Way to go Obama III!

[Damocles]

No, I don't. Unlike Bush, Obama has submitted comprehensive budget requests to Congress, which included funding for expected costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and all other government operations. Whether Congress passes a budget or not is not within his control.

Actually it is, considering his own party controlled both houses of congress for more than half the time he has held the office. Pretending that he has no responsibility towards submitting such irresponsible budgets even his own party can't support them is pretense. 100% of his spending is "supplemental spending abuse".

One thing we know that you and Obama agree on, absolutely in no way is he ever responsible for anything that has ever happened during his Presidency. Nothing at all can be said to be his responsibility, the buck has never even appeared in his presence, let alone stopped near his desk to have a chat.

 

[Bonestorm]

Actually it is, considering his own party controlled both houses of congress for more than half the time he has held the office. Pretending that he has no responsibility towards submitting such irresponsible budgets even his own party can't support them is pretense. 100% of his spending is "supplemental spending abuse".

So Obama is personally responsible for the Congress not doing things? OK. That makes a lot of sense. Really, it does.

One thing we know that you and Obama agree on, absolutely in no way is he ever responsible for anything that has ever happened during his Presidency. Nothing at all can be said to be his responsibility, the buck has never even appeared in his presence, let alone stopped near his desk to have a chat.

Actually, the one thing that we know is that Obama is responsible for everything that happens everywhere.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Point to the last time in three years revenues were less than 15% of GDP.

Irrelevant. You still don't outspend income at that pace. You tighten your belt. You do not raise spending as the Dems have done.

It's called perspective.

No, its called apologizing.

Not really. We are experiencing negative real interest rates while maintaining the FED's target inflation rate. Dumbass.

So again... what happens when the continued borrowing jacks inflation above interest rates? do you know? Again you are looking at how things are TODAY. When borrowing money you have to look at the LIFE of the borrowing period. Not just what is going on today.

But the interest rates on treasuries are not teaser rates like a 0% introductory APR on a credit card, you jackass. The rates are locked in. And they are negative. And we have a dramatic need for infrastructure investment that will have to occur in the near term anyway.

That teaser rate on a credit card is a fixed rate for a fixed period of time. Just like Treasury bonds. Yes, the bonds are longer term, but again the theory is the same. You must be able to pay back the debt when the bonds come due or you take a risk on what a re-fi will cost you.

I agree we need to fund infrastructure and that doing so is a good move today. Yet the bulk of your messiah's 'jobs' bill is going to fund what? Temporary tax cuts and union job funding.

The infrastructure spending being moved forward is like the Bush tax cuts. It can work as stimulus in the short term, but in the long term it only works with corresponding spending cuts or tax increases. (yes, I know which way you and the Dems prefer)

It's just plain stupid to not take advantage of historically low interest rates to pay for things that we will have to pay for anyway and which will help to close the output gap. Apparently, you would prefer taxing productive endeavors to borrowing for next to nothing. That's just stupid.

No, the stupid thing to do is to continue increasing the debt, increasing the inflationary pressures without any long term plans. You keep looking at today and saying 'its cheap! Borrow all we want!'. You have absolutely no forward vision.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Well, the formula for "who is responsible" is too complex for me. Per many of the righties on this board, it's who controls Congress...but that's only for current spending, regardless of when measures actually passed. Unless the Democrats control Congress, at any time. And Bush was absolved for any spending after 2006 no matter what, because Dems controlled Congress after that; but he's not responsible for anything pre-2006 either, because somehow (and I wasn't aware of this at the time), but Barney Frank had some sort of Marshall-law control of both the Executive & Legislative branches of gov't (not sure about the judiciary).

It's a lot to handle. Way above my head, quite frankly.

When you get done repeating the above ignorance and wish to actually discuss the issue let me know. Trying to paint what I am saying with what some of the right wing nuts have said in the past is absurd. Let me know if you wish to have a grown up discussion.

 

[Bonestorm]

When you get done repeating the above ignorance and wish to actually discuss the issue let me know. Trying to paint what I am saying with what some of the right wing nuts have said in the past is absurd. Let me know if you wish to have a grown up discussion.

That's awesome.

 

[Damocles]

So Obama is personally responsible for the Congress not doing things? OK. That makes a lot of sense. Really, it does.

LOL. Um. Yeah. Especially when it concerns the funding of those wars he called "irresponsible" and "abuse" of supplemental spending and directly reflects on his promises. In this case, he is so fiscally irresponsible even the Congresses spending crippling amounts at his request will not go on record supporting it, but will only do it through, what you and Obama have now called "Supplemental Spending Abuse"...

He is the leader of the party that was in control of both houses, he either didn't care to keep his promise, or he's so irresponsible the rest of the Democrats can't and will not sully their chances to win reelection by supporting any of his budgets.

Actually, the one thing that we know is that Obama is responsible for everything that happens everywhere.

Actually, according to you and Obama there is nothing he can possibly be considered responsible for, except the death of Osama Bin Laden.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That's awesome.

Thanks.