patrick.net

How about in this post of yours:

Homeboy says

2001: 5769 billion

2009: 11,875 billion

Increase: 6106 billion

2009: 11,875 billion

2013: 16,719 billion

Increase: 4844 billion

Oh, because you made a comment in a different post, this comment of mine doesn't apply??

Sigh...

I wrote that post AFTER you posted the chart of gross federal debt, and compared Bush's 8 years to Obama's 5 years. I only wrote it to correct you, because YOU USED THE WRONG YEARS.

We already established all this. Stop making up lies, troll.

Call it Crazy says

Are you really that fucked up in the head??

Once again, you're comparing 8 years of Bush to 4 years of Obama...

You are one fucking idiot!!!

Got it!!!

Quoting and responding to yourself? Wow, you really ARE schizo.

My assertion, based on posted graphs and data is that the economic conditions are worse in 5 years of Obama versus 8 years of Bush... while you want to rah rah how great Obama is doing...

I KNOW what your assertion was, and I disproved it using data. Then you bitched that I was allegedly comparing 8 years of Bush to 5 years of Obama.

You DO realize that you can't claim X is worse than Y, then when disproved, claim that X and Y are not comparable, don't you?

YOU claimed Obama "made the economy worse".

I proved he did not.

If you don't think I'm allowed to disprove your statement, don't fucking MAKE the statement, dipshit.

Are you having a tough time grasping that concept or understand math??

Um, no - YOU are the one having difficulty grasping concepts. You didn't originally post any "math"; you posted a stupid picture that said Obama "made the economy worse". I used data to prove it false, then you flipped out and started making up a bunch of lies. And here we are.

Misquoting Asshole says

Homeboy says

So you are comparing Bush's 8 years to Obama's 5 years (plus you didn't even pick the right years). Did I do that first,

Sure looks like you compared Bush's 8 years to Obama's 5 based on the dates of your graphs below...

Now you've resorted to quoting me out of context? You picked that sentence out of the middle of the paragraph I wrote, to mislead into suggesting a different meaning. Wow, you really are a pathetic, weaselly piece of troll shit, aren't you?

As Bob already said, the charts do exactly what I say they do. I made no numerical calculations of total growth based on 2 different time periods. YOU did that, and then I corrected your flawed math.

Homeboy says

How could I possibly?

It's right there in black and white... Are you really that stupid??

Another out of context quote. You really are pathetic, you know that?

Seriously, man - stop the fucking lies and misquotes and just admit that you fucked up on the dates. Stop trying to turn it around. You suck at that.

62

Homeboy 2014 Jun 7, 3:55pm

Then Homie posted debt numbers in post #53 comparing 8 years of Bush to 4 years of Obama to try a lie his way about the national debt...

No, YOU posted debt numbers in post #42. I merely corrected your mistake. Liar. YOU made a claim and I disproved it. What are you having trouble understanding here?

63

Y 2014 Jun 7, 4:05pm

This is damning evidence....

zzyzzx says

marcus says

Fox news "survey."

I'm not impressed.

CNN says essentially the same thing:

http://patrick.net/?p=1243679

64 bob2356 2014 Jun 7, 9:58pm

bob2356 says

The charts do exactly what he said.

No Bob, you're running in slow mode again.... You missed the point completely... Try to catch up...

HomeFried is claiming that he DIDN'T compare Bush's 8 years to Obama's 5 years, but as the dates of his FRED graphs show, they run all of Bush's term and O-boy's current term.. So Homie lied...

That sure looks like a comparison to me..

In the part I posted about homeboy said the numbers went down at the end of bush's term and up since. There's no years involved. A simple description of what actually happened. If it bothers you that much take only the last 5 years of bush's term and the statement is still just as true.

I posted that the debt increase was 6 trillion for bush's entire term and the debt increase is PROJECTED to be 7 trillion under obama for his entire term (since you apparently don't know which years presidential terms start and end). This totally blew your idiotic assertion the the debt as parabolic (apparently another word you don't understand, parabolic means symmetrically up then down but your attempted meaning was clear) under obama. You went back and changed your post rather than being proved wrong.

I can't believe anyone could be so fanatical about defending bush. Or that anyone is so mentally warped by conservative alternative reality that in your odd black is white world anyone pointing out how bad bush was means they are saying obama is good.

65 bob2356 2014 Jun 7, 10:07pm

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/gross-domestic-product-charts

I might add that GDP is a joke anyway. But when you consider that O has spent north of 4 trillion to produce those graph numbers it is literally laughable i.e. cooked books.

His graph does not take into account how much of the GDP number is just inflated prices because of increased money supply, or how much was directly from government spending for shit that no one would pay for i.e. common core, cash for clunkers, sky rocketing healthcare costs.

Yet you mutts act as though the numbers were some sort of deity. Have some more kool aid boys.

I'm sorry, exactly how does obama's 4 trillion increased debt, increased money supply, and direct government spending differ from bush's 4 trillion increased debt, increased money supply and direct government spending? Forget it boys, bush is going down in history part 1 for the turd twin act now matter how hard you try to spin it otherwise.

66

indigenous 2014 Jun 8, 3:38am

I'm talking about QE, although the full measure of O's legislation will not be seen for years, as is the case with LBJ and FDR. I think the numbers are that the avg medicare recipient will receive 7 times what he paid into the system.

This graph shows money supply during both presidencies, clearly higher under O.

This jacks up the GDP but that does not mean anything.

Here is the real GDP that indicates that O has hardly budged GDP for the more than 4 trillion in QE

67

Homeboy 2014 Jun 8, 6:01am

Here is the real GDP that indicates that O has hardly budged GDP for the more than 4 trillion in QE

Yeah, that sucks that Obama was president during that HUGE plunge in GDP. Oh, wait - that was Bush. LOL.

Looking at your chart - is GDP better after 2009, or worse? Remember, the question was, "Did Obama make the economy worse?"

68

Homeboy 2014 Jun 8, 6:03am

You know, Hiroshima really looked like shit after we nuked it. I guess the Japanese just don't know how to take care of their cities.

69

indigenous 2014 Jun 8, 6:06am

Yeah, that sucks that Obama was president during that HUGE plunge in GDP. Oh, wait - that was Bush. LOL.

No dumbass it is that he has increased QE to more than 4 trillion while making no diff in the GDP.

70

Homeboy 2014 Jun 8, 7:54am

No dumbass it is that he has increased QE to more than 4 trillion while making no diff in the GDP.

If you can look at that chart you posted and say, "The economy was good when Bush left office, and Obama made it worse", you are completely blind.

71

indigenous 2014 Jun 8, 7:57am

If you can look at that chart you posted and say, "The economy was good when Bush left office, and Obama made it worse", you are completely blind.

The point is that the economy is NOT good despite 4 trillion in spending.

72

Homeboy 2014 Jun 8, 8:13am

Give it up with HomeFried.... If they took Obama away in handcuffs, Homie would still be cheering him on....

Bullshit. I don't like what Obama's doing with the economy at all. I'm just amazed you have Bush's dick so far up your ass that you actually think he was doing a better job.

73

Homeboy 2014 Jun 8, 8:13am

The point is that the economy is NOT good despite 4 trillion in spending.

No, the point is whether Bush was more competent than Obama. Read the thread title for crying out loud.

Sheesh.

74

indigenous 2014 Jun 8, 11:09am

No, the point is whether Bush was more competent than Obama. Read the thread title for crying out loud.

Just to be clear Obama is less competent than the average girl scout.

75

indigenous 2014 Jun 8, 12:04pm

Hey, don't pick on the girl scouts... They could run multiple circles around this incompetent "leader" before he would even know what happened...

Good point.

76

Homeboy 2014 Jun 8, 2:43pm

Just to be clear Obama is less competent than the average girl scout.

Well he's more competent than Bush, so what does that say about Bush?

77

Homeboy 2014 Jun 8, 2:45pm

Homeboy says

I'm just amazed you have Bush's dick so far up your ass that you actually think he was doing a better job.

Is that what this picture says??

What does the picture have to do with it?

78

indigenous 2014 Jun 8, 2:48pm

Well he's more competent than Bush, so what does that say about Bush?

based off of some photo shopped picture. I don't know why I'm defending bush he was just another D as far as I'm concerned almost as dumb as you.

79

Homeboy 2014 Jun 8, 6:29pm

based off of some photo shopped picture. I don't know why I'm defending bush he was just another D as far as I'm concerned almost as dumb as you.

Oh, yeah - your pictures are really authentic. LOL.

So what does George Bush's cock taste like?

80

zzyzzx 2014 Jun 9, 12:11am

Well he's more competent than Bush, so what does that say about Bush?

Obligatory:

81 edvard2 2014 Jun 9, 1:12am

This is another one of those threads where nobody's opinion will change. There are those who think anything Bush did was absolutely perfect in every way and that somehow his Presidency was the darling of conservatism. The exact same for those who are Obama supporters who have the very same opinions.

None of it matters. The older I get the more its clear to me that whoever is president doesn't matter- whether they are republican or democrat. They might act a certain way on the campaign trail to make conservatives or liberals feel all good about themselves but once they're in office reality sets in. No president can be purely conservative or liberal. Politics isn't about any of that crap. Yet voters focus on nothing but their precious ideology and assume that whoever is in office is there to uphold that ideology.

Its all about money. Plain and simple. Big oil, big pharma, big insurance, conservative/liberal gazillionaires, fake astroturf organizations, lobbys for everything from junk food to tires, light bulbs and probably lobbys for lobbys are all out there looking to spend some money so that they can maybe influence the outcome in elections. Like for example all of those super feel-good ads out there regarding fracking and oh-how-good it really is and how that is of course perfectly safe and more importantly- creates jobs.... or farting unicorns and other nice fluffy things. So in the end it doesn't matter who the president is. There has been and will continue to be money in Washington and its that money that gets the job done and steps in front of everything.

Now, as far as Obama and his presidency, I genuinely feel he is perhaps one of the more sensible, articulate presidents we've had. Furthermore his understanding of international cooperation and its effectiveness at solving problems has shown to work well. There has been a lot of talk about Obama being perceived as "weak" probably because as Americans we've gotten used to the notion that if there's trouble somewhere, well the logical choice is to immediately put boots on the ground. Yet Obama has chosen international diplomacy as an effective means and while it hasn't been a perfect result, the results have worked more times than not. Not putting boots on the ground every time does not make a president weak. It means the president is making some smart decisions and combining global resources to solve complex problems more effectively.

Lastly, for taking over an economy that was in such miserable shape as it was, where there was a sense that the damage done to it would take decades to repair, the economy has in fact recovered immensely in a far shorter amount of time. There will still likely be legacy problems in the economy: The middle class has been declining for decades and with that comes a more or less permanent situation where the highly romanticized and short time period where Americans had secure jobs, long careers, assured retirement, and access to affordable healthcare was indeed a short time- from the 50's through the 70's, a short 20+ year run. And yet we yearn for those years but they ain't coming back. Ever. And as such there is a sense in the US that the economy is still in the toilet. If you're either in the working or lower middle class it still is for sure. But the economy overall- as far as business, moneymaking, stock futures and so on is in fact doing really well. Its just that there is now a major disconnect between swinging business on wall street and lackluster economics on main street. The problems that the majority of the country has economically can be fixed. The issue at hand is simply the fact that the tax collection situation is totally the opposite of how it should be. Simply put- the math doesn't add up- literally- which means the current situation means that the taxes collected do not accurately represent the actual total national income and as such municipalities, cities, schools, and so on are broke or always on the brink of financial collapse. Yet this simple mathematical problem is so heavily politicized that nobody talks about the math. Tax has become a dirty word and nobody considers that its a means for government income which then comes back to them in the form of schools, roads, and services. The questions that need to be asked to people is basically what kind of country do you want to live in? Do you like having nice roads free of potholes? Do you like the idea of free national parks? If so then that requires money and if the system was more balanced that could mean an overall higher quality of life for all versus as it is now, with schools holding bake sales and car washes to buy books.

Anyway.... rant over.

82

indigenous 2014 Jun 9, 1:35am

This is another one of those threads where nobody's opinion will change.

I completely disagree with your take on Obama, that being said, I don't give rats ass about ideology, I DO give a rats ass about spending and only spending, I don't give a fuck about rhetoric because of the reason you point out.

But that too doesn't matter because once they get in office they spend, even Reagan. What we need is another Coolidge.

83 edvard2 2014 Jun 9, 1:52am

But that too doesn't matter because once they get in office they spend, even Reagan. What we need is another Coolidge.

I think an argument about spending needs to be more specific. As in what kinds of spending is good or bad? Spending by the government is a fact and all governments have to spend money no matter what. Spending too has become starkly politicized with both parties interpreting spending as a means to fund their own pet projects. Spending and the opinions about it are based in ideology. For example- the Republican stance on social welfare programs and whatnot and their seemingly un-changing message that anyone on such programs is either lazy, undeserving, or otherwise wasting government funds. They do so of course because its really easy to use nameless scapegoats who can't speak out against those claims since the claims are so generic. The do so also because it then gives them the means to go around and spend on their own pet projects which nobody in their constituency cares about because besides- what possibly could be worse than spending money on "lazy people"?

But spending is only half of the story. In order to spend you need income. The income situation in the US is lopsided as I previously mentioned. Does that mean if the problem was corrected the government should spend more? No, But what it does mean is that if a more accurate representation of the country's income was financial reality then the amount spent could more closely match the actual needs of the country and the amount spent wouldn't put such a huge strain on the system.

84

indigenous 2014 Jun 9, 2:01am

closely match the actual needs

According to who? I don't care what kind of spending, earmarks, social, war, any reduction is good.

For a guy who talks about it doesn't matter which party, you speak from a left leaning perspective.

85 edvard2 2014 Jun 9, 2:17am

According to who? I don't care what kind of spending, earmarks, social, war, any reduction is good.

For a guy who talks about it doesn't matter which party, you speak from a left leaning perspective.

Surprise surprise I am unapologetically liberal. But what I was getting at was that yes- spending in indeed a problem. But reducing spending is one half of the problem. Some of that spending is waste. Some of it is legit. But spending is also a problem because our tax system ensures a continual deficit in total government income, which leads to financial problems. So its a two-edged problem: Cut spending, correct the income problem. The two go hand in hand.

86

indigenous 2014 Jun 9, 2:27am

correct the income problem

Like borrowing to meet the budget?

87 edvard2 2014 Jun 9, 5:16am

Like borrowing to meet the budget?

No... that's not what I was saying. Correct the income problem by correctly taxing the population, not the bass-ackwards way its done today.

88

Homeboy 2014 Jun 9, 6:19am

There are those who think anything Bush did was absolutely perfect in every way and that somehow his Presidency was the darling of conservatism. The exact same for those who are Obama supporters who have the very same opinions.

Well no. If you actually read the thread, you will see that every one of us who is debunking the "Bush was better" meme have said we most definitely don't think Obama is perfect. We just think it's ridiculous to say that Bush, who is likely one of, if not THE worst president in history, was a better president than Obama.

89

Homeboy 2014 Jun 9, 6:20am