Sen. Lindsey Graham: Sacrifice Obamacare To Avoid Sequester

I've never indicated I think we do not have an unemployment problem.

I'm not the one denying fact, you are.

Where have I maintained we are doing well? We are certainly doing better. I've stated numerous times why I believe we are not doing well.

- - - Updated - - -

How is the Congressional Budget Office "intentionally misleading"?

 

It's so canned...and predictable ....it's like they've saved the standard charts and graphs and talking point propaganda to their computers...or have a data base available to link to that provides the standard deflective techniques and "counters" to any arguments that lay open the uncomfortable truths behind their deceitful schemes.

Laughably transparent frauds, the lot.

 

You must learn to read and comprehend plain English. The previous president didn't pass Obama's Cloward-Piven assault on our HC system that isn't worth a single penny, job or furlough, even though it is already costing a lot of jobs and money and HI premiums aren't going down (and they won't).

Obama has set the all-time record on deficit spending, running in excess of $1 trillion each and every year he's been in office. Of course, he went on this spending spree after he lied to the American people about his commitment to cutting the deficit in half by 2012.

Once again, we find him indulging in dog and pony shows to cover for his refusal to present Congress with the spending cuts that constitute his end of the bargain to produce a "balanced" approach to reducing the deficit. Once again, he LIED about wanting a "balanced" approach just as he LIED about his commitment to reduce the deficit in half by 2012.

Obviously, Obama is worried more about protecting the Democrats' entitlement-based vote-buying racket than protecting the livelihoods of workers, cutting government fat and reducing the deficit and debt. He could have put an end to his ill-conceived sequestration idea weeks ago, but he's decided to play politics for his party's gain.

What a complete tool...

 

They aren't. See my post about conservatives make sense only if you ignore reality.

 

Don't forget about the creepy text file they keep on their desktop with alphabetized quotes from certain members that they will copy+paste whenever possible.

 

I was referring the the "job-killing" reference. Over 6 million new private sector jobs have been created over the past 3 years. There were 700,000 net being lost each month when our prior president left office.

If you are talking about job-killing, you'd have to be referring to our prior president.

Obama inherited a deficit running at $1.2 trillion before he took office.

He has presided over an all-time record on reducing the deficit by a whopping $207 billion last year.

Spending increases over the past three years have been the lowest in decades. If you want to talk about spending sprees, see our prior president.

Obama didn't LIE at all. You've been LIED to by the right wing propaganda you listen too. Obama has cut spending. He's actually cut it twice, for the first time in decades. We now are spending proportionately less than in some Reagan years.

What hasn't kept up are revenues, which are proportionately the lowest in 60 years.

Clearly, we need to increase revenues to have a balanced approach.

Obviously, the Tea Party of Grover is more worried about protecting their 1% benefactors than protecting he livelihoods of workers, increasing revenues, and reducing the deficit and debt.

They could have put an end to his ill-conceived sequestration idea weeks ago, but they've decided to play politics for their party's and their benefactors' gain.

What a complete tool....

 

So it was just another red herring, then?

Back on track, Democrats want to destroy the economy to usher in a socialist democracy, and they aren't afraid of losing power because they know their idiot supporters will blame whoever they are told to blame.

 

Back to blaming Bush for the Clinton home ownership surge that led to the mortage bubble? Funny that you're too cowardly to actually come out and say it was all Bush's fault when you're actually asked to.

 

I guess we have your word for that?
Why would I not trust you and your word?

Does this take into account the Obama years?

Bush tax cuts put money in everyone's hands! You have not and can not refute that tax money in people's hands gets spent and stimulates the economy. Nan Pelosi certainly believes that unemployment insurance money boosted the economy and specifically used this rationale to justify Obama unemployment extensions.
If unemployment money is stimulative then tax money must also be likewise stimulative. Ipso facto.

Therefore, one cannot deny the stimulative nature of tax cuts. The second part of this formula, of course (the part you consistenly ignore), is that government has to spend accordingly (you understand the principle, I hope).
If government spending were not on a consistently upwards bending curve (always spending more and more, no matter what, especially under Obama) then the obvious benefits of tax cuts would be more readily seen.
But in any event, they are there! Just ask Nan with the Laughing Eyes! She knows.

 

Yet somehow we got from $10+ Trillion in debt to $16.5 Trillion in debt in just 4 years, I guess we are supposed to believe adding 1/3 of the debt this country has since the very beginning in just 4 years just magically happened.

 

yep....searching back through all that crap would have likely taken hours....I'm thinking these types copy and catalogue posts they think might be useful later to derail a discussion as they come across them... "files" they can quickly thumb through and share, if you will.

 

That is absolutely untrue. I was not lying in that post at all. Which is in fact proven in the post you just cited.

You have continuously and repeatedly made this baseless accusation and personal attack and insult of me lying over and over again, despite being warned by the mods on numerous occasions to stop. The fact you repeat a false claim does not make it true. Anyone can review the record for themselves and see I was not lying.

 

When you see the same misinformed false facts being repeated over and over and over, it makes sense to keep the proof of accurate facts in a file to save from having to repeat the same corrections over an over.

Perfect example in this thread was someone claiming that Obama spends $1.5 trillion a year more when Bush left office. How many times have we seen crap like that?

Year - Outlays
2008 2,982.5
2009 3,517.7
2010 3,456.2
2011 3,598.1
2012 3,540.0

Source: CBO.gov.

- - - Updated - - -

I get paid nothing. Do you always make baseless accusation about things you no nothing about. Why yes, you do.

 

I didn't blame anyone. Just pointed out facts.

Clinton wasn't president when the housing bubble blew up to absurd levels and started crashing. George "Mr. Ownership Society" Bush was and the Republicans controlled Congress.

 

Is that your speculation entirely?

Is that because the rich pay the vast bulk of taxes?

No. Your assumption is that this is my assumption. It is not.

This is your editorializing at work. Nice job.

Is this something ALL the rich do? Who told you that and how do you know? You assume the rich don't spend more when they get a tax break.

This is ALL because Bush gave rich people a tax cut along with everyone else? Our trillions in debt has NOTHING to do with how the government has grown a welfare state on steroids? I doubt that.

Across the board do NOT mostly benefit the top 1% except to the degree that it's true the top 1% also absolutely prop up the nation's income tax. Most of your assumptions and lies are based entirely on distortions and rationalizations.

Except for spikes during war years every chart I see shows the trend in spending is inexorably upwards. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_spending_chart

Yes. I guess I should just listen to you and learn not to trust my own lying eyes.

 

It wasn't magic. We had the worst recession in 80 years.

 

I don't think I have ever seen either party this desperate.
First off, who the hell is lindsy graham to suggest anything?
Second, it's up to the House to find the budget solution, not the President, not the Senate.
The right is to blame for all our current problems and they are only offering up more damage as a solution.
Why does the right hate this country so badly they want it to crumble?

 

It's absolutely true, and is easily verified. I made reference to two "periods of growth" and you deliberately and dishonestly misquoted me as saying one "period of growth" in order to make your argument. I pointed this out to you several times, and you still continued to misquote and mischaracterize what I said. I never once said the 80's and 90's were one "period of growth" like you dishonestly claimed that I did. You lied, and you're continuing to lie.

 

No.

Because they pay most of the income taxes.

I assumed no such thing.

It's fact.

They save a far higher proportion of their income on average because they can afford to.

There are several other reasons, the Bush tax cuts are one of them. How has welfare contributed to most of the income growth over the past 30 years going to the 1%?

The Bush tax cuts have mostly benefitted the richest. That is fact.

The data is outdated and based on projections.

I don't expect anyone to believe me, which is why I post data and figures from reliable sources to back it up.

 

Repetitive. Clinton was President when house prices started climbing 25% in 2 years, kicking off the first round of equity borrowing. Bubbles have beginnings.

 

You and your posts are such a waste of space on this forum.

 

Your reference to periods or period which you did both is irrelevant. I haven't quote you from that thread once. The record is clear about what you said. Anyone can view it for themsleves.

You just use it in an attempt to justify your baseless accusations, ad homs and personal attacks and insults which we constantly see from you.

 

There was no housing bubble when Clinton was president.



Prices were still within the normal historical range when Clinton left office in Jan 2001. The bubble took off and didn't peak until 2006, after 6 years of the Bush presidency and Republican control of Congress.

 

Got anything to back that up?
I think if you turn it around to the truth and admit it's the conservatives that want to destroy the economy, and have, to attempt to usher in fascism then you might have something.
At least that has some facts behind it, but Democrats and socialism....not so much

- - - Updated - - -

So now Clinton is to blame for the conservatives destruction of the economy?
Good god does the right ever stop lying?