SugarShack, Let's Review:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:44 PM, VT VirtualTruth <[email protected] > wrote: So people here have a better Idea of why you cut and ran on the other board... Your message was confusing because it was wrong. (Keith Resonds: Sugarshack, once I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken. You need to check your figures Buddy!!!) ============ - You were comparing Obama's 'record deficit' to all eight years of Bush's BUDGETS and THEN said it was 4 TIMES\the size! *Keith Responds: * I said that Obama's budget deficit is four times the size of Bush's deficit, for the past eight years. This is a correct assessment. In fact, the Obama proposed 10 year budget would expend over ten trillion dollars over the next ten years, which exceeds not only the last eight years, it exceeds the last 232 years of our entire history!!! =============== - So forgive me if I challenged it especially when your proof did not support this comment. ============== *Keith Responds:* Sean, Sean, Sean, Any way you try to spin it, we have never, ever seen the kind of deficit spending that the Obama Administration is proposing over the next ten years. More importantly, the Obama Administration is attempting to expand the federal government to something, once again, we have never seen. In essence, President Obama is attempting to do away with a free market ecomony in this Nation, (as well as the United States Constitution, and you somehow are either attempting to ignore this fact, and/or brush over the financial numbers!!!) ================ - I will read your post, look at the facts, then explain the results to you. ============ *Keith Responds:* Please do, before you throw out any more bogus numbers of out-dated facts!! ============= For instance, the 2008 Bailouts though added to the 2009 Budget are deficits Obama inherited. Also I want to make sure interest is not also added to the figure. Obama inherited a $600,000 Billion deficit BEFORE the 2008 Bailouts were even added on $600 Billion X 8 Years is already $4.8 Trillion of Inherited Deficits that are a carry over from Bush ================== *Keith Responds:* Sugarshack, Sugarshack, Sugharshack, Your Numbers are not correct. The Bush Deficit was less than five hundred billion. Your premise is also correct. Obama could stop eliminate the Bush Administration's 480 billion budget deficit tomorrow, but that is not Pelosi's Reed's or Obama's goal. The socialist-elitists' goal is just that, socialism, elitism, and to expand federal government to heights we have never seen!! It is disengenuous to suggest that this is somehow a "Bush carryover". It would be like suggesting that President Clinton left some kind of a national debt surplus, (not a budget surplus) when we both know this isn't true. Add to this the cost of the 2008 Bailouts and that > is another $1 to $1.5 Trillion! > > To say this is Obama's Fault and to blame him > for this deficit spending is truly disingenuous! > > Obama inherited HLS and the Medicare Drug Program > and the AIG, TARP, AUTO, Merrill Lynch, and > other bailouts. Remember this fact. > > Oh and for the record your actual words, not your > revised version was this...... > > On Apr 16, 5:17 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > The "record deficit" that you reference, is a small drop in the bucket as > > compared to the current "record deficit" which is four times the size of > all > > eight years of the Bush Administration's budgets..... > > > > You still don't get it!!! > > BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!!!! Now try again. > > On Apr 20, 9:25 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > Good Morning SugarShack! > > > > What is it that you want me to post? I have clearly established that > > President Obama's budget quadriples the budget deficit of the former > > Administration's. That the proposed budgetary plan clearly expands a our > > federal government to proportions unheard of. > > > > I have provided you factual links, some from the Congressional Budget > > Office, some from other governmental sites which clearly establish these > > facts. > > > > What is it that you think I should respond too? Your contention that you > > didn't understand my post, or that somehow you take issue with my > > semantics? > > > > Go over to the thread captioned, "The Steven Bradbury Memoranda On > Enhanced > > Interrogation Techniques: I Am Wanting To Hear Perspectives!!" and tell > me > > "WTF" is going on here and how any rational thinking person can conclude > > that America ever tortured anyone. > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 2:21 AM, VT VirtualTruth > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > I posted to the board and not a response all week end..... > > > I posted my response on two separate strings, > > > no response. I think EVERYONE on the board noticed this > > > lack of response...... > > > > > On Apr 17, 9:09 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Good Evening Sean!! > > > > > > What did I leave off of the table? I totally destroyed just about > every > > > > premise that you have put down on the table, but I don't want you to > > > think > > > > that I am avoiding you!!! > > > > > > Please, by all means, what subject is it that you wish for me to > clarify > > > for > > > > you this evening??? > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:46 AM, VT VirtualTruth < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Keith you ran and hid in Political Forum > > > > > said you had to go have dinner, yet here > > > > > you are 'bragging' about the 'good' arguments you are > > > > > having. > > > > > > > You want to come back to Political Forum so i can finish bitch > > > > > slapping > > > > > you? > > > > > > > On Apr 16, 11:31 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > I was jerking Sean's chain.....Plus, on occasion I'd like to post > > > some > > > > > good > > > > > > arguments on the board that I am kinda sorta runnin' this week!! > > > (LOL!!) > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Perplexed < > > > [email protected] > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > What....why can't he post it here? > > > > > > > > > On Apr 16, 2:47 pm, VT VirtualTruth <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I thought we weren't going to do this here? > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 16, 2:01 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Sean!! > > > > > > > > > > > Good to see ya!! > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for sharing your homoerotic far left extremist > > > talking > > > > > points > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > the group! I know that members such as Fritzie, Biffie, > > > Cosmo-ie > > > > > and > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > far left extremists are proud of you for picking up on and > > > > > mimicking > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > likes of that gal who is the husband and splashes diesel > behind > > > her > > > > > > > ears for > > > > > > > > > perfume....Whuz-Her-Name....Rachael Maddow, and the other > > > crazed, > > > > > > > demented > > > > > > > > > Moonbat, Keithie Olberman, but I digress. > > > > > > > > > > > Let's review your premise, and I quote: > > > > > > > > > > > "That the Republican Congress was NOT the reason for this > > > balanced > > > > > > > > > budget (during > > > > > > > > > the Clinton Administration). That Clinton stood up to the > > > Rhino's > > > > > > > (Rhino > > > > > > > > > being a derogatory term for Republican)" > > > > > > > > > > > ===== > > > > > > > > > > > Sean, let us actually review the facts, and not revisionist > > > > > history. > > > > > > > Of > > > > > > > > > course, all of the data I have attached here can be > documented. > > > > > Please > > > > > > > feel > > > > > > > > > free to ask questions if there is anything that you get > > > confused on > > > > > or > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > frustrated over not comprehending: > > > > > > > > > > > It is true, that the federal budget deficit tumbled from > $255 > > > > > billion > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > 1993 to approximately $117 billion in 1996, and that by > 1999, > > > > > there > > > > > > > was an > > > > > > > > > actual surplus versus a deficit in our national budget. > > > > > > > > > > > In February 1993 President Clinton announced his new > > > > > Administration's > > > > > > > first > > > > > > > > > economic program: a $16-billion "fiscal stimulus." The > > > spending > > > > > > > package is > > > > > > > > > later abandoned by the Democratic Congress as too fiscally > > > > > > > irresponsible. > > > > > > > > > > > In February 1993 President Clinton wins passage of his > > > > > $250-billion > > > > > > > tax > > > > > > > > > hike; which New York Senator Pat Moynihan accurately > describes > > > as > > > > > "the > > > > > > > > > largest tax increase in world history." > > > > > > > > http://www.archive.org/stream/proposedconstitu00unit/proposedconstitu. > > > > > > > .. > > > > > > > > > > > Nevertheless, President Clinton's "Tax and Spend" policy > passes > > > the > > > > > > > Democrat > > > > > > > > > Controlled Congress, without a single Republican vote. The > > > package > > > > > > > contains > > > > > > > > > approximately $2 of new spending for every $1 of new taxes. > > > > > > > > > > > In September 1993 the Clinton White House lobbies to defeat > the > > > > > > > bi-partisan > > > > > > > > > Penny - Kasich deficit-reduction bill, which would have cut > > > federal > > > > > > > spending > > > > > > > > > and the deficit by $90 billion over five years. The > Clinton > > > White > > > > > > > House and > > > > > > > > > the Democrat controlled Congress prevailed, and the > > > Penny-Kasich > > > > > > > Deficit > > > > > > > > > Reduction Bill was defeated. > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.archive.org/details/pennykasichamend00unit > > > > > > > > > > > In January 1994 Bill and Hillary Clinton unveil > "ClintonCare." > > > The > > > > > > > proposed > > > > > > > > > hostile federal takeover of one-seventh of the U.S. economy > > > would > > > > > add > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > least $700 billion to the deficit over the next six years, > > > > > according to > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > Congressional Budget Office (CBO). > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/bg1276.cfm > > > > > > > > > > > In September 1994 the President furiously lobbies liberal > > > Democrats > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > Congress to oppose a Balanced Budget Amendment -- a measure > > > > > supported > > > > > > > by 75 > > > > > > > > > per cent of the American public. Labor Secretary Robert > Reich > > > is a > > > > > > > little > > > > > > > > > too honest when he confirms most Americans' suspicions > about > > > this > > > > > > > > > Administration: "The President is against simply balancing > the > > > > > budget." > > > > >http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+red-ink+blues.(budget)-a017863046 > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7416/tales.html > > > > > > > > > > > In October 1994 President Clinton signs into law his > > > $30-billion > > > > > "crime > > > > > > > > > bill." The Los Angeles Times describes the legislation as a > > > > > > > > > "once-in-a-lifetime federal spending bonanza" containing "a > > > vast > > > > > array > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > new social programs" including federally funded > exotic-dance > > > > > classes, > > > > > > > > > sensitivity-training courses, and midnight-basketball > leagues. > > > The > > > > > cost > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > the Clinton bill has to be shaved after the Democratic > House of > > > > > > > > > Representatives rejects the original version as too > expensive. > > > > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/18/us/the-1994-campaign-the-president-. > > > > > > > .. > > > > > > > > > > > In January 1995 Bill Clinton submits a 1996 budget plan > that > > > calls > > > > > for > > > > > > > $12 > > > > > > > > > trillion of spending over the next seven years and > $200-billion > > > > > > > deficits for > > > > > > > > > as far as the eye can see. Even Washington Post reporter > David > > > > > Broder > > > > > > > blasts > > > > > > > > > the document as a "symbol of Clinton's failed leadership." > > > Because > > > > > of > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > debt Clinton is adding, writes Broder, "the annual net > interest > > > is > > > > > > > projected > > > > > > > > > to climb from $198 billion in 1993 to $270 billion in 1997 > -- > > > when > > > > > it > > > > > > > will, > > > > > > > > > for the first time, be larger than the projected defense > > > budget." > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.reason.com/news/show/30153.html > > > > > > > > > > > -- In March 1995 Clinton again helps torpedo the Balanced > > > Budget > > > > > > > Amendment > > > > > > > > > -- this time by strong-arming five Democratic senators, who > had > > > > > > > campaigned > > > > > > > > > as champions of the amendment -- to flip-flop and vote no. > > > > > > > > > > > -- In June 1995, under pressure from the newly elected GOP > > > > > Congress, > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > Clinton submits a new, revised budget proposal. It still > > > doesn't > > > > > > > balance the > > > > > > > > > budget by 2002. > > > > > > > > > -- In July 1995 the Clinton White House begins its > successful > > > > > > > "Medi-scare" > > > > > > > > > strategy to undermine public support for a GOP plan to rein > in > > > > > > > stampeding > > > > > > > > > Medicare costs. Even the Washington Post editorializes that > the > > > > > Clinton > > > > > > > > > Administration has become a gang of "medagogues." On > Medicare > > > and > > > > > > > Medicaid, > > > > > > > > > the White House is "engaged in an irresponsible campaign > based > > > on > > > > > > > distortion > > > > > > > > > and fear." > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-850297.html > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/bg1442.cfm > > > > > > > > > > > In October 1995 Bill Clinton confirms what most of the > public > > > is > > > > > > > already > > > > > > > > > painfully aware of: "I raised your taxes too much." > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/clinton.php > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.urbin.net/EWW/sigs/clintonsigs.html > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
