What's new
By:

Paul Ryan thinks you're a ****ing retard

NAOS said:
Dude, while Bush did so ****ing much to **** things up, you ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE the deregulating bull**** that Clinton pushed through when you speak of this "broken economy." The blame isn't on one party.
Click to expand...

Awesome post.
 
since I'm being lauded for my recent posts, let me just say this for the record:

You'd be very hard pressed to find someone who hates Clinton more than I do.
 
northeast said:
4.9 is pretty close to 5.0, and I'd guess that there are different ways to count the total -- unfunded future liabilities accrued , in or out?

and looking at the Obama totals is a bit unfair, without noting that he is spending money to support the economy the Republicans broke, no?
Click to expand...

I actually agree with what One Brow responded to my post. 1st budget proposed to last budget proposed it's correct. Fiscal years are different from terms. And I also am disappointed that Paul Ryan's first big introduction to America is littered with mendacity. And there's no question Bush dropped huge bombs before he left too. But we could go back and say Clinton and crew planted those seeds in the first place by getting rid of Glass Stegall. Bush's spending response was ultimately tied to that in some way.

What I was doing, was merely presenting how what Ryan said could be true and which I don't think is a total spin job either because when you are looking at charts, graphs, and economic arguments from both sides over the years, going back many decades they are not always framed just by fiscal year budgets. Presidential terms is a big framing mechanism too. And I'm guessing it's used pretty interchangeably when trying to craft whatever viewpoint you're going for. I'll take this year if it makes my guy look good, you can have this year because it makes my guy look worse, etc.

It's just a matter of how you want to frame it. Start of term, end of term.. 4 years...8 years later, which was what I was doing, which includes all the governing done in office during a president's term and allows for the requested/enacted ratio to be attributed to real government action and economic realities during that time, not a flimsy budget. I think there's merit to that methodology and to fiscal year methodology. But whatever one you're using, you have to use it for every president. But no, I don't feel like Obama or anybody else deserves the full brunt of everything negative associated with their terms. They've got legacy issues that they still deal with going back all the way to the founding of the country. President is not an easy job.
 
Last edited:
The good news is that the Romney-Ryan campaign has likely created dozens of new jobs among the legions of additional fact checkers that media outlets are rushing to hire
Click to expand...

Wow, so what your saying is that Romney & Romney are better are creating jobs than Obama. They are not even elected yet and Romney and Ryan have already created more jobs than Obama has in 4 years. Romney & Ryan used zero tax dollars to do it, while Obama used 859 Billion dollars.
 
Oh, duh, I get it now.

So are you into sweat lodges? I assume so based on what you told me about your interests of internship. The spiritually purifying/cleansing sage fits into that mindset.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top