Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

11718202223332

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 118 ✭✭lochderg


    Amerika wrote: »
    Yipee. Obama’s deficits aren’t as bad as they have been. Oh happy days. Under President Obama our debt is now $18 Trillion, $6.2 Trillion added by him so far. The US federal gov’t revenues amount to around $3 Trillion. So now we expect our debt to only run about $500 billion this year (if we’re lucky) instead of $1.2 Trillion average it was over his first 5 years. Be still my heart.
    why is it that you point at Obama and not Wall St.?


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,953 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    lochderg wrote: »
    why is it that you point at Obama and not Wall St.?

    Because trickle-down is love, trickle-down is life.


  • Registered Users Posts: 118 ✭✭lochderg


    is that a song?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Remember way back in the 2008 presidential campaign when Barack Obama was campaigning and assigned blame to President Bush for the increase in debt that happened under his watch? You know, the kind of thing people believed and took him at his word, and got him elected?

    In case you’ve forgotten, he said, “The problem is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents. Number 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

    Well, Obama was right, it’s the role of a President to set a budget that ensures that spending stays in line with available revenue. But President Obama didn’t set budgets and has both increased non-defense discretionary spending and failed to propose any serious reforms to entitlement spending. So yes, the debt that was increased under his watch is his, just as the debt incurred under Bush was W's also.


  • Registered Users Posts: 266 ✭✭Irelandcool


    I like how in american politics and everywhere else it isn't about the best person for the job, its just who is less evil, corrupt and stupid then the rest so the country doesn't get screwed up as bad.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    I like how in american politics and everywhere else it isn't about the best person for the job, its just who is less evil, corrupt and stupid then the rest so the country doesn't get screwed up as bad.
    Yeah, we should have gone with Romney last election. Alas... buyer's remorse.

    This time around we might actually pick the person who is more evil, corrupt and stupid, and hand the top job to Hillary Clinton. God help us.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    Amerika wrote: »
    Yeah, we should have gone with Romney last election. Alas... buyer's remorse.

    This time around we might actually pick the person who is more evil, corrupt and stupid, and hand the top job to Hillary Clinton. God help us.

    So Ted Cruz comparing the gay rights movement to jihadists is less stupid than Hillary? Good man yourself.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    So Ted Cruz comparing the gay rights movement to jihadists is less stupid than Hillary? Good man yourself.
    Ted Cruz won't be getting my vote either.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    Amerika wrote: »
    Ted Cruz won't be getting my vote either.

    Well, out of the candidates likely to run who will?

    I mightn't be the biggest Hillary supporter, as I find her dry, boring, and I think she's quite a sinister character, but she is a million times better than anyone the Republicans have put forward so far. Cruz, Paul, Bush, Walker and Christie all fit the description put forward above.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Well, out of the candidates likely to run who will?

    I mightn't be the biggest Hillary supporter, as I find her dry, boring, and I think she's quite a sinister character, but she is a million times better than anyone the Republicans have put forward so far. Cruz, Paul, Bush, Walker and Christie all fit the description put forward above.
    The Republicans have a fine and diverse field. IMO, just about any of them would be better for America than Clinton. Walker would be my first choice. But if it came down to Clinton (D) and Bush (R), I'd throw my vote to Paul if he decides to make a 3rd party run as a Libertarian or Independent. Unless it would mean a spoiler in getting Clinton into office, then I'd hold my nose and pull the lever for Bush.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,684 ✭✭✭FatherTed


    Bernie Sanders is in. He is the ONLY politician in Washington who talks sense. But I give him no chance of winning unfortunately.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,494 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Amerika wrote: »
    The Republicans have a fine and diverse field. IMO, just about any of them would be better for America than Clinton. Walker would be my first choice. But if it came down to Clinton (D) and Bush (R), I'd throw my vote to Paul if he decides to make a 3rd party run as a Libertarian or Independent. Unless it would mean a spoiler in getting Clinton into office, then I'd hold my nose and pull the lever for Bush.

    Paul won't make a 3rd party run. If he did it would guarantee a Dems POTUS. Just like Paul Snr, he likes to posture and pose as a libertarian, but stay firmly attached to the GOP.

    You're right about one thing, this is the most diverse array of candidates the GOP have ever had. Unfortunately most of them parrot the same message.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,494 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    FatherTed wrote: »
    Bernie Sanders is in. He is the ONLY politician in Washington who talks sense. But I give him no chance of winning unfortunately.

    Bernie Sanders is an absolute legend. A democratic socialist who can actually get elected in the US, it's unique. He'd make a fantastic POTUS, but it won't happen.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Registered Users Posts: 6,735 ✭✭✭eire4


    Brian? wrote: »
    Bernie Sanders is an absolute legend. A democratic socialist who can actually get elected in the US, it's unique. He'd make a fantastic POTUS, but it won't happen.



    I would agree with you there. It is amazing he is even a senator and able to even run given the way the very word socialist is demonized in America. It will be very interesting to see how he does.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    FatherTed wrote: »
    Bernie Sanders is in. He is the ONLY politician in Washington who talks sense. But I give him no chance of winning unfortunately.

    I liked him in Curb Your Enthusiasm. :)


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,494 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Amerika wrote: »
    I liked him in Curb Your Enthusiasm. :)

    How witty.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Black Swan wrote: »
    The US Congress legislates spending, not Obama. Obama can propose a budget, but cannot pass it. What one party has controlled the US House for years, its powerful Speaker position, and now also controls the US Senate?

    In fairness, the democrats had a super majority in 2008 to 2010. What did Obama do with all that political capital? Blow it all on Obamacare. Also, this is the timeframe that incurred the biggest increase in national debt in History of the world!


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,267 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    jank wrote: »
    In fairness, the democrats had a super majority in 2008 to 2010. What did Obama do with all that political capital? Blow it all on Obamacare. Also, this is the timeframe that incurred the biggest increase in national debt in History of the world!
    Comparative data tells a rather interesting story. See the below chart, which shows that the federal deficit had been rapidly increasing regardless if Republicans or Democrats controlled or shared control of the US Congress and Executive. Both parties were NOT fiscally conservative since the Ronald Reagan administration and US Congress forward.

    7119377_f520.jpg


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Brian? wrote: »
    Bernie Sanders is an absolute legend. A democratic socialist who can actually get elected in the US, it's unique. He'd make a fantastic POTUS, but it won't happen.

    'We're in it to win!!' Eh, no your not.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Black Swan wrote: »
    Comparative data tells a rather interesting story. See the below chart, which shows that the federal deficit had been rapidly increasing regardless if Republicans or Democrats controlled or shared control of the US Congress and Executive. Both parties were NOT fiscally conservative since the Ronald Reagan administration and US Congress forward.

    7119377_f520.jpg

    I agree with you. However its a bit rich for those complaining about the Bush deficit spending to brush off Obama's worse deficit spending, especially when its much much worse.

    wapoobamabudget1.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 118 ✭✭lochderg


    Amerika wrote: »
    The Republicans have a fine and diverse field. IMO, just about any of them would be better for America than Clinton. Walker would be my first choice. But if it came down to Clinton (D) and Bush (R), I'd throw my vote to Paul if he decides to make a 3rd party run as a Libertarian or Independent. Unless it would mean a spoiler in getting Clinton into office, then I'd hold my nose and pull the lever for Bush.
    really?- Ted Cruz? -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8bFf7s4gE0


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,494 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    jank wrote: »
    I agree with you. However its a bit rich for those complaining about the Bush deficit spending to brush off Obama's worse deficit spending, especially when its much much worse.

    wapoobamabudget1.jpg

    Deficit spending cannot be viewed in a vacuum though. Bush took over a booming economy, managed it poorly and handed Obama an absolute disaster.

    Unless you believe that state governors control the US economy, a phenomenon that occurs the year before every presidential election.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    We can’t change the past. We need a president who is willing to tackle our spending addiction and debt going into the future. I can only think of two potential candidates at the present time that might have the fortitude to get our madness under control... and they both come from the GOP side.

    About ten years ago the CBO predicted that US debt would be about $8 Trillion by now. Here we sit at $18 Trillion. The CBO has a history of being around 40% too low on debt five or more years into the future. The CBO now estimates in about 10 years debt will hit $25 Trillion, and if they are 40% off the number, it will be more like $35 Trillion. Now lets say US interest rates return to reasonable rates of about 5%. At $35 Trillion our interest payments will be about $1.75 Trillion a year (more than the government currently spends on the national defense budget or Social Security). In addition, in 10 years, what will Social Security payments, Medicare payments, governmental pension and benefit payments, and other entitlements look like? Dismal!

    Unfortunately the CBO estimates only has us at $5 Trillion in revenues in 10 years.

    And I shutter to even think about it, but what if the Bank of China closes its doors to the US irresponsibility?

    Good thing I have dual citizenship, but is Ireland, under US & European pressure, phasing out the loophole that helps multinational corporations legally dodge billions of dollars in homeland taxes? That might put a damper on things. Well, I guess there’s always Canada. :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    lochderg wrote: »

    I'd take T. Cruz over H. Clinton.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Brian? wrote: »
    Deficit spending cannot be viewed in a vacuum though. Bush took over a booming economy, managed it poorly and handed Obama an absolute disaster.

    Unless you believe that state governors control the US economy, a phenomenon that occurs the year before every presidential election.

    Em, not quite.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession

    By managing it poorly you mean the Fed, pressured by government as in both Dems and Repub's to lower interest rates to fuel a property bubble? Yes, you are correct.

    However, here we are almost 8 years later and we are still hearing the echo's of "But bush... but bush...." When is Obama and his acolyktes going to take responsibility for his own mistakes?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Amerika wrote: »
    I'd take T. Cruz over H. Clinton.
    I think at this point we've established that you'd vote for whatever stiff the GOP put up, over Jesus H. Christ himself Returned in Glory, running for those nasty statist self-hating godless commie liberals.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    I think at this point we've established that you'd vote for whatever stiff the GOP put up, over Jesus H. Christ himself Returned in Glory, running for those nasty statist self-hating godless commie liberals.

    Does J.C. have a website showing his plans for POTUS? I’d be willing to give him a look over... As long as he's Constitutionally qualified to run. :rolleyes:

    Take a look at Cruz’s website. Some good points, some not so good. Cruz wouldn’t be my first choice (or second, or third for that matter) but I would pick him above Hillary Clinton. And I have voted for some Democrats in the past (Shock, Horror).

    Personally, I don't think Cruz is Constitutionally qualified to become POTUS.

    https://www.tedcruz.org/record/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Brian? wrote: »
    How witty.

    Hmmm... David Letterman got a better response. Perhaps it's all in the delivery. :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    Amerika wrote: »

    Personally, I don't think Cruz is Constitutionally qualified to become POTUS.

    He's not anything qualified to be president. The man is a complete and utter clown, who says most ridiculous things and his actions show he is a complete hypocrite. His behaviour before the Govt shutdown last year showed most people that he really doesn't care about helping America, and just wants to be powerful.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    He's not anything qualified to be president. The man is a complete and utter clown, who says most ridiculous things and his actions show he is a complete hypocrite. His behaviour before the Govt shutdown last year showed most people that he really doesn't care about helping America, and just wants to be powerful.

    Besides pejoratives, what’s makes you think so?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement