Conservative Politics & Daily Events Discussion

    Quote from Gadgeteer

    That would depend on how you define "spin", @Bill Martin. My point was that people are basing their "informed decisions" on incomplete information, such as the chart you provided, which is not really a chart, but just a graphic. Not only does you graphic tell an incomplete story, it is also inaccurate. Keep reading.
    As you suggested, I did do the fact checking because, as I am about to prove, you did not. Of course why would you? After all, you EARNED the RIGHT to argue from the heart, not the mind, right? So, Counselor, I pulled numbers from the U.S. Treasury Dept. showing the outstanding National Debt, by close of fiscal year, and here is what I found. The errors in your graphic are the $6.3T and $6.5T. Since you provided no source for your numbers, let us use the numbers provided by the Treasury Dept., which are $10.02T and about $6.1T. That's right, as of FY2008, and not quite the end of Bush's term, the National Debt was at $10T, not $6.3T. Now, let's look at the rest of the story. While it is true that the national debt increased about $6.1T under Obama's first term, what your graphic does not show is that under Bush, the National Debt increased about $4.35T, from $5.67T. While you can argue that the increased debt was numerically larger under Obama than it was under Bush, your claim that the increase is greater than the debt accrued before Obama took office is false. Further, the attempt to hide Bush's impact on our current level of debt, by lumping it together with all the previous presidents before him, has been revealed and provides a clearer picture of the truth. Therefore, you have successfully proven my point, which is that even highly intelligent people can look like fools when they use someone else's half-baked analysis. Thank you, Counselor. :thumbsup:


    If it makes you feel any better, I too have proven the point by making a fool of myself plenty of times. :D
    -

    Lets look at those numbers again according to YOUR source.
    Debt as of 1/19/2001 = 5,727,776,738,304.64
    Debt as of 1/19/2005 = 7,613,772,338,689.34
    Equals total for Bush Term 1 = 1,885,995,600,384.70


    Debt as of 1/19/2005 = 7,613,772,338,689.34
    Debt as of 1/19/2009 = 10,628,881,485,510.23
    Equals total for Bush Term 2 = 3,015,109,146,820.89
    For a grand total of 4,901,104,747,205.59


    Now for Obama
    Debt as of 1/19/2009 = 10,628,881,485,510.23
    Debt as of 1/19/2013 = 16,432,619,424,703.06
    Equals total for Obama Term 1 = 5,803,737,939,192.83


    Debt as of 1/19/2013 = 16,432,619,424,703.06
    Debt as of 11/10/2016 = 19,840,574,291,147.01
    Equals total for Obama term 2 (so far) = 3,407,954,866,443.95
    For a grand total of 9,211,692,805,636.78


    Needless to say, Obama out spent Bush MORE THAN DOUBLE.
    Debt increased
    REAL unemployment increased (not good)
    Part Time job employment increased (not good)
    Full time job employment decreased (not good)
    Those NOT looking for work increased (not good)
    Government assistance recipients increased (not good)
    Companies leaving the US for overseas increased (not good, see above)
    Immigrants invading country increased (not good)
    Government costs related to illegal immigrants increased (not good)
    Murders committed by illegal immigrants increased (not good)
    ALL UNDER OBAMA.
    Now those are mathematical facts, from YOUR source.


    This amounts to:

    • $60,832 for every person living in the U.S.[2]
    • $158,604 for every household in the U.S.[3]
    • 106% of the U.S. gross domestic product.[4]
    • 565% of annual federal revenues.[5] (not good, LOL)

    * At the close of the federal government’s 2015 fiscal year (September 30, 2015), the federal government had roughly:

    • $8.3 trillion ($8,279,000,000,000) in liabilities that are not accounted for in the publicly held national debt, such as federal employee retirement benefits, accounts payable, and environmental/disposal liabilities.[12]
    • $26.7 trillion ($26,661,000,000,000) in obligations for current Social Security participants above and beyond projected revenues from their payroll and benefit taxes, certain transfers from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury, and assets of the Social Security trust fund.[13] [14]
    • $28.5 trillion ($28,500,000,000,000) in obligations for current Medicare participants above and beyond projected revenues from their payroll taxes, benefit taxes, premium payments, and assets of the Medicare trust fund.[15] [16]


    Alright, you too have supported my point. While you obviously made a valiant effort here, these are not the numbers from my source. If you click the link in my post, it should take you directly to the table of data. The big tip off is that my numbers are based on government fiscal year end, 9/30, not the date of inauguration which your numbers are based on. So, contrary to your claim, your numbers did not come from the same source. In fact, the only link to a source that I can see is to yet another 3rd party analysis and that is only for the summarization. So, I have no idea where your numbers came from. In the end, it doesn't matter and I really don't care. I don't care what Obama did because it has already been done and there's nothing that you or I can do to change that. Same goes for Clinton and any other past president or presidential candidate. None of it has any bearing on what is to come. My point has never been about who's better because it is not relevant. My point is that opinions are like assholes - everybody has one - and most of them are based on unreliable, biased data. That's it, nothing else. If you prefer one party or candidate over the other that's great. If you hate the other, that's fine too. If you want to try convincing someone that your preference is better than theirs, then you need to do more than slam them with propaganda made up bullshit. Just because it was effective on you doesn't make it any more true or real. So, once again, my point...


    You know what? Screw it. America has gotten this far without my input and it is clear from the state of things that everything is just peachy. So, forget everything I said (not that you would remember it anyway) and carry on. I'm going to go do something that is actually worthwhile. Peace.
    -


    "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
    ― Douglas Adams

    @Gadgeteer & @AllIn5450 both of you guys have put up excellent, well thought out arguments to support both schools of thought. What it proves is that politicians have lied, cheated, and said anything to make their political interest look good and we the people are guilty of just accepting same. Case and point - just this morning I heard Rob Emmanuel, mayor of war zone Chicago actually say "Chicago will remain a sanctuary city - you are safe here". If anyone can accept that- a few fudged facts and figures are nothing. This ain't the first case I lost and probably won't be the last - but I did learn something. Whoever started this thread must be pretty smart :00008172:

    I might not be right but I can sure sound like it

    Edited once, last by Bill Martin ().

    What I also learned was anyone can spin the numbers and state reference that backs their point. The ones with a little more brain cells won't get offended when something differs from their opinion and try to make others look dumb by throwing those numbers around.
    Oh wait, most here already understood that.
    Just because someone doesn't believe in the numbers you used doesn't make them any less intelligent.

    Quote from Bill Martin

    @Gadgeteer & @AllIn5450 both of you guys have put up excellent, well thought out arguments to support both schools of thought. What it proves is that politicians have lied, cheated, and said anything to make their political interest look good and we the people are guilty of just accepting same. Case and point - just this morning I heard Rob Emmanuel, mayor of war zone Chicago actually say "Chicago will remain a sanctuary city - you are safe here". If anyone can accept that- a few fudged facts and figures are nothing. This ain't the first case I lost and probably won't be the last - but I did learn something. Whoever started this thread must be pretty smart :00008172:


    Holy cow. Someone actually gets it. Thank you @Bill Martin.


    Yes, Politicians have proven time and again that, in general, they are not the most trustworthy bunch of folks. Further, political bias has undermined the reliability of the media and our false confidence in the media is further undermined by the countless special interest groups bombarding us with propaganda and rhetoric disguised as expert knowledge and analysis. Yes, we the people are guilty of accepting it, mainly because we were taught that pure journalism was supposed to be presented without bias, so that people could make an informed decision based on the facts. Obviously, most of us know that is not the case, yet we still base our decisions and opinions on this plethora of unreliable information. However, perhaps the greatest error is that we the people use this unreliable information to support and justify our various view and to stomp any reasonable opposition to our views.


    It is common knowledge that the two most volatile subjects to debate are politics and religion. Why? Because both are based more on belief and faith than on evidential proof. This is the core problem with Politics and the American public. Because of the difficulty of finding real evidential proof for ourselves, we instead rely on others to provide it for us and then we weaponize it in the battle for our chosen political savior. Religion is based on faith because there is very limited evidential proof. However, there is plenty of evidential proof in Politics, yet people are too preoccupied to seek it out for themselves. Instead they rely on the political sermons and scripture provided to them and take it on faith that their thoughts and opinions are just. Power no longer rests with the people, it rests with government and those closely aligned with government, especially corporate and industrial interests. Our elected officials do not represent us or our choices, we represent them and their choices. They know this, they count on it, and as long as they can keep us squabbling amongst ourselves over "the issues" which have no simple answers and are essential impossible to resolve so they can go about their business of handling the "big picture" stuff, as they see fit. I don't give a rats ass about which party party is in control, my concern is that in our collective ignorance, we are actively participating in the perpetuation of everything we say is wrong with our government, our legal system, and our country. We put the blame on the Politicians, but we are the ones that keep buying what they are selling us. We are the ones that are voting for "the lesser of two evils" because those are the options presented to us by our representatives and their supporters. We are the ones that keep casting our "popular vote" while it is the votes of the electoral college, a body of representatives chosen by the political parties, that actually matter. This is what our arrogance and ignorance has made possible and continues to make possible. As long as the discussion is a debate over who was the better president or at what point a fetus has rights, America will never truly be what WE want it to be. Neither Trump, nor anyone else that sits in the Oval office can make America great again. Only WE can make America great again and the only way it will happen is if we stop arguing and debating over pointless crap and start having thoughtful, reasoned conversations about real issues based on real data. Real change starts with us making real changes in ourselves, not by changing who's in office or who we follow.


    "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
    ― Douglas Adams

    Quote from Gadgeteer

    While you obviously made a valiant effort here, these are not the numbers from my source.

    They are DIRECTLY from your source, Just from the page that allows you to search the national debt DAILY. What better way to see the spending of each President than while they actually held office and had some control of the purse strings. That info is about as unbiased as you can get.
    Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

    Quote from Gadgeteer

    So, contrary to your claim, your numbers did not come from the same source.

    See Above.


    Quote from Gadgeteer

    In fact, the only link to a source that I can see is to yet another 3rd party analysis and that is only for the summarization.

    That is correct, only the summary is from another site, and is just for informational purposes only, to show just how FUCKED the country is because the "leaders" do NOT want to let the tax paying public know just how bad THEY have fucked up with our tax money and how much we ACTUALLY owe. I do not believe the government should be able to spend money that it does not have. IF I ran my business like the government is run, the IRS would have thrown me in jail A LONG TIME AGO.


    Quote from Gadgeteer

    I don't care what Obama did because it has already been done and there's nothing that you or I can do to change that.

    YOU are the one that went back and claimed some of the spending of Obama was a result of Bush, not me. While I agree with your assessment on the spending overlaps, the same will apply to Trump during his first term as President. He will be blamed for the failings of Obama during the time it takes him to fix it and recoup some of the money Obama wasted.


    Quote from Gadgeteer

    My point is that opinions are like assholes - everybody has one - and most of them are based on unreliable, biased data. That's it, nothing else.

    I agree with you on opinions. That is why I posted UNBIASED IRREFUTABLE FACTS, straight from the government.


    Quote from Bill Martin

    What it proves is that politicians have lied, cheated, and said anything to make their political interest look good and we the people are guilty of just accepting same.

    AMEN!!!!!!! Well........some accept the propaganda, but there are some that actually use their brains and find the TRUTH. And those are not called "socialists". =O

    Wowwww... just... wow. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing the merits of any president over another, I'm arguing for awareness and consideration among Americans. Is seems @Allln5450 has now volunteered to show us exactly what I'm talking about.


    Ok, so...


    Quote from AllIn5450

    They are DIRECTLY from your source, Just from the page that allows you to search the national debt DAILY.

    If is was directly from my source, then it would be the same page, not a different page. However, you are not entirely wrong, you're just using the term "source" incorrectly. If your original claim of using of my source had indicated that you were citing a different page from the same source (U.S. Treasury), then your claim would have been accurate and acceptable. Yes, it's a small point, but an important one.


    Quote from AllIn5450

    the summary is from another site, and is just for informational purposes only

    That would have been helpful to know since it has no identifiable relationship to your initial counter argument. If you just mash a bunch of stuff together like that it distorts any coherent message you're trying to convey. I was going to let some of that slide, but since we're already talking about it...


    Even if you had cited the last sentence correctly, as noted above, it should have been placed just after the grand total line because everything from "Needless to say..." down to that sentence lacks any numerical or mathematical support. Definitely something that undermines your credibility. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt on that one.



    Quote from AllIn5450

    I do not believe the government should be able to spend money that it does not have. IF I ran my business like the government is run,

    Does your business have any outstanding loans or credit on your accounting ledger? If so, then in this context, you are indeed running your business like the government is run. However, you don't have to worry about the IRS since they don't come after you for bad debt, unless that debt is on taxes you owe to them. If you owe someone other than the IRS, it is that entity you need to worry about coming after you. Of course, as a business owner, you know all this, so this is just clarification for anyone else that might not be aware of it.


    Quote from AllIn5450

    YOU are the one that went back and claimed some of the spending of Obama was a result of Bush, not me. While I agree with your assessment on the spending overlaps, the same will apply to Trump during his first term as President. He will be blamed for the failings of Obama during the time it takes him to fix it and recoup some of the money Obama wasted.

    You are right, Trump will be blamed for whatever needs to be fixed after Obama leaves office. You're right, I went back further than Obama and into Bush's presidency, not you. Now, if I could just get you make the following connection.


    In the last 8 yrs., I have never heard of any conservative ever concede that, just as Trump will be unfairly blamed for the failings of his predecessor, Obama was being unfairly blamed for the failings of his predecessor, President Bush. Even you have admitted the former, yet you are arguing that Bush did less damage to our economy than Obama did. Would you be willing to concede that just as Trump is being left holding the bag for Obama, in turn, Obama was left holding he bag for Bush? So far, every conservative to whom I've suggested this has denied it and labeled it as Democratic propaganda. So, it seems to me that most conservatives have forgotten (or are trying to forget) that Obama inherited an economy on the verge of total collapse, the very first day he was in office. Everyone remembers the massive cluster-f*** of a bailout, but they seem to forget that it was signed-in by Bush, 30 days before Obama was elected. They also seem to forget that the bailout was deemed necessary due to the irresponsible lending practices that Banks started using to take advantage of the housing boom which began around the time Bush first took office. I'm not upset about who screwed the pooch, I'm upset that conservatives like yourself actually believe (or at least support) the idea that Obama was the one responsible for the economic shit-storm, and it's aftermath. If the shit hit the fan a month before Obama was elected, I would be delighted if you or anyone else can explain how the economy was entirely his fault. Until then, any complaints regarding the mess Obama is leaving behind for Trump reeks of hypocrisy.




    Quote from AllIn5450

    AMEN!!!!!!! Well........some accept the propaganda, but there are some that actually use their brains and find the TRUTH. And those are not called "socialists".

    This statement conveys the exact opposite of what you actually intended. Squeezing the words "AMEN!!!!!", "propaganda", "TRUTH" and "socialists" together into one thought, with lots of CAPITALIZATION, makes one more likely to question just how much independent thought is really going on. I'm not saying you are not using your brains, I know you are, but your statement makes you sound like a conservative fanatic, and not in a good way. Just something to think about.


    "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
    ― Douglas Adams

    Edited 2 times, last by Gadgeteer ().

    Quote from Slingrazor

    Just because someone doesn't believe in the numbers you used doesn't make them any less intelligent.

    Right you are. Also, intelligent numbers are more believable when cited and verifiable. :thumbup:


    "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
    ― Douglas Adams

    Quote from Slingrazor

    What I also learned was anyone can spin the numbers and state reference that backs their point. The ones with a little more brain cells won't get offended when something differs from their opinion and try to make others look dumb by throwing those numbers around.
    Oh wait, most here already understood that.
    Just because someone doesn't believe in the numbers you used doesn't make them any less intelligent.


    Quote from Gadgeteer

    Right you are. Also, intelligent numbers are more believable when cited and verifiable. :thumbup:

    This is what is wrong with the political and journalism today. You quoted what you thought would help from my post but didn't put the entire post directly which contradicted what you have posting.
    That same method is what is used in statistics to make a point. Just because you posted the numbers from the source you wanted in a way you interpreted it does not make it factual. It is your opinion which is OK, for what you believe.

    Your back pedaling so hard now that you need to get one of those back up beepers they put on garbage trucks.


    Now that you mentioned the "Housing Crisis" financial disaster, and I am just going from memory here but I seem to remember the Democrats jumping up and down claiming that the "lower class", "lower income earners" and the down right poor could not afford to buy or qualify for loans for housing which I think back then were called "McMansions".
    So in the name of "Equality" and "Spreading the Wealth", the Democrats pitched a natural hissy fit because the banks loan standards were out of reach of people that wanted to buy $250,000 houses with 1% or 2% down because they didn't make enough to save more.
    If memory serves me correct, The DEMOCRATS demanded a more level playing field for all and wanted, no demanded that the banks approve more loans to the "downtrodden" people that wanted to buy a house.
    So, the banks started approving loans to people that could not afford houses, especially $250k houses, and then the banks tried to protect themselves by selling the loans that they knew would default so they would not get stuck holding the bag when the inevitable happened.


    As for the rest of your post.
    We all get it......... we all understand where you are coming from.......... You make a good democrat.......... They will be proud of you..........
    And by the way..... Now days a source is considered a web site as in Foxnews.com, cnn.com, nbc.com, Breitbart.com, and yes, even TREASURYDIRECT.GOV. But if you still want to continue to split hairs from the same old sour PIG, please be my guest. You are not fooling anyone.

    PEACE......LOVE......ALL HAIL TRUMP :00008040::00008172::00008356: