Back to Benghazi for Hillary!

Grumpy Ol' Man said:
In one of Bob's posts, he says the spending under a Republican POTUS was the fault of a Democratic majority in Congress. Soon thereafter, Bob says the spending during the tenure of a Republican controlled Congress is the fault of a Democratic POTUS. I do believe this truly defines the word "spin".
Click to expand...

Not at all spin. In Bush's last two years the Congress was taken over by Pelosi and Reid. Both are hard headed Democrats that love to spend so folks would think of them being great folks. So in their two years the drove the debt from 7.5 trillion up to over 10 trillion. Bush could not stop them as they used Iraq and Afghanistan war budget bills and loaded them with junk spending. Bush could not reject as he did have military justification for funds to meet. Two nasty Democrats using the wars to feed their personal spending habits.

Then along come Obama ready to spend whether the Senate approves or not. As long as Reid remained in the Senate no Republican efforts got much attention but spending was done on command. And in the last few months where the Republicans have once again got control of the Congress, I have not yet heard Obama say we have spent too much. He continues and has the final persuasion of closing the government again. So the Republican Congress is having some unwanted spending problems.
 

QuickSilver said:
I agree... The GOP can never resist a chance to over play it's hand.. They do it over and over and it always backfires. You would think they would learn... but what was it that Einstein said about insanity?? lol!!
Click to expand...

One video clip is worth ten thousand words:


 
BobF said:
Hillary will be better than what we have today. But most anyone would be better than what we have today.

10 trillion of more unexplained debt. Why and for what? It was at 7.5 trillion in Bush's term, the the Democrats took over Congress and it went right up to over 10 trillion debt. Obama arrives and now it is over 18 trillion in debt and still climbing. But it is all the Republicans fault?

One fact Obama never talks about is the debt he has created. When Obama is gone, someone will have to figure out how to pay down our debts, quickly, before the US credit gets hurt more than it already is.
Click to expand...

Must agree, Bob! Sorry, QS, cannot see how a burdensome National Debt is "imaginary". imp
 

BobF said:
How strange. Who has been around to cause the debts and allowed this debt burden to happen. His leadership name is President Obama.
Click to expand...

And the ONLY President who the Republican House has REFUSED to pass any budget or appropriation bill he suggested.. The House turned to Republican majority in 2010.. AND the Senates Republican minority filibustered any bill with Obama's stamp on it since he took office in 2009... May I ask HOW Obama was able to do all this spending?
 
QuickSilver said:
And the ONLY President who the Republican House has REFUSED to pass any budget or appropriation bill he suggested.. The House turned to Republican majority in 2010.. AND the Senates Republican minority filibustered any bill with Obama's stamp on it since he took office in 2009... May I ask HOW Obama was able to do all this spending?
Click to expand...

Good point. It's amazing how some folks can avoid acknowledging the glaring truth. Maybe the truth doesn't fit well anywhere in their political belief system.
 
QuickSilver said:
And the ONLY President who the Republican House has REFUSED to pass any budget or appropriation bill he suggested.. The House turned to Republican majority in 2010.. AND the Senates Republican minority filibustered any bill with Obama's stamp on it since he took office in 2009... May I ask HOW Obama was able to do all this spending?
Click to expand...

That has already been covered, more than once. When ever the House stood against the Presidents wild spending and refused to pass his bills, Obama wouls start shutting down the government rather than try to negotiate and relent from his spending crazes. Of course the Democrat controlled Senate, Reid leading, would just not even pick up any Republican bills and process them. I was a complete Democrat controlled operation till this past January when both House and Senate became Republican. Must have been some public decision to make that change in the last elections. Still, as long as our spending President is in the top chair, he can go back into shutting down the sections of government that hurt the people the most.

So to avoid these government shut downs the Republican have decided to push back but step aside rather than have more phoney government shut downs.

So till Obama is gone, we have a poor example of how to get our country back into the 'bills paid' status once again. Just hope we can get the debt paid down before we end up like Greece or Puerto Rico and begging for money to keep our government running.
 
QuickSilver said:
Who shut down the government?? lol!!

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/government-shutdown-wars

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-shut-down-the-government-for-nothing/280611/

Each and every Government shutdown was the fault of the Republicans... looking to hold something for ransom.. whether it was the debt ceiling.. or the ACA.. the GOP LOOOOOVES the theatrics of a shutdown and then LOOOOOOOVE to turn around and blame the President.. AND YOU fall for that nonsense.. hahahahahahahha.
Click to expand...

But who had the authority to shut down the government? It was not the Congress as you suggest. This is just some more of the twisted logic from the Obama side rather than admit Obama has made some bad choices.

Less than one year and a half till we have a new leadership for the US. Too early to say who it might be. It can be Democrat or Republican or independent as of today. We just have to wait and see how all this preliminary stuff shakes out and whether Hillary or other Democrat or if one of the many Republicans already standing for the election selection get elected. Not much either of us can predict that situation.

My often stated idea is that Hillary will be better than what we have today.
 
Never mind Bob.. It is clear that you will not give up your delusions... and you continue to ignore the truth, using the twisted Right Wing Echo Chamber to reinforce your false beliefs. It's really very sad.. but that's your choice.
 
Josiah said:
I'm so tired of Benghazi. If you have to play these games, how about going back and attacking her on Whitewater for a while?
Click to expand...


Benghazi-Hypocrisy.png
 
QuickSilver said:
Never mind Bob.. It is clear that you will not give up your delusions... and you continue to ignore the truth, using the twisted Right Wing Echo Chamber to reinforce your false beliefs. It's really very sad.. but that's your choice.
Click to expand...

You never answered my question of "But who had the authority to shut down the government? It was not the Congress as you suggest." It is the Obama place to work, not the Congress. Twisted ideas and shifting blame seem to be your specialties. But not a all truthful. Obama doesn't seem to negotiate at all. He just steps back and shuts down some government operations. Nice of his moves. Hurt the masses rather than consider some changes the Congress has asked for.
 
Big problem with that chart. It offers no solutions from the Democrats for those same issues. Non whatsoever.

"Yes, TRY TO IMAGINE the.................."

The bombings of the 9/11 in New York City came just following the Clinton days when Clinton had been bombing in foreign countries. Just not hard enough to make a message but did likely enrage some folks into fighting back at the US. That entire poster is filled with distorted facts and misleading ideas.
 
BobF said:
Hillary will be better than what we have today. But most anyone would be better than what we have today.

10 trillion of more unexplained debt. Why and for what? It was at 7.5 trillion in Bush's term, the the Democrats took over Congress and it went right up to over 10 trillion debt. Obama arrives and now it is over 18 trillion in debt and still climbing. But it is all the Republicans fault?

One fact Obama never talks about is the debt he has created. When Obama is gone, someone will have to figure out how to pay down our debts, quickly, before the US credit gets hurt more than it already is.
Click to expand...


Do you really understand how much 18 trillion dollars is? I have read that it will be impossible to pay that back.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/what-does-trillion-dollars-look-0 That link gives an illustration of how many pallets of $100 dollar bills makes up $1 trillion dollars. Notice the teeny little man standing at the front, left corner of that field of pallets stacked two high. And you owe $17 or $18 trillion? Paid down quickly????

image-7.jpg
 
BobF said:
Big problem with that chart. It offers no solutions from the Democrats for those same issues. Non whatsoever.
Click to expand...

The only purpose of that chart is to list incidents of attacks and lives lost, and points out the lack of blame on the sitting Republican president during those attacks from conservatives. Of course, when it's an incident which occurs under President Obama (Democrat), there is outrage from the conservatives, can't say that chart is not truthful.
 
=......May I ask HOW Obama was able to do all this spending?
Click to expand...


I would think that it isn't hard to see that military expenditures is responsible in large part for that debt. 1,000 x $1,000,000,000.00 (that's a billion) = $1 trillion dollars and according to this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States, the USA spends $610 billion (give or take a buck or two) per year on your military so in the last 8 years, you've spent $4,880 billion dollars on military which (help me here folks because 'my math she is not so good:rolleyes:) I think is almost five trillion dollars.

Combine that with the loss of income tax as a result of job losses, plus infrastructure costs and social costs and probably minimal income tax paid by the rich guys........sounds like a recipe for disaster doesn't it?
 
Debby said:
I would think that it isn't hard to see that military expenditures is responsible in large part for that debt. 1,000 x $1,000,000,000.00 (that's a billion) = $1 trillion dollars and according to this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States, the USA spends $610 billion (give or take a buck or two) per year on your military so in the last 8 years, you've spent $4,880 billion dollars on military which (help me here folks because 'my math she is not so good:rolleyes:) I think is almost five trillion dollars.

Combine that with the loss of income tax as a result of job losses, plus infrastructure costs and social costs and probably minimal income tax paid by the rich guys........sounds like a recipe for disaster doesn't it?
Click to expand...


Not saying there isn't spending... only that Constitutionally.. the President of the United States CANNOT spend the money without the approval of the House of Representatives.. and it being passed by the Senate.. A President cannot do it on his own.. It is down by budgetary means... and THAT my friend is the responsibility of the House. THEY are the holders of the purse strings.. That's how our system works.. and the Constitution outlines it very very clearly. Blaming the sitting President for the debt is partisan BS.. only.
 
When the Democrats took over the Congress in George Bush's last two years the debt was at 7.5 trillion. Between the new Representative leader Pelosi and the new Senate leader they were able to force the debt up to about 10 trillion. There method was simple. They would take military spending bills and load them with their favorite spend for the people projects with no financing means attached. Debt being created. Bush could not just reject a bill that is paying for the military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. So Pelosi and Reid both got their expensive playful things done with no Congressional debates of good or bad being done.

When Obama forces his ideas he was shutting down he government rather than to debate in Congress. Recent times have shown the Congress speaking of that threat again and saying they will try to end Obama's waste of money by going deeper into debt. But they concern about his threats to shut down the government again and really don't want that to be put on them. It is not a good balanced situation with a Congress that wants to run one way and a President that wants to run a different way. That is the problem with Obama, he doesn't care that the Congress wants to run a bit different than him. He is not an emperor, nor a do all President, Obama is supposed to be directed by Congress after Congress debates an issue. Little goes into Congress anymore as the Obama government is run by many party driven subsets that have been given approval to do things the President wants.

Only another year and a half and that type of government may be tossed and we can go back to running as the Constitution tells us to run.
 
QuickSilver said:
Not saying there isn't spending... only that Constitutionally.. the President of the United States CANNOT spend the money without the approval of the House of Representatives.. and it being passed by the Senate.. A President cannot do it on his own.. It is down by budgetary means... and THAT my friend is the responsibility of the House. THEY are the holders of the purse strings.. That's how our system works.. and the Constitution outlines it very very clearly. Blaming the sitting President for the debt is partisan BS.. only.
Click to expand...


I think you've misunderstood my last comment. I wasn't saying it's any one person or groups fault as much as I was simply pointing out that endless conflict requires billions of dollars every year and since everyone was talking about Obama's 'adding to the deficit' I just grabbed the last 8 years for the equation. I'd think that allowing for inflation, etc., and depending on how substantive the conflict of the moment, other years figures would show the same principle. A whack of money spent on military and all of it adding to a developing deficit situation.

As a reference point, Russia only spends about $68 billion per year compared to your current(?) $610 billion.
 
I think Jeb should just sit down and allow our famous rich man take chance at leading the US. We have had far too many polished politicians leading this country deeper into a disaster. Why not allow this unpolished politician see if he can do for the US as well as he has done for his business opportunities. If he does well we can all cheer and applaud. If he makes no good for us, at least he did no worse than those polished politicians. To me it is a chance to improve this country as the others have not done well for most of us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top