACT that inflation was at its worst during the Carter presidency(that is undeniable), so if what you say is true, his method in fighting inflation was as counter-productive  as Obamas effort to spur the economy.  Furthermore, the market (in this case, the election market) did not accept your theory and thus awarded Carter a one term presidency.
[/quote]  Yeah, the "election market"  doesn't(didn't) have the same understanding of the situation as i do.  Frankly, I didn't either at the time.  But you go right ahead and believe that popular votes are some kind of indication about the reason for performance of the economy.

[stevenash]

[quote name="westend1" post="1060236" timestamp="1316394390"]
[quote author=stevenash link=topic=87540.msg1060228#msg1060228 date=1316394110]
[quote author=westend1 link=topic=87540.msg1060188#msg1060188 date=1316391166]
[quote author=stevenash link=topic=87540.msg1060108#msg1060108 date=1316386217]
How convenient that you can change your answer.  Part of my comments were opinions( for which there is no such thing as factually incorrect- as for the specific numbers I gave, they are on the record and available to anyone) I gave specific numbers on inflation in the Carter- Reagan years and some sales numbers for Solyndra.  Quite anxious to find out the fallacy in what I offered in that respect.
[/quote]  You clearly have no understanding of the Carter years.  He choked the economy to stave off inflation which had been building for many years.  Look it up.
[/quote]

Dont need to look it up.    You could say I have a better than average  understanding of inflation because my employment demands it.  But I understand your spin.  Its not much different than " its Bush's fault".  Its a FACT that inflation was at its worst during the Carter presidency(that is undeniable), so if what you say is true, his method in fighting inflation was as counter-productive  as Obamas effort to spur the economy.  Furthermore, the market (in this case, the election market) did not accept your theory and thus awarded Carter a one term presidency.
[/quote]  Yeah, the "election market"  doesn't(didn't) have the same understanding of the situation as i do.  Frankly, I didn't either at the time.  But you go right ahead and believe that popular votes are some kind of indication about the reason for performance of the economy.
[/quote]

Let me see if I understand you correctly.  Your understanding of the "situation" during the Carter years is superior to that of the collective wisdom of the entire voting body of this country.  Don't you think that might be overstating things just a wee tiny little bit?

Yes, I will continue to believe the following undeniable fact(s)

For the ten year period before Mr. Carter took office, the average annual inflation rate was 5.86%

During Mr. Carters four years, the average annual inflation rate was 9.73%

For the ten year period after Mr. Carter left office, the annual average inflation rate was 4.74%

Mental giantry is not needed in order to draw conclusions on which approaches worked and which did not.

[77]

[quote name="westend1" post="1060226" timestamp="1316393956"]
[quote author=77 link=topic=87540.msg1060218#msg1060218 date=1316393212]
If this was anybody in office besides Obama rep. or dem. these people taking up for him would be all over their butt. You cant defend things they are doing no matter how you spin it, this deal with Solyndra company cant be defended the emails from the doe saying they would go broke in sept. and they gave them the money anyway. This has gotten beyond ridiculous. The media has invested to much into this admin. to report the way it should be reported. I guess I'am just a racist because I dont like any of his policies. Nothing they have done since they have been their has helped [b]repair the damage done by the prior administration.[/b]
[/quote]  Fixed it for you.
[/quote]I agree the last admin.stunk it up too. What they are doing is not helping anyone oh wait yes you can have your kids on your ins. till their 26. They are blowing thru our money quicker than any other ever have, more people on food stamps out of work out of thier house and cant afford anything, so if thats fixin it I guess I,am just wrong...Cloward & Pevin read it and I guess we will wait and see!

[stevenash]

Any "damage done by the prior administration" over an 8 year period is minimal relative to whats been done in the last 2.5 years.  All of the imcompetence, lack of financial knowledge, experience, etc is definitely the fault of Bush.

[westend1]

[quote name="77" post="1060281" timestamp="1316398445"]
[quote author=westend1 link=topic=87540.msg1060226#msg1060226 date=1316393956]
[quote author=77 link=topic=87540.msg1060218#msg1060218 date=1316393212]
If this was anybody in office besides Obama rep. or dem. these people taking up for him would be all over their butt. You cant defend things they are doing no matter how you spin it, this deal with Solyndra company cant be defended the emails from the doe saying they would go broke in sept. and they gave them the money anyway. This has gotten beyond ridiculous. The media has invested to much into this admin. to report the way it should be reported. I guess I'am just a racist because I dont like any of his policies. Nothing they have done since they have been their has helped [b]repair the damage done by the prior administration.[/b]
[/quote]  Fixed it for you.
[/quote]I agree the last admin.stunk it up too. What they are doing is not helping anyone oh wait yes you can have your kids on your ins. till their 26. They are blowing thru our money quicker than any other ever have, more people on food stamps out of work out of thier house and cant afford anything, so if thats fixin it I guess I,am just wrong...Cloward & Pevin read it and I guess we will wait and see!
[/quote]

77.  Nobody knows who Cloward and Pevin were.  How many more posts do we have to endure about a couple of people nobody ever heard of?  Is this all you can come up with?

[westend1]

[quote name="stevenash" post="1060260" timestamp="1316396857"]
[quote author=westend1 link=topic=87540.msg1060236#msg1060236 date=1316394390]
[quote author=stevenash link=topic=87540.msg1060228#msg1060228 date=1316394110]
[quote author=westend1 link=topic=87540.msg1060188#msg1060188 date=1316391166]
[quote author=stevenash link=topic=87540.msg1060108#msg1060108 date=1316386217]
How convenient that you can change your answer.  Part of my comments were opinions( for which there is no such thing as factually incorrect- as for the specific numbers I gave, they are on the record and available to anyone) I gave specific numbers on inflation in the Carter- Reagan years and some sales numbers for Solyndra.  Quite anxious to find out the fallacy in what I offered in that respect.
[/quote]  You clearly have no understanding of the Carter years.  He choked the economy to stave off inflation which had been building for many years.  Look it up.
[/quote]

Dont need to look it up.    You could say I have a better than average  understanding of inflation because my employment demands it.  But I understand your spin.  Its not much different than " its Bush's fault".  Its a FACT that inflation was at its worst during the Carter presidency(that is undeniable), so if what you say is true, his method in fighting inflation was as counter-productive  as Obamas effort to spur the economy.  Furthermore, the market (in this case, the election market) did not accept your theory and thus awarded Carter a one term presidency.
[/quote]  Yeah, the "election market"  doesn't(didn't) have the same understanding of the situation as i do.  Frankly, I didn't either at the time.  But you go right ahead and believe that popular votes are some kind of indication about the reason for performance of the economy.
[/quote]

Let me see if I understand you correctly.  Your understanding of the "situation" during the Carter years is superior to that of the collective wisdom of the entire voting body of this country.  Don't you think that might be overstating things just a wee tiny little bit?

Yes, I will continue to believe the following undeniable fact(s)

For the ten year period before Mr. Carter took office, the average annual inflation rate was 5.86%

During Mr. Carters four years, the average annual inflation rate was 9.73%

For the ten year period after Mr. Carter left office, the annual average inflation rate was 4.74%

Mental giantry is not needed in order to draw conclusions on which approaches worked and which did not.
[/quote]  Yeah.  You don't need to understand what happened to know what you think happened.  Have I phrased that as you see it?

[tvc184]

It's Piven, not Pevin.  ;D

[LumRaiderFan]

[quote name="westend1" post="1060320" timestamp="1316400904"]
[quote author=77 link=topic=87540.msg1060281#msg1060281 date=1316398445]
[quote author=westend1 link=topic=87540.msg1060226#msg1060226 date=1316393956]
[quote author=77 link=topic=87540.msg1060218#msg1060218 date=1316393212]
If this was anybody in office besides Obama rep. or dem. these people taking up for him would be all over their butt. You cant defend things they are doing no matter how you spin it, this deal with Solyndra company cant be defended the emails from the doe saying they would go broke in sept. and they gave them the money anyway. This has gotten beyond ridiculous. The media has invested to much into this admin. to report the way it should be reported. I guess I'am just a racist because I dont like any of his policies. Nothing they have done since they have been their has helped [b]repair the damage done by the prior administration.[/b]
[/quote]  Fixed it for you.
[/quote]I agree the last admin.stunk it up too. What they are doing is not helping anyone oh wait yes you can have your kids on your ins. till their 26. They are blowing thru our money quicker than any other ever have, more people on food stamps out of work out of thier house and cant afford anything, so if thats fixin it I guess I,am just wrong...Cloward & Pevin read it and I guess we will wait and see!
[/quote]

77.  Nobody knows who Cloward and Pevin were.  How many more posts do we have to endure about a couple of people nobody ever heard of?  Is this all you can come up with?
[/quote]

Cloward–Piven strategy  ....I've heard of  them...look it up!

[tvc184]

I didn't know about their strategy but I figured it out. All along I believed that Obama and the Dems idea with health care was to get everyone forced to be on it and once we are all on it, we can't go back.

The Cloward-Piven strategy is based roughly on the same thing. Get everyone stuck on the government dime and then no one can get off of it. Of course it will eventually collapse when no one wants to be the provider when everyone is treated the same. It takes the free enterprise system out of it.

[stevenash]

[quote name="westend1" post="1060326" timestamp="1316401048"]
[quote author=stevenash link=topic=87540.msg1060260#msg1060260 date=1316396857]
[quote author=westend1 link=topic=87540.msg1060236#msg1060236 date=1316394390]
[quote author=stevenash link=topic=87540.msg1060228#msg1060228 date=1316394110]
[quote author=westend1 link=topic=87540.msg1060188#msg1060188 date=1316391166]
[quote author=stevenash link=topic=87540.msg1060108#msg1060108 date=1316386217]
How convenient that you can change your answer.  Part of my comments were opinions( for which there is no such thing as factually incorrect- as for the specific numbers I gave, they are on the record and available to anyone) I gave specific numbers on inflation in the Carter- Reagan years and some sales numbers for Solyndra.  Quite anxious to find out the fallacy in what I offered in that respect.
[/quote]  You clearly have no understanding of the Carter years.  He choked the economy to stave off inflation which had been building for many years.  Look it up.
[/quote]

Dont need to look it up.    You could say I have a better than average  understanding of inflation because my employment demands it.  But I understand your spin.  Its not much different than " its Bush's fault".  Its a FACT that inflation was at its worst during the Carter presidency(that is undeniable), so if what you say is true, his method in fighting inflation was as counter-productive  as Obamas effort to spur the economy.  Furthermore, the market (in this case, the election market) did not accept your theory and thus awarded Carter a one term presidency.
[/quote]  Yeah, the "election market"  doesn't(didn't) have the same understanding of the situation as i do.  Frankly, I didn't either at the time.  But you go right ahead and believe that popular votes are some kind of indication about the reason for performance of the economy.
[/quote]

Let me see if I understand you correctly.  Your understanding of the "situation" during the Carter years is superior to that of the collective wisdom of the entire voting body of this country.  Don't you think that might be overstating things just a wee tiny little bit?

Yes, I will continue to believe the following undeniable fact(s)

For the ten year period before Mr. Carter took office, the average annual inflation rate was 5.86%

During Mr. Carters four years, the average annual inflation rate was 9.73%

For the ten year period after Mr. Carter left office, the annual average inflation rate was 4.74%

Mental giantry is not needed in order to draw conclusions on which approaches worked and which did not.
[/quote]  Yeah.  You don't need to understand what happened to know what you think happened.  Have I phrased that as you see it?
[/quote]

The numbers are facts whether you wish to acknowledge or not.  To nearly double the average of the prior ten years is NOT, I repeat, NOT effective management of the problem REGARDLESS of the origin of the problem.  Your contention is that I am wrong, the entire national voting population was wrong in 1980, but you are right because only you properly "understand" the aformentioned issue better?  Sorry, but I am having a hard time understanding why your conversance with this issue trumps both me and the 1980 electorate.

[77]

[quote name="tvc184" post="1060346" timestamp="1316402134"]
I didn't know about their strategy but I figured it out. All along I believed that Obama and the Dems idea with health care was to get everyone forced to be on it and once we are all on it, we can't go back.

The Cloward-Piven strategy is based roughly on the same thing. Get everyone stuck on the government dime and then no one can get off of it. Of course it will eventually collapse when no one wants to be the provider when everyone is treated the same. It takes the free enterprise system out of it.
[/quote]I guess people have heard of it!

[True Blue]

On paper, President Bush added a total of $5.07 trillion to the debt and President Obama will add $1.44 trillion. However, approximately $1.14 of the latter figure is as a result of President Bush’s mismanagement of the economy. In other words, the real numbers should be $6.21 trillion of additional spending by President Bush and only $0.3 trillion by President Obama. If you add in the $126 billion in savings that President Obama will make on defense spending, he will only be responsible for about $0.17 trillion of new spending, about 4% of what President Bush was responsible for. As the total national debt is around $14.7 trillion, President Bush singlehandedly created almost half of it!

[stevenash]

[quote name="True Blue" post="1065809" timestamp="1316964964"]
On paper, President Bush added a total of $5.07 trillion to the debt and President Obama will add $1.44 trillion. However, approximately $1.14 of the latter figure is as a result of President Bush’s mismanagement of the economy. In other words, the real numbers should be $6.21 trillion of additional spending by President Bush and only $0.3 trillion by President Obama. If you add in the $126 billion in savings that President Obama will make on defense spending, he will only be responsible for about $0.17 trillion of new spending, about 4% of what President Bush was responsible for. As the total national debt is around $14.7 trillion, President Bush singlehandedly created almost half of it!
[/quote]

Blue, I am imagining that not everybody is going to accept your numbers as the gospel

[True Blue]

[quote name="stevenash" post="1065849" timestamp="1316967840"]
[quote author=True Blue link=topic=87540.msg1065809#msg1065809 date=1316964964]
On paper, President Bush added a total of $5.07 trillion to the debt and President Obama will add $1.44 trillion. However, approximately $1.14 of the latter figure is as a result of President Bush’s mismanagement of the economy. In other words, the real numbers should be $6.21 trillion of additional spending by President Bush and only $0.3 trillion by President Obama. If you add in the $126 billion in savings that President Obama will make on defense spending, he will only be responsible for about $0.17 trillion of new spending, about 4% of what President Bush was responsible for. As the total national debt is around $14.7 trillion, President Bush singlehandedly created almost half of it!
[/quote]

Blue, I am imagining that not everybody is going to accept your numbers as the gospel
[/quote]President Bush spent almost $1.5 trillion on the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and didn’t count them as a part of his annual budgets. President Obama has shut down the Iraq War, but increased expenditures on the Afghanistan war and may spend around $700 million on the military action in Libya (which is about the cost of four days of the Afghanistan war effort).
President Bush gave away over $1.8 trillion in tax cuts for the extremely rich and for corporations. President Obama spent $425 billion on stimulus tax cuts after the recession that the Bush administration caused. In other words, a more correct figure is $2.225 trillion in tax cuts as a result of President Bush’s mismanagement.
Non-defense discretionary spending amounted to $608 billion under President Bush, more than twice the $278 billion that President Obama is expected to spend.
President Bush spent a total of just under $1 trillion on bailouts and stimulus funding ($224 billion on TARP and $773 billion on the 2008 stimulus attempts). President Obama spent $711 on stimulus funding. Again, the true tally should be $224+773+711, i.e. $1.708 trillion as a result of Bush’s actions and zero as a result of President Obama’s policy changes.
President Bush spent $180 billion on unfunded Medicare drug benefit changes that primarily put money into the hands of the Big Pharmas. President Obama spent $152 billion on health care reform and entitlement changes. Incidentally, the Republicans continually lie about the latter figure when they say that “Obamacare”, their deprecatory label for the health care reform bill, will cost $1 trillion. It won’t and they know it. If they were to repeal it the cost over ten years would be around $340 billion.

[SmashMouth]

[quote name="True Blue" post="1065895" timestamp="1316971433"]
[quote author=stevenash link=topic=87540.msg1065849#msg1065849 date=1316967840]
[quote author=True Blue link=topic=87540.msg1065809#msg1065809 date=1316964964]
On paper, President Bush added a total of $5.07 trillion to the debt and President Obama will add $1.44 trillion. However, approximately $1.14 of the latter figure is as a result of President Bush’s mismanagement of the economy. In other words, the real numbers should be $6.21 trillion of additional spending by President Bush and only $0.3 trillion by President Obama. If you add in the $126 billion in savings that President Obama will make on defense spending, he will only be responsible for about $0.17 trillion of new spending, about 4% of what President Bush was responsible for. As the total national debt is around $14.7 trillion, President Bush singlehandedly created almost half of it!
[/quote]

Blue, I am imagining that not everybody is going to accept your numbers as the gospel
[/quote]President Bush spent almost $1.5 trillion on the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and didn’t count them as a part of his annual budgets. President Obama has shut down the Iraq War, but increased expenditures on the Afghanistan war and may spend around $700 million on the military action in Libya (which is about the cost of four days of the Afghanistan war effort).
President Bush gave away over $1.8 trillion in tax cuts for the extremely rich and for corporations. President Obama spent $425 billion on stimulus tax cuts after the recession that the Bush administration caused. In other words, a more correct figure is $2.225 trillion in tax cuts as a result of President Bush’s mismanagement.
Non-defense discretionary spending amounted to $608 billion under President Bush, more than twice the $278 billion that President Obama is expected to spend.
President Bush spent a total of just under $1 trillion on bailouts and stimulus funding ($224 billion on TARP and $773 billion on the 2008 stimulus attempts). President Obama spent $711 on stimulus funding. Again, the true tally should be $224+773+711, i.e. $1.708 trillion as a result of Bush’s actions and zero as a result of President Obama’s policy changes.
President Bush spent $180 billion on unfunded Medicare drug benefit changes that primarily put money into the hands of the Big Pharmas. President Obama spent $152 billion on health care reform and entitlement changes. Incidentally, the Republicans continually lie about the latter figure when they say that “Obamacare”, their deprecatory label for the health care reform bill, will cost $1 trillion. It won’t and they know it. If they were to repeal it the cost over ten years would be around $340 billion.
[/quote]

That's all very touching...nice creative accounting on your part.  What is the current deficit?  There's the real problem!...

[PN-G bamatex]

[quote name="True Blue" post="1065809" timestamp="1316964964"]
On paper, President Bush added a total of $5.07 trillion to the debt and President Obama will add $1.44 trillion. However, approximately $1.14 of the latter figure is as a result of President Bush’s mismanagement of the economy. In other words, the real numbers should be $6.21 trillion of additional spending by President Bush and only $0.3 trillion by President Obama. If you add in the $126 billion in savings that President Obama will make on defense spending, he will only be responsible for about $0.17 trillion of new spending, about 4% of what President Bush was responsible for. As the total national debt is around $14.7 trillion, President Bush singlehandedly created almost half of it!
[/quote]

You know, it's hard to find a report that is just plain wrong, but you've found it. I pasted the first sentence of that paragraph into the Google search engine and this is where it came from:

http://silverbuzzcafe.com/?p=17651

My guess is somebody saw the total debt that President Bush added during his entire presidency (or rather a fairly liberal estimate of it) and then saw how much President Obama added in [i]one year[/i], assumed that that amount was what he would add in his entire first term, and wrote up a blog about it without doublechecking.

And we wonder why there's so much misinformation out there.

If anything, this should prove the dangers of internet blogging. Folks, don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Below, you will find a chart comprised of information from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Department of the Treasury (all federal entities) that catalogues total US debt levels (both actual debt and debt as a portion of GDP) from 2000 to present. You will notice a steeper rate of increase in 2009 and 2010 than you will in previous years.

[IMG]http://i1186.photobucket.com/albums/z370/pn-gbandkid/DebtGraph.png[/img]

Based on the chart, you will notice that US total debt stood at slightly more than $10 Trillion at the end of 2008, up from slightly less than $6 Trillion at the end of 2000. That's the $4+ Trillion President Bush added in eight years. From the end of 2008 to the end of 2010, you'll notice a rise in the debt level from ~$10 Trillion to ~$13.75 Trillion. That accounts for two years of $1.5-$1.6 Trillion annual deficits under Obama (the largest deficits in US history) and the $787 Billion stimulus package.

In other words, based on the actual data and not a poorly researched blog, President Obama has nearly tied President Bush's debt record in half the time.

[tvc184]

I think TB gets his numbers from the local OCAW union hall.

[True Blue]

What our nation is faced with today is a mountain of debt run up mostly by 3 Republican Presidents - Ronald Reagan - and the two Bushes. And now today - that very same Republican Party is saying "no way" to Democrats who just want to pay off that pile of Republican debt. Think about it this way - the Republicans ran up a huge credit card bill, and now they're refusing to pay for it. They took the good times - the stimulation to the economy from all that spending and the political benefits from all those wars - and now they don't want to pay for it. If you or I did that with our credit card - and did it intentionally - we'd be in jail. Here is why we are in debt. Before Reagan took office - our national debt was just under one trillion dollars and our top tax rate was 74%. But Reagan promised the nation good times - so he gave all his rich buddies tax cuts - and then put $2 trillion on the nation's credit card. Reagan borrowed and spent - in just 8 years - more money than every president of the United States from George Washington to Jimmy Carter - COMBINED. And now the Republicans don't want to pay the bill for Reagan's debt.

[PN-G bamatex]

[quote name="True Blue" post="1065911" timestamp="1316973882"]
What our nation is faced with today is a mountain of debt run up mostly by 3 Republican Presidents - Ronald Reagan - and the two Bushes. And now today - that very same Republican Party is saying "no way" to Democrats who just want to pay off that pile of Republican debt. Think about it this way - the Republicans ran up a huge credit card bill, and now they're refusing to pay for it. They took the good times - the stimulation to the economy from all that spending and the political benefits from all those wars - and now they don't want to pay for it. If you or I did that with our credit card - and did it intentionally - we'd be in jail. Here is why we are in debt. Before Reagan took office - our national debt was just under one trillion dollars and our top tax rate was 74%. But Reagan promised the nation good times - so he gave all his rich buddies tax cuts - and then put $2 trillion on the nation's credit card. Reagan borrowed and spent - in just 8 years - more money than every president of the United States from George Washington to Jimmy Carter - COMBINED. And now the Republicans don't want to pay the bill for Reagan's debt.
[/quote]

So your source gets thrown out by raw data and you won't even offer a response?

If you're going to continue to copy and paste blogs or articles, at least post the URL.

[SmashMouth]

[quote name="True Blue" post="1065911" timestamp="1316973882"]
What our nation is faced with today is a mountain of debt run up mostly by 3 Republican Presidents - Ronald Reagan - and the two Bushes. And now today - that very same Republican Party is saying "no way" to Democrats who just want to pay off that pile of Republican debt. Think about it this way - the Republicans ran up a huge credit card bill, and now they're refusing to pay for it. They took the good times - the stimulation to the economy from all that spending and the political benefits from all those wars - and now they don't want to pay for it. If you or I did that with our credit card - and did it intentionally - we'd be in jail. Here is why we are in debt. Before Reagan took office - our national debt was just under one trillion dollars and our top tax rate was 74%. But Reagan promised the nation good times - so he gave all his rich buddies tax cuts - and then put $2 trillion on the nation's credit card. Reagan borrowed and spent - in just 8 years - more money than every president of the United States from George Washington to Jimmy Carter - COMBINED. And now the Republicans don't want to pay the bill for Reagan's debt.
[/quote]

Even your beloved Obama would tell you you're NUTS!