How much has Obamacare saved the American people?

[Oneuli]

They are laughable fantasies that never come true snowflake. But you cling to them if it gives you that warm fuzzy feeling mkay?

I am not shoving anything onto anyone; the ARA was a Democratic/Obama legislation and had NOTHING to do with Bush snowflake. Flail away snowflake.

The $1.2 trillion deficit for FY 2009 was the deficit as of early January 2009, before Obama took office. The deficit wound up being $1.4 trillion by year end, after accounting for the added spending from ARRA. I'm counting the $1.2 trillion deficit, pre-Obama, as Obama's baseline. You appear to prefer we use FY 2008 as the baseline, even though Obama didn't take office until well into FY 2009, by which time much of the spending was already locked in.

Here, let me help you see the error of your method. Imagine if Trump had gotten his way by threatening a shutdown, the Democrats had caved, and Congress had passed a bill for $20 billion in spending on the wall in this fiscal year. Then imagine a patriot assassinated Trump in January and Pence became President. What would be the right baseline for measuring Pence's impact on the deficit? If we used FY 2018 (last fiscal year), then the deficit spending in October, November, December, and part of January would count against Pence, even thought he wasn't president at the time. And the deficit spending already mandated by law, as part of the wall deal, would also count against him, even though he had nothing to do with it. Instead, the correct baseline to use would be the FY 2019 deficit as of the time he was sworn in. If he added to that in FY 2019, through supplemental appropriations (or retroactive tax cuts), that would count against him. But we wouldn't be throwing Trump spending into his column.

[Oneuli]

That fact that you called it REAL GDP and it wasn't is the only thing you can't seem to grasp snowflake.

Inflation adjusted GDP snowflake.[/quote]

Exactly. Aren't you glad you looked that up? Now you won't make such a fool of yourself. As you can now see, I was also quoting real GDP. I just provided the rate of growth per decade rather than growth per year, but we both were working with real GDP figures. Don't you feel silly for having screwed up so badly? You should.

[Oneuli]

You're going to make yourself dizzy with all that spinning scarecrow.

It's not spinning. It's asking a question -- a question you're too cowardly to answer.

[Oneuli]

What would you know about intelligence you arrogant, pompous fool. 3.5% was the average REAL GDP under Reagan

Ah, so as expected you completely lost track of the topic. I suppose I shouldn't make you feel bad about it, since your low IQ must make it hard for you to remember what we are debating. The claim was about the growth rate for the decade, not for some sub-set of the decade. Try to focus, little one.

I am still trying to understand how you think 3.1% is bad scarecrow.

What makes you believe I think it's bad? You lost track of the argument again, dumb dumb. The issue is whether it was "explosive growth." In reality, it was the second or third weakest decade of the 20th century for GDP growth, and the lowest-growth for a decade of the 20th century since the 30s. I'd say that's not "explosive growth." Whether you think it's bad or not is a different question. Certainly it's worse than the decades before and after it, if you think higher GDP growth is better, but maybe you think lower is better.

[Oneuli]

No you did not scarecrow; you constructed a strawman and then demanded everyone prove you wrong.

That's not what a strawman is, dummy.

[Truth Detector]

The $1.2 trillion deficit for FY 2009 was the deficit as of early January 2009, before Obama took office. The deficit wound up being $1.4 trillion by year end, after accounting for the added spending from ARRA. I'm counting the $1.2 trillion deficit, pre-Obama, as Obama's baseline. You appear to prefer we use FY 2008 as the baseline, even though Obama didn't take office until well into FY 2009, by which time much of the spending was already locked in.

Here, let me help you see the error of your method. Imagine if Trump had gotten his way by threatening a shutdown, the Democrats had caved, and Congress had passed a bill for $20 billion in spending on the wall in this fiscal year. Then imagine a patriot assassinated Trump in January and Pence became President. What would be the right baseline for measuring Pence's impact on the deficit? If we used FY 2018 (last fiscal year), then the deficit spending in October, November, December, and part of January would count against Pence, even thought he wasn't president at the time. And the deficit spending already mandated by law, as part of the wall deal, would also count against him, even though he had nothing to do with it. Instead, the correct baseline to use would be the FY 2019 deficit as of the time he was sworn in. If he added to that in FY 2019, through supplemental appropriations (or retroactive tax cuts), that would count against him. But we wouldn't be throwing Trump spending into his column.

Inflation adjusted GDP snowflake.

Exactly. Aren't you glad you looked that up? Now you won't make such a fool of yourself. As you can now see, I was also quoting real GDP. I just provided the rate of growth per decade rather than growth per year, but we both were working with real GDP figures. Don't you feel silly for having screwed up so badly? You should.[/QUOTE]

It's not spinning. It's asking a question -- a question you're too cowardly to answer.

Ah, so as expected you completely lost track of the topic. I suppose I shouldn't make you feel bad about it, since your low IQ must make it hard for you to remember what we are debating. The claim was about the growth rate for the decade, not for some sub-set of the decade. Try to focus, little one.



What makes you believe I think it's bad? You lost track of the argument again, dumb dumb. The issue is whether it was "explosive growth." In reality, it was the second or third weakest decade of the 20th century for GDP growth, and the lowest-growth for a decade of the 20th century since the 30s. I'd say that's not "explosive growth." Whether you think it's bad or not is a different question. Certainly it's worse than the decades before and after it, if you think higher GDP growth is better, but maybe you think lower is better.

That's not what a strawman is, dummy.

Summarizing this massive pile of stupid:

[Oneuli]

Summarizing this massive pile of stupid

Ahh, look, the poor little dummy couldn't think of a counter-argument. Pathetic.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

"what made you think I was trying to conflate them as savings for the american taxpayer" lol. full retard.

[Legion]

The problem was in the writing.

So you say. Try harder.

[Oneuli]

So you say. Try harder.

Nah. If he wants to be understood, he can work on writing better.

[Oneuli]

"what made you think I was trying to conflate them as savings for the american taxpayer"

Exactly. Give it a shot: where do you imagine I was speaking in terms of savings for "the American taxpayer" (as opposed to for the American people)?

[Getin the ring]

OMG 33 pages later and you're still trying to make this thread relevant

Obamacare sucks , let it go

[Oneuli]

OMG 33 pages later and you're still trying to make this thread relevant

Relevant to what? You're almost like a random word generator.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Exactly. Give it a shot: where do you imagine I was speaking in terms of savings for "the American taxpayer" (as opposed to for the American people)?

weasel word bullshit. favorite trick of liars.

[PostmodernProphet]

You dodged the question again, little coward. Care to try again?

sure.....Obama's economic record rivals Carter's as the worst in the last eighty years.........