Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11  
    Senior Member Janice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southern USA
    Posts
    2,809


    If only RINOs had a brain. They could use graphs while they paraded the endless victims of this despotic regime before the microphones and committees.
    http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd445/JansGraphix/ConsUndergrd-Sig2.jpg
    Liberalism is just communism sold by the drink.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member Janice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southern USA
    Posts
    2,809


    Even dummies eventually figure them out ...
    http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd445/JansGraphix/ConsUndergrd-Sig2.jpg
    Liberalism is just communism sold by the drink.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Senior Member Unreconstructed Reb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by Janice View Post


    Even dummies eventually figure them out ...
    I hate to disagree with you and I do agree that most libtards would certainly grasp the significance of a graph such as the one depicted above buuuuutttttt, as soon as you put numbers to the graph the average liberal arts graduate libtard is gonna get that vacuous look in their eyes and the effect of the graph will be lost. They'll just see the 'Obama Years' and that he's got the tallest building and conclude that he's doing a great job.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that you won't need it until they try to take it away."---Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Senior Member Janice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southern USA
    Posts
    2,809
    http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd445/JansGraphix/ConsUndergrd-Sig2.jpg
    Liberalism is just communism sold by the drink.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Janice View Post
    I have heard it said by the talking heads that at this point it is mathematically impossible to pay off this debt. That said the only question that remains is who purchased this country and what do they intend to do with it.
    You don't keep loaning money to a debtor that can't pay you back so the only other possibility is that those who purchased this country want to keep their investment operating.
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Janice View Post
    It's actually much higher now: http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    In the belly of the Beast.
    Posts
    32
    The Republican Party is dying. Been dying since the 1960s.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    I can't remember if it was Hannity or Wilkow I was listening to today who came up with this subject. But, one thing the Democrats have a great knack for is putting a face to their agenda. Look at the SOTU when Obama trotted out there; an illegal immigrant and victims of mass shootings. Why don't Republicans ever do anything like this? Have a presser and bring out people who saved their own lives thanks to a firearm. Or have a small businessman present who's business is suffering because of Obamacare. Start fighting fire with fire. There are plenty of people who they can use as examples but they never do. Why?
    Bush used "Snowflake children" as props when he vetoed stem cell research so this is nothing new.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    I have heard it said by the talking heads that at this point it is mathematically impossible to pay off this debt. That said the only question that remains is who purchased this country and what do they intend to do with it.
    You don't keep loaning money to a debtor that can't pay you back so the only other possibility is that those who purchased this country want to keep their investment operating.
    We had a choice of paying off the debt or getting a tax cut in 2000, (how soon we forget), and chose a tax cut so I am not really sure why we think paying off debt is important now. I also don't remember hearing anything about debt during the Bush years and I suspect the only reason it matters now is because of a democrat president so excuse me if I don't get too excited about conservative hand wringing now...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    HR Corporate Scum patriot45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Plant City, Florida
    Posts
    10,929
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    We had a choice of paying off the debt or getting a tax cut in 2000, (how soon we forget), and chose a tax cut so I am not really sure why we think paying off debt is important now. I also don't remember hearing anything about debt during the Bush years and I suspect the only reason it matters now is because of a democrat president so excuse me if I don't get too excited about conservative hand wringing now...
    Man liberals are dumb!
    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...rkXjdDTQUPh70w

    Well, things did start to go south under Bush. But look at that graph more closely. In 2003, when we invaded Iraq (one of those "two wars on the credit card" that Obama likes to blame for the debt), and when we passed the Bush tax cuts (the other thing Obama likes to blame for the debt) revenue actually started to climb. The revenue and spending lines start to converge, and, as they head up to 2006 it actually looks as if the two might cross, with revenue outpacing spending.

    Even the New York Times noticed, spotting unexpected increases in revenue in 2005, and in 2006 noting that a "surprising" increase in tax revenues was closing the budget gap. The heady possibility of surpluses was in the air. But -- look at the graph again -- everything changes in 2007.

    What happened in 2007? The financial crisis hadn't struck yet. But we did elect a new Democratic Congress, with Democrats controlling both houses for the first time in over a decade. The trend immediately reversed, and became much worse with President Obama's election in 2008 and inauguration in 2009. (In fact, despite talk of "wars on the credit card," we could save a lot of money by cutting defense spending back to where it was in 2007.)

    So does that mean that the ballooning debt is all Obama's fault? No. Most of those spending bills got Republican votes, too. But it does mean that, as Politico notes, Obama now owns the 60% increase in the debt that has occurred on his watch, and can no longer credibly blame Bush (under whom plenty of Democrats voted for spending bills).

    Economist Herbert Stein observed that something that can't go on forever, won't. The United States can't go on forever increasing its debt by 60% every four years. Therefore, it won't. The only question is how things will stop -- smoothly or catastrophically.

    : “Grow your own dope. Plant a liberal.”
    ” Obummercare, 20 percent of the time it works everytime.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •