-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Anyone watch the debate tonight?
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
her209
No Lifer
Still repeating that same lie eh...........
UberNeuman
Lifer
😀 At this point, what's the point - let Bachman, Romney get the nom - and enjoy the lawls when he sweeps in to support them....
soundforbjt
Lifer
Probably why he likes Perry, he's just like Bush, In fact Perry just stated he got advice from the shrub.
a777pilot
Diamond Member
I enjoyed the debate. It was more lively than I thought it would be. There are some great ideas in the Republican party.
What I took from this debate tonight was that I am still waiting for a person can get behind as the GOP standard bearer. I also think that Mr. Perry is not going to walk in and be crowned the candidate. He is going to have to fight for it, and it won't be an easy road. That is a good thing.
I now have eliminated some of the potential candidates. The ones I am no longer considering are:
Huntsman, Pawlenty and Paul. Close but still in the race are Cain and Santorum.
The ones I thought did themselves well were: Romney, Bachmann and Gingrich.
p.s., I will gladly support any of them as the standard bearer of the GOP against Bobo, the Post Turtle.
What I took from this debate tonight was that I am still waiting for a person can get behind as the GOP standard bearer. I also think that Mr. Perry is not going to walk in and be crowned the candidate. He is going to have to fight for it, and it won't be an easy road. That is a good thing.
I now have eliminated some of the potential candidates. The ones I am no longer considering are:
Huntsman, Pawlenty and Paul. Close but still in the race are Cain and Santorum.
The ones I thought did themselves well were: Romney, Bachmann and Gingrich.
p.s., I will gladly support any of them as the standard bearer of the GOP against Bobo, the Post Turtle.
UberNeuman
Lifer
Interesting. Ronald Reagan has been considered to be the de facto "standard bearer" for the "gop" - what do you seek from those wanting the nomination?
Last edited:
ProfJohn
Lifer
Bush Administration Adds $4 Trillion To National Debt
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500803_162-4486228-500803.html
$5 trillion added to national debt under Bush
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...el/5-trillion-added-national-debt-under-bush/
Bush Just Escapes Being $5-Trillion Man
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4801898-503544.html
Now Obama.
Debt was $10.6 trillion the day Obama took office.
Today it is $14.5 trillion.
So Obama has almost added $4 trillion in 2 year and 7 months.
UberNeuman
Lifer
That's nice, dear... you notice there's no white knights swooping in to back you up...
\but keep chasing that dream...
her209
No Lifer
Nope. Bush spent the surplus that would have paid down the debt. He then bungled the Afghanistan War and started the Iraq War without paying for it. He also pushed for unfunded mandates like Medicare Part D.
a777pilot
Diamond Member
The tradition definition of a party's Standard Bearer is that Party's eventual nominee. Not a past President, no matter how much I liked him.
I want as many of MY solutions and policies in one person as possible. It's politics and we are all just humans so I understand I will have to compromise. What I met by that, is that I believe there are others yet to announce. It's a very long campaign. I am patient. I believe there could be one or up to four more candidates out there. Let's wait and see. Of those that were on the stage tonight the three I like the most are Bachmann, Romney and Gingrich.
I hope I answered your question.
ProfJohn
Lifer
And before you throw out the 'but the recession' BS here are the fact:
Around $1.7 trillion of that is the direct result of increased spending over Bush's 2008 levels.
Perhaps $1.3 trillion is from lost revenue.
If Obama had followed the spending plan put forward by Bush in 2008 we would have around $2.8 trillion in deficits (due to lower revenue)
So Obama has exceeded the Bush budget plan by $1.2 trillion in 3 years. He OWNS 100% of that extra spending. And he OWNS 100% of what that added to the deficit beyond what it would have been.
Around $1.7 trillion of that is the direct result of increased spending over Bush's 2008 levels.
Perhaps $1.3 trillion is from lost revenue.
If Obama had followed the spending plan put forward by Bush in 2008 we would have around $2.8 trillion in deficits (due to lower revenue)
So Obama has exceeded the Bush budget plan by $1.2 trillion in 3 years. He OWNS 100% of that extra spending. And he OWNS 100% of what that added to the deficit beyond what it would have been.
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
I'm sure you are aware that the budget for the first 10 months or so of his presidency was set in place by Bush. Nifty accounting on your end, no wonder you like Perry.
I've been in Texas my whole life and suffered through Bush and Perry. Perry is not that different than Bush, a little smarter (not saying much) and a better speaker, but as far as policy or ideology it is much the same.
dank69
Lifer
Damn him for trying to stop the bleeding!
boochi
Senior member
Shit, ProfJohn is the voice of sanity in this forum. You and the rest of the liberal sheep are fucking blind. Bobo will trump Bush's spending and he will do it in 3 1/2 years. Deep down you know you guys fucked up when you voted him in over Hillary.
UberNeuman
Lifer
Fair enough... Course it (as it always will) come back to what you as a voter want from your candidate - so what is it that President Reagan didn't do in his term in office?
ProfJohn
Lifer
We could pull the numbers from Clinton's last budget and compare them to reality and see how much of the debt is from lost revenue and how much from spending etc etc.
But it gets complicated due to the tax cuts and the recession and the extra military spending beyond the cost of the wars etc etc.
We do know that the Bush tax cuts are only $1.3 trillion of his $5 trillion total.
Less than $1 trillion was the Iraq war's up to the point he left office (was around $800 billion by then)
So Iraq + Tax cuts were less than half of his debt total. The rest was all the other things that happened.
BTW Medicare Part D is cheap!!! $49 billion in 2008. Less than the cost of building that train in California. The 10 year costs are only $70 billion a year. Helping to provide seniors with drugs for 10 years costs less than Obama's stimulus package...
ProfJohn
Lifer
Look at post 36 where I broke it down.
I took Bush's last budget (2009) and compared it to reality to see how much more Obama spent than the Bush plan and how much less revenue Obama got compare to the Bush plan.
Based on that about $1.2 trillion of Obama's debt is a direct result of his increased spending above and beyond Bush's spending. About half of that was the stimulus.
You can see the numbers for yourself. The stuff is very easy to figure out if you think about it.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf
UberNeuman
Lifer
DucatiMonster696
Diamond Member
Ron Paul represents a straight up winner for libertarians, moderates, and blue dog democrats seeking a president.
All his answers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlogHHQ1MoI&feature=related
Far left and right hate the dude.
All his answers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlogHHQ1MoI&feature=related
Far left and right hate the dude.
UberNeuman
Lifer
By a "winner" do you mean the guy that whines about goverment, then has his hands out for government funds?
ProfJohn
Lifer
Probably. No way Hillary could suck as much as Obama.
Plus if she did suck we'd have more debates on why liberal ideas are failing instead of talking about how Obama sucks at being President.
ProfJohn
Lifer
Ron Paul is a total nut job!!
When Uber and I agree then there has to be something wrong with the guy.
He came right out and said that he doesn't care if Iran gets a nuke. If he was President in 1939 he would have said "I don't care if Germany invades Poland, that isn't our business..."
DucatiMonster696
Diamond Member
How about you be a little more specific rather then throwing out unspecified claims against his character. Fact is you guys on the far left fear the guy because he appeals for the vast swath of people that aren't card carrying members of socialist or communist ideals.
DucatiMonster696
Diamond Member
Two polar opposites agreeing that a candidate that appeals to the center rather then polarizing people is awful is not a surprise.
UberNeuman
Lifer
What you're unwilling to face is this: Ron Paul has done his work to support the citizens of his state; while bitching about what it takes to support it..
\let's cut our hamstrings to show up our legs...
\\fuck you legs!!
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
