Obama, Spending like a Sailor on Payday, and the Debt Ceiling

[BigBadBrian]

Should we give Obama unlimited ability to rack up more debt without first asking Congress each time?

Does this nation NOT have a spending problem?

Would you trust Obama to manage your family's checkbook?

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/64529_483762161682147_1235146010_n.jpg

[BITEYOASS]

So John Boner gets a pass? Not gonna say anything about the drunk "Weeper of the House" you douchebag?!?!

[BigBadBrian]

So John Boner gets a pass? Not gonna say anything about the drunk "Weeper of the House" you douchebag?!?!

That's all you have? "So John Boner gets a pass?"

Try again, and use that block on your shoulders this time.

[Nickdfresh]

What's the difference between Obama's budget and Bush's budgets (when adjusted for inflation)?

And aren't the Republicans in the House also "spending like sailors?" I mean, even super fiscal conservatives (lol!) like to bring home the porks and baconz to their districts...

[Nickdfresh]

That's all you have? "So John Boner gets a pass?"

Try again, and use that block on your shoulders this time.

Whats all you gots? Obama "spends like a sailor?" As fucking opposed to whom? Every other president?

[Nickdfresh]

And this thread is just perpetuating another ethnic stereotype against sailors!
http://buriedplanet.com/userfiles/thats_racist_animated1.gif
Are you a self hater, BBB? Did you spends lots of monies on whores and booze?

[BigBadBrian]

What's the difference between Obama's budget and Bush's budgets (when adjusted for inflation)?



Obama has been running greater than $1 Trillion deficits for all his years in the White House. Bush didn't do that. Obama is deliberately trying to run the economy into the ground.

[BigBadBrian]

Anyway, answer my question: should we give Barry bin Barack power to raise the debt ceiling at his own whim?

[BigBadBrian]

Did you spends lots of monies on whores and booze?

Ask your mom!

[Nickdfresh]

Ask your mom!

She said something about this sailor with a really small penis and who was probably gay...

[ELVIS]

She said I shouldn't be a sailor with a really small penis and probably gay...

At least your mom was honest...

Too bad you don't have that trait...

[Nickdfresh]

At least your mom was honest...

Too bad you don't have that trait...

At least she's smart too. To bad you don't have that trait. Because if you're not trolling and being dishonest by posting your InfoWhores-mirror bullshit, you might be one of the thickest fucking people that ever figured out how to log onto this site...

[ELVIS]

I bet you say that to all da wabbits...:biggrin:

[sadaist]

Obama, Spending like a Sailor on Payday,


I was under the impression that most sailors receive very little pay & get even less free time.


;)

[ELVIS]

It doesn't matter how much they get paid, they tend to spend every penny and then some...

[knuckleboner]

Obama has been running greater than $1 Trillion deficits for all his years in the White House. Bush didn't do that. Obama is deliberately trying to run the economy into the ground.

yes bush did. CBO certified the deficit at greater than $1 trillion before obama was sworn in. the first $1 trillion deficit belongs to bush. fact.

[knuckleboner]

Anyway, answer my question: should we give Barry bin Barack power to raise the debt ceiling at his own whim?

yes. in as much as reagan, effectively, had that same power. and should have.

THE DEBT LIMIT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE ONE PENNY OF ADDITIONAL SPENDING.

if you don't like the spending, pass lower appropriations bills. every dollar of debt we need to operate this fiscal year was passed by the republican house of representatives. along with the senate and the president.

if you want less future debt, the way to do so is to lower appropriations and/or increase revenues. dicking with the debt ceiling is just irresponsible.

[BigBadBrian]

yes bush did. CBO certified the deficit at greater than $1 trillion before obama was sworn in. the first $1 trillion deficit belongs to bush. fact.

The OMB says otherwise. Fact. As for FY 2009, largely crafted while Bush was in office and the Rats had Congress, let's not forget the Ultra-Failed Stimulus.

Oh, and you're wrong about the debt ceiling. Without a budget, Obama will just keep asking for more and more money, like Bush did for the Iraq/Afghan soirée, to fund his massive entitlement programs and other reckless spending. That's why the govt needs a budget just like a family does.

[Hardrock69]

Obama is already spending less than any president in the past 50 years. What the fuck are you going on about, dolt?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/repeat-after-me-obama-cut_b_1955561.html

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=1

[knuckleboner]

The OMB says otherwise. Fact. As for FY 2009, largely crafted while Bush was in office and the Rats had Congress, let's not forget the Ultra-Failed Stimulus.

Oh, and you're wrong about the debt ceiling. Without a budget, Obama will just keep asking for more and more money, like Bush did for the Iraq/Afghan soirée, to fund his massive entitlement programs and other reckless spending. That's why the govt needs a budget just like a family does.

dude, OMB is irrelevant. it projects a deficit from the beginning of the fiscal year. if revenue collapses DURING that fiscal year, then the projection becomes meaningless. which is exactly what happened in FY 2009:

on january 7, 2009, CBO says deficit will be $1.2 trillion for FY 2009. (http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/07/news/economy/cbo_2009_budget_outlook/)

that was BEFORE obama took office. $1.2 trillion in deficit is bush's. and yes the stimulus (not failed, but a different, and here irrelevant, argument) added to that. by about $200 billion. but it doesn't change the FACT that the deficit was $1.2 trillion before obama took office.


as for the budget, i believe you don't quite understand how the federal budget works. since i've had a little training on it in the past, allow me to help: the federal budget resolution is meaningless. first of all, it's NOT signed by the president. it's NOT a law. it sets the spending caps for each appropriations bill for the upcoming year. it then sets a completely non-binding 5 year caps. but every subsequent budget resolution changes those caps. because they're non-binding.

now, you're right, the senate has NOT passed a budget resolution for several budgets. so? they DID pass appropriations caps for each budget year. and those 12 appropriations bills (mostly passed as omnibus bills) all passed. that's the budget. period.

the debt ceiling is not directly related to spending. if congress raised the debt ceiling to $1 quadrillion next week, it wouldn't authorize a single cent more spending. it would NOT allow obama to suddenly spend $5 trillion, or $5, on the new black panthers. any additional spending - ANY - would require an appropriations bill to be passed by congress and signed by the president.

FY 14's deficit is not actually a deficit yet. it's only a deficit IF congress passes spending bills in excess of revenue. entitlement spending is not yet more than revenue, so if you don't want a deficit next year, don't vote for approprations above revenues. bam. no problem. well, actually, that's WAY too fast, since paul ryan's budget doesn't actually balance until 2040, but that doesn't mean we couldn't technically balance next year, regardless of the debt ceiling...

[ELVIS]

since i've had a little training on it in the past, allow me to help:

Not a chance...

The federal government has a spending problem, period...

It's not a left/right issue...

Taxing everyone at 90% wouldn't be enough to balance their crazy "budget."

It's out of control...

[knuckleboner]

Not a chance...

The federal government has a spending problem, period...

It's not a left/right issue...

Taxing everyone at 90% wouldn't be enough to balance their crazy "budget."

It's out of control...

let's play a game where i ask the differences between now and the last time the nation had an actual surplus (FY2000).

if you said: way more spending, you'd be right. but you'd also need to add: way less revenue. guess what: cutting taxes, and seeing taxes as a percentage of GDP fall, doesn't help deficits.

[ELVIS]

That was not an actual surplus...

I'm well versed in Clinton's "surplus" and it didn't exist...

[ELVIS]

And as far as arguing taxes, it's all semantics without a productive and growing job sector...

[knuckleboner]

That was not an actual surplus...

I'm well versed in Clinton's "surplus" and it didn't exist...

apparently, you're not as versed as you think.

officially, clinton had 4 straight budget surpluses: FY 1998 - FY 2001. but, i didn't say FY 2001. i said FY 2000. why? social security's surpluses are added to the total to make the deficits look smaller, or surpluses look bigger. but guess what? in FY 1999 and FY 2000, there was a surplus WITHOUT social security.

in FY 1999 it was $1.92 billion. in FY 2000 it was FY $86.42 billion. that meant that not including social security surpluses (which shouldn't be counted as revenue, since they have to be paid back), the government in FY 2000 took in $86 billion more than it paid out. that's a real surplus. period.

source: OMB - historical table 1.1 - on budget surplus/deficit (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals)

[ELVIS]

Clinton Surplus Hoax...

Click! (http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16)

[ELVIS]

Clinton Surplus Myth...

Clickeypoo! (http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/craigsteiner/2011/08/22/the_clinton_surplus_myth/page/full/)


:elvis:

[Nickdfresh]

Clinton Surplus Hoax...

Click! (http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16)

That webpage looks like it is from the era of The Clinton Administration...

[Hardrock69]

If he wants to prove it as a myth, he should provide links to GAO, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, or other respectable government or private financial websites instead of some fucking lone crackpot.

But he can't.

[BigBadBrian]

Obama is already spending less than any president in the past 50 years. What the fuck are you going on about, dolt?


I think you need to go understand what GDP means.

[BigBadBrian]

knuckleboner said:

dude, OMB is irrelevant.

that was BEFORE obama took office. $1.2 trillion in deficit is bush's. and yes the stimulus (not failed, but a different, and here irrelevant, argument) added to that. by about $200 billion. but it doesn't change the FACT that the deficit was $1.2 trillion before obama took office.

You're using the old school yard "he started it" excuse. I don't care whether FY 09 deficit is Bush's fault or not. I never said he wasn't partially to blame for runaway spending. But, he sure as hell didn't have + 1 Trillion deficits for his entire Presidency like Obama will have.

first of all, it's NOT signed by the president. it's NOT a law. it sets the spending caps for each appropriations bill for the upcoming year. it then sets a completely non-binding 5 year caps. but every subsequent budget resolution changes those caps. because they're non-binding.
as for the budget, i believe you don't quite understand how the federal budget works. since i've had a little training on it in the past, allow me to help: the federal budget resolution is meaningless.

Actually, it's not. Most Democrats like you say it's meaningless since it's your party's fault we don't have one. It's against the law NOT to have a budget whether it gets signed or not. It's a guide..a plan. Not having a plan is the reason for so many deficits in the past. I honestly think Congress and the POTUS lose track of how much is being spent. This country's problem is spending, not revenue.

the debt ceiling is not directly related to spending. if congress raised the debt ceiling to $1 quadrillion next week, it wouldn't authorize a single cent more spending. it would NOT allow obama to suddenly spend $5 trillion

The fact of the matter is Obama is going to keep spending as much as he is allowed...by the limits of the debt ceiling. It should be kept as low as possible so this country starts living within it's means

[Nickdfresh]

knuckleboner said:

dude, OMB is irrelevant.

that was BEFORE obama took office. $1.2 trillion in deficit is bush's. and yes the stimulus (not failed, but a different, and here irrelevant, argument) added to that. by about $200 billion. but it doesn't change the FACT that the deficit was $1.2 trillion before obama took office.

You're using the old school yard "he started it" excuse. I don't care whether FY 09 deficit is Bush's fault or not. I never said he wasn't partially to blame for runaway spending. But, he sure as hell didn't have + 1 Trillion deficits for his entire Presidency like Obama will have.

first of all, it's NOT signed by the president. it's NOT a law. it sets the spending caps for each appropriations bill for the upcoming year. it then sets a completely non-binding 5 year caps. but every subsequent budget resolution changes those caps. because they're non-binding.
as for the budget, i believe you don't quite understand how the federal budget works. since i've had a little training on it in the past, allow me to help: the federal budget resolution is meaningless.

Actually, it's not. Most Democrats like you say it's meaningless since it's your party's fault we don't have one. It's against the law NOT to have a budget whether it gets signed or not. It's a guide..a plan. Not having a plan is the reason for so many deficits in the past. I honestly think Congress and the POTUS lose track of how much is being spent. This country's problem is spending, not revenue.

It Bush's economy and his two massive wars, both led incompetently and ones YOU VOTED FOR, that led to the current deficit. It is the reduced tax revenue via not only the Bush-era tax cuts, but also the severe recession led in by Bush's eight years of shit policies...

And the POTUS keeps track of what is spent - as does the GOP led House!




The fact of the matter is Obama is going to keep spending as much as he is allowed...by the limits of the debt ceiling. It should be kept as low as possible so this country starts living within it's means

Obama doesn't approve the budget, the GOP-led Congress does!

[ELVIS]

LMAO !!

Still blaming Bush ??


:biggrin:

[Nickdfresh]

LMAO !!

Still blaming Bush ??


:biggrin:

As opposed to you never blaming Bush, voting for twice, then becoming a conspiratorial fuckwit the minute a black man Democrat gets into office?

[ELVIS]

I absolutely blame Bush for beginning the destruction of freedom in this country, but how is Obomba any different ??

And Obomba is hardly black, you retard...

[cadaverdog]

I was under the impression that most sailors receive very little pay & get even less free time.


;)
When I was in we had plenty of free time. 30 days per year vacation, stand down after deployment you work one day out of four or five for a month or so depending on how many duty sections on your ship, time off for personal business usually granted by request. Off by noon most fridays. And as far as money goes , they pay all your expenses except your car if you have one. Most sailors have money to burn.

[cadaverdog]

It doesn't matter how much they get paid, they tend to spend every penny and then some...
Not true. Most squids save some cash for when they get out. I saved almost ten thousand in two years I was aboard ship. Too bad I got into free basing. I blew five grand on that in a couple months. If I didn't have go out to sea I would have probably spent all of it on coke. I was hooked while I was doing it but I kicked it after being straight a few weeks.

[knuckleboner]

Clinton Surplus Hoax...

Click! (http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16)

why, ELVIS, i didn't give you enough credit.

you're still wrong, but actually for a different reason.

the "debt" this guy cites is gross federal debt. and yes, it increased every year. but that is NOT an accurate picture of the debt, because it includes debt that the government owes itself. if you are a regular person and you write a check for $100 from your checking account and deposit it into your savings account, nobody says, "dude, you just lost $100." if you're only tracking the total amount of OUTGOING funds, then yep, it looks like you lost $100. but overall, it's clear you didn't.

that's the same thing with the federal government. if you look at OMB historical table 7.1 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals) you'll see that the net federal debt DID decline from FY 1998 through FY 2001. (though, as i already stated, they needed social security revenues in FY 1998 and FY 2001, so i'm happy not to count those.) nonetheless, the only people who would still say that there were NO surpluses at all either: 1) don't understand how budgets work, or 2) are only looking at part of the data. either way, they're wrong.

[ELVIS]

Why would I rely on White House figures for an accurate picture of the budget ??

[knuckleboner]

Why would I rely on White House figures for an accurate picture of the budget ??

i'm sorry, you're right, you should rely on craig steiner. he's MUCH more knowledgable.

but seriously, if you want to know why there DEFINITELY were surpluses? democrats claim clinton had surpluses. if it was so easy to disprove that craig steiner nailed it, then republicans would be using that against democrats every time. but they don't. because craig is wrong. the surpluses were real. whether you trust them or not.

[ELVIS]

Republicans don't use it against them because they don't live in the past like the dredging dems...

But the surplus was nothing more than playing with the numbers...

[BigBadBrian]

It Bush's economy and his two massive wars, both led incompetently and ones YOU VOTED FOR, that led to the current deficit.

Iraq and Afghanistan have contributed quite a bit less compared to entitlement spending: Medicare, social security, medicaid, unemployment, welfare, etc. Look it up!


Obama doesn't approve the budget, the GOP-led Congress does!

Uhhh...the House submits the Budget to the Senate. Call up Harry Reid and ask him what he does to Budgets.

[FORD]

Uhhh...the House submits the Budget to the Senate. Call up Harry Reid and ask him what he does to Budgets.

Well, if they would send him a budget that wasn't Eddie Munster's Randtard horseshit, maybe he could take it seriously?

[jhale667]

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h217/jhale667/PhilosoraptorCongress_zps96124cc1.jpg

[Nickdfresh]

Iraq and Afghanistan have contributed quite a bit less compared to entitlement spending: Medicare, social security, medicaid, unemployment, welfare, etc. Look it up!

Why don't you look it up, since it's your point? I think the books are genuinely cooked on that when separated and hidden from "defense spending"...


Uhhh...the House submits the Budget to the Senate. Call up Harry Reid and ask him what he does to Budgets.

I couldn't get a hold of him. What does he do?

[knuckleboner]

Republicans don't use it against them because they don't live in the past like the dredging dems...

But the surplus was nothing more than playing with the numbers...

the party that still ejaculates at the mention of reagan's name doesn't live in the past?

[Nickdfresh]

the party that still ejaculates at the mention of reagan's name doesn't live in the past?

And ejaculates at the mention of Bill Clinton, but for different reasons!

[ELVIS]

the party that still ejaculates at the mention of reagan's name doesn't live in the past?

I guess maybe the Hannity types that twist Reagan's words to fit their neocon agenda...