WakeWorld

WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   Non-Wakeboarding Discussion (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=4387)
-   -   Amerian Presidents In Uniform (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=796623)

grant_west 01-11-2013 9:11 AM

Amerian Presidents In Uniform
 
1 Attachment(s)
LoL

wazzy 01-11-2013 9:58 AM

oh thats good!

fly135 01-11-2013 10:11 AM

Good post... The message is if you don't want your country abusing it's servicemen and economy with pointless wars... avoid the uniform. LBJ needlessly killed tens of thousands of Americans in a war of no strategic significance. GWB killed thousands in a trillion dollar pointless war while our economy took a dive. Reagan and GWB increased the deficit spending tremendously, whereas both the non-uniformed Presidents reduced it. Those are the facts.:D

ottog1979 01-11-2013 10:58 AM

Obama's reducing the deficit?

fly135 01-11-2013 11:15 AM

Yes. Do you need me to google US deficit by year for you? Or should you have done it before posting?

$1.4T (Bush 2009) -> $1.1T (Obama 2012)

bigdtx 01-11-2013 11:23 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_...litary_service

fly135 01-11-2013 11:25 AM

Hey don't sell Reagan short on war. He was great at selling arms to the Iranians and funding war in S. America.

westsidarider 01-11-2013 12:19 PM

Oh woopty do. Barry is reducing the deficit. BFD. Rather be in debt than live under his tyrannical rule. Things are changing drastically and something needs done about it. I pray to god that someone has enough dirt on him to get rid of him. I have no idea why people think he was a good idea to hire

shawndoggy 01-11-2013 12:57 PM

tyrannical? would love to hear the examples....

digg311 01-11-2013 12:58 PM

Tyrannical Rule? Hyperbole much?

magicr 01-11-2013 1:08 PM

Quote:

Things are changing drastically and something needs done about it.
What is changing drastically? In my 50+ years nothing has changed drastically under any President. Let me guess, he's a socialist, which is about as far from the truth as possible.

westsidarider 01-11-2013 1:59 PM

Excuse my poor grammar. The man makes my blood boil.
He has an agenda that could very well tear this country to pieces. Uniting with the UN in a mission to disarm the whole world, His statement about using executive order to make laws is outright dangerous and un-American. If he could he would never leave office

ottog1979 01-11-2013 2:02 PM

With all respect, John, numbers can be skewed to any answer desired. But it would be hard to say this is a reduction:

Bush
2001 $127.3 Billion Surplus
2002 $157.8 Billion Deficit
2003 $377.6 Billion Deficit
2004 $413 Billion Deficit
2005 $318 Billion Deficit
2006 $248 Billion Deficit
2007 $161 Billion Deficit
2008 $459 Billion Deficit

Obama
2009 $1413 Billion Deficit
2010 $1294 Billion Deficit
2011 $1299 Billion Deficit
2012 $1100 Billion Deficit
2013 $900 Billion Deficit

(I got the answer by Googling!)

pesos 01-11-2013 4:09 PM

In skool we lerned that reduktion means numbers gitting smaller.

fly135 01-11-2013 4:26 PM

The budget for 2009 has absolutely nothing to do with Obama, and you should know that. That budget was passed before he became President. You could complain that he didn't reduce it more, but his mandate was clearly to stem the loss of jobs and prevent the economy from getting worse.

There are plenty of reasons why Bush left with a budget busting deficit, but we are just talking about the President here and that's the perspective that this is framed in. Blaming Obama is misguided. If you wanted to blame Americans, Congress, and all the past Presidents for an economic paradigm that has turned us into a service economy sending over a half trillion of our economy out of the country every year then you would get no argument from me.

ottog1979 01-11-2013 5:16 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Guess I got skooled then, huh? What the hell was I thinking? Never mind.

fly135 01-11-2013 5:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottog1979 (Post 1801697)
Guess I got skooled then, huh? What the hell was I thinking?

You tell me. I was just stating the facts. The first thing I did a while back when Republicans were calling Obama a liberal spender was to take a look at the percentage increase in the deficit by year and found that Republican Presidents were the worst offenders.

wake77 01-11-2013 5:42 PM

What's an "Amerian President"?

fly135 01-11-2013 6:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by westsidarider (Post 1801687)
Excuse my poor grammar. The man makes my blood boil.
He has an agenda that could very well tear this country to pieces. Uniting with the UN in a mission to disarm the whole world, His statement about using executive order to make laws is outright dangerous and un-American. If he could he would never leave office

But the 13488 before him were what? OK? Or let me guess.. you just never heard of it until Obama was President.

pesos 01-12-2013 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottog1979 (Post 1801688)
With all respect, John, numbers can be skewed to any answer desired. But it would be hard to say this is a reduction:

Bush
2001 $127.3 Billion Surplus
2002 $157.8 Billion Deficit
2003 $377.6 Billion Deficit
2004 $413 Billion Deficit
2005 $318 Billion Deficit
2006 $248 Billion Deficit
2007 $161 Billion Deficit
2008 $459 Billion Deficit

Obama
2009 $1413 Billion Deficit
2010 $1294 Billion Deficit
2011 $1299 Billion Deficit
2012 $1100 Billion Deficit
2013 $900 Billion Deficit

(I got the answer by Googling!)

Clinton
2001 $127.3 Billion Surplus

Bush
2002 $157.8 Billion Deficit
2003 $377.6 Billion Deficit
2004 $413 Billion Deficit
2005 $318 Billion Deficit
2006 $248 Billion Deficit
2007 $161 Billion Deficit
2008 $459 Billion Deficit
2009 $1413 Billion Deficit

Obama
2010 $1294 Billion Deficit
2011 $1299 Billion Deficit
2012 $1100 Billion Deficit
2013 $900 Billion Deficit

Fixed it for you.

rdlangston13 01-12-2013 9:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesos (Post 1801743)
Clinton
2001 $127.3 Billion Surplus

Bush
2002 $157.8 Billion Deficit
2003 $377.6 Billion Deficit
2004 $413 Billion Deficit
2005 $318 Billion Deficit
2006 $248 Billion Deficit
2007 $161 Billion Deficit
2008 $459 Billion Deficit
2009 $1413 Billion Deficit

Obama
2010 $1294 Billion Deficit
2011 $1299 Billion Deficit
2012 $1100 Billion Deficit
2013 $900 Billion Deficit

Fixed it for you.


so even being fixed we have an average deficit under Bush of 443.43 billion a year and a average under Obama of 1,148.25 billion a year.

still don't see a reduction

pesos 01-12-2013 10:22 PM

Sigh. Maybe you will have an easier time with pictures.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3kufzhLe3R...3eea3fa4be.jpg

rdlangston13 01-13-2013 8:00 AM

so if you sample just the last two years there we are on the decline but as stated, the average is still WAY high under Obama

pesos 01-13-2013 10:36 AM

David do you own a car? Try driving down the street, accelerate for 10 seconds then have your friend put on the brakes on for 2. Is your speed declining? Would you say your friend is responsible for the average speed of the trip?

psudy 01-14-2013 7:45 AM

Bush decreased the deficit for three years, post 9/11, and didn't Obama pass a second stimulus in 2009 after he took office to the tune of 800 billion?

fly135 01-14-2013 8:00 AM

Bush raised the deficit spending by 900% during his term. Obama has reduced it 10-20% so far. I'd say that given the state of the nation when Obama took over, the obstinance of the Republican party to address the mess effectively, and the desire for Americans in general to send money overseas and out of the economy that Obama has done about as well as could be expected.

psudy 01-14-2013 8:20 AM

Oh and the .com bubble that burst and started a recession, and 9/11 didn't play into the disappearance of the surplus at all. Everything was A OK when bush came in. I like the way you gave Clinton the whole 2001 year while giving bush all of 2009, but hey, whatever makes the numbers work for you.

fly135 01-14-2013 10:08 AM

Paul, the budget (2001 and 2009) is made in the year before the new President takes office. Clinton in 2001 and Bush in 2009. You act as if there is some inconstancy there. Why?

WRT all the factors that go into making a budget you guys are the one's claiming that Obama is responsible for the budget when he is in office. I am simply being consistent with with this line of reasoning. You can't have it both ways. My posts are factually correct.

I never said that everything was OK when Bush took office. But the facts are also that Bush lowered taxes and made a big increase in medicare prescription costs apparently believing in the fail right wing theory that tax cuts boost tax revenues, or thinking that the economy was fine and could handle it.

When people are willing to look at the real reasons why we are in bad shape instead of shrieking socialism about Obama I'm willing to engage in a meaningful conversation.

pesos 01-14-2013 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psudy (Post 1801967)
I like the way you gave Clinton the whole 2001 year while giving bush all of 2009, but hey, whatever makes the numbers work for you.

Paul, I don't understand your gripe - you're pissed that I was consistent?

psudy 01-14-2013 12:15 PM

lol pissed? Hardly. A budget can be submitted, but when you blow the budget, there comes the deficit. It would probably be more fair to give bush half the 2001 and Obama half the 2009.

fly135 01-14-2013 12:19 PM

Paul, you don't seem to understand budgets. Adhering to the budget does not mean there is no deficit.

psudy 01-14-2013 12:40 PM

lol, ok john. You can budget to make a profit, but when the year actually unfolds things can change that blow the budget. Do you think Clinton budgeted for 9/11?

fly135 01-14-2013 1:17 PM

Paul, you are all over the place. A balanced budget is one intended to have a zero deficit/surplus. Your post implied that when a budget is made it's balanced. That is not the case. Arguing random stuff to make your point is not effective. I seriously doubt that the events of 9/11 necessitated a $1.4T dollar deficit in 2009. Although the idiotic idea of nation building has been hard on the economy, there are many factors at work.

I'm not arguing so much in support of Obama as I am against ignoring the realities of our economy and thinking that Obama is the problem. It's clear that Republican Presidents have resided over massive percentage increases in the deficit, and that both Obama and Clinton did not. Deal with that fact and maybe you'll see why there is no argument based on historical evidence for electing a Republican President to reduce deficit spending.

psudy 01-14-2013 1:37 PM

Did government spending match the budget in 2001( I don't know and don't have time to look)? What was the budget to actual? I am not all over the place, and I never used the word balanced. Point is simple. While Clinton may have made a budget for 2001, he was not in control of half the year, in which the actual figures could have exceded budget estimates( ie 9/11 reference). Did Bush write in the second stimulus that Obama put through in 2009 after he took office?

fly135 01-14-2013 3:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psudy (Post 1802025)
Did government spending match the budget in 2001( I don't know and don't have time to look)? What was the budget to actual? I am not all over the place, and I never used the word balanced. Point is simple. While Clinton may have made a budget for 2001, he was not in control of half the year, in which the actual figures could have exceded budget estimates( ie 9/11 reference). Did Bush write in the second stimulus that Obama put through in 2009 after he took office?

Nor did I say you did. Hence the word "imply"

Laker1234 01-15-2013 4:05 PM

IMHO, we should look at the here and now because no way can this keep up I'm becoming frustrated with both of the parties' bickering and unwillingness to compromise. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-tap...211937220.html


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:02 AM.