(March 14, 2013 at 10:40 pm)Stue Denim Wrote: Checkmate!
And thanks tibs and a theist, the only two at all likely to thumbs this up.

Splitter!


(Actually, I figured it was mularkey, but didn't care to spend the time to get to the bottom of it.)

(March 14, 2013 at 4:15 pm)Phish Wrote:

---

---

Um, you are kidding right?

It's actually worth noting that the reason for that spending is actually a direct result of Bush-era policies. 2009 was caused by the massive bank bailouts, 2010 was as a result of the economic stimulus programs [like the ones that cut taxes or extended unemployment benefits, things like that], 2011 was as a result of the huge amounts of money that had to be spent for the DoD for the inventory check for all the personnel and equipment that had been brought back from Iraq; TONS of repairs, replacement, and re-stocking, all of which was included in the projected cost of the war back in 2003, and which continued throughout 2012 and will continue to do so until 2014, at which point we will be hit AGAIN with another RRR from the DoD for our troops and materiel in Afghanistan when they're drawn back. These are expenses laid at Bush's feet, not Obama's.

(March 14, 2013 at 5:09 pm)apophenia Wrote:

(And since I didn't see one: link.)

Pay no attention to the two burring countries behind me. *Points to the black guy* HE DID IT!

There are a lot of things you can complain about with Obama. It's easy to blame him on the economy, but that wasn't really his fault. The economy had just crashed when he first went into office; remember the 2008 bailouts? The ironic thing is, while the bailouts put Obama in office, they also put the Republicans in congress. The tea party was created out of real anger over the bailouts, but it was taken over by the Koch brothers and turned into a branch of the Republican party (which meant they had to completely ignore how much their man Dubya insisted we needed the bank bailouts). In 2009 and 2010, the Democrats didn't get to accomplish as much as they'd like, mostly because Obama was more concerned with being bipartisan than he was with accomplishing anything. They did get Obamacare passed, though, and it's been quite popular. Still, the GOP was able to use the tea party to reinvigorate themselves into congressional victories and since then, they've admitted it themselves: their goal is to hurt Obama. They don't care about helping the country, they don't care about economic recovery, they don't care about truth or facts, they don't care about national security and they don't even care about terrorists anymore. They'll openly support terrorists if it would hurt Obama.

The only problem is, they haven't really accomplished much with this strategy and they've managed to make themselves look silly on multiple occassions. It's hurt them. It only took 2 years for the tea party to go from being an asset to a liability. Some of them are sticking with their hard-line stance and it's going to hurt them in close elections. Problem is, House seats are so gerrimandered that the only way to lose your seat there is in the primaries where you lose by not being extreme enough (Senate is only slightly better). So we're still going to get a lot of extremist politicians elected to office until someone does something to prevent it. Thing is, the people who have the power to change things got into power with the system the way it is; they don't want to rock the boat.

(March 15, 2013 at 5:27 am)Aractus Wrote:

(March 14, 2013 at 4:15 pm)Phish Wrote:

---

---

Um, you are kidding right?

You got a source for the numbers in that graph? I'm asking because because they look cherry picked to me. It looks like someone used CBO figures for republican numbers and growth of the national debt for the democrat numbers. If you use the same source for both it doesn't look like that.

---

This chart dates from the middle of Obama's first term, but as you can see it doesn't look like yours. The totals were taken straight from the Treasury's accounting of the national debt.

(March 17, 2013 at 7:47 pm)popeyespappy Wrote:

(March 15, 2013 at 5:27 am)Aractus Wrote: Um, you are kidding right?

You got a source for the numbers in that graph? I'm asking because because they look cherry picked to me. It looks like someone used CBO figures for republican numbers and growth of the national debt for the democrat numbers. If you use the same source for both it doesn't look like that.

---

This chart dates from the middle of Obama's first term, but as you can see it doesn't look like yours. The totals were taken straight from the Treasury's accounting of the national debt.

fuck it,how can we even trust anything that is posted on the internet,im totally confused,but still he is much better than bush,and obama got elected when the "crisis" began so,...