Hillary Clinton bribed, Democrats don't care

Democrats, Obama, and President Bush with support of the Republicans.

You have no clue what you are talking about. The Democrats did not present a 2009 Budget with a 1.4 Trillion dollar deficit.

The Budget was for a 400 Billion dollar deficit.

It ended up as a 1.4 Billion dollar deficit due to TARP and the Bush Crash which resulted in revenue declining from 2.7 Trillion down to 2.1 Trillion.

Can you not add ?

You have no clue what you are talking about ??? The crash did not "end" in the first few months of the Obama Presidency.

How can you be so clueless ? Explain how you figure the crash suddenly ended by May 2009. How the economy was magically restored to pre 2007 levels by May 2009.

 

What does stuff repaid in 2010 have to do with the 2009 Budget deficit? Who is grasping at straws ?

That money was paid back in later years does not mean it was not included in the 2009 Deficit.

Get a grip ?

 

2008 was a negotiated budget with the Democrats not getting all the spending they wanted and the Republicans not getting all the restraint they wanted.

So your point being what exactly?

It's where their deficit ended up in large part due to their increase in spending and then they kept the deficit higher than $1,000B for the next five years and have yet to get it below the WORST Bush/Republican deficit.

The deficit hit $1,400B with their HUGE increase in SPENDING.

Funny how the left attacks Bush for the $400B for one year as Republican irrsponsible spending and then tie themselves in knots trying to defend the HUGE increases in spending and deficits by the Democrast as something they had no control over.

Already disproved.

Why is it the "Bush" crash? What Bush policies caused the crash? The deficit hit those levels because the Democrats raised spending 9% in 2008, and would have been more had it not been for Bush, and then on top of that andother 18% in 2009 signed into law by President Obama.

The job losses bottom out January of 2009 the month he moved to the White House, the recssion in which we were already on the back end, ended in June. BEFORE his stimulus even started to be implemented.

How can you be so clueless ?

June 2009

"According to the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research (the official arbiter of U.S. recessions) the U.S. recession began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession

Who exactly is clueless here?

If you say so, not me. It was the job of the President to implement policies that would get us into a full recovery to get us there and Obama failed to do so and his spending that sent the deficit skyrocketing kept it there and has almost doubled the national debt increasing it almost more than all other President combined.

 

As I have repeadedly stated, he and his fellow Democrats increased the deficits from the last Bush/Republican deficit of a paltry $161B to that $1,400B, and even if we attribute ALL of the TARP funds to that, debatable but for the sake of argument, that would at MAX be $157B so $1,400B minus $157B leaves $1,243B, and then we take the next year and add back the revenue being repaid so the actual deficit for 2010 would be $157 higher and then kept it over $1,000B for the next 4 years.

So what exactly are you trying to brag about here vis-a-vis Obama/Democrat fiscal management?

 

400 Billion was baked into the cake - The deficit Bush proposed was 3.1 Trillion on expected revenue of 2.7 Trillion.

Spending ended up at 3.5 Trillion mostly due to TARP (Bush spending) 400 Billion

600 Billion of the deficit was not due to "increase spending" at all ?

The Bush crash caused revenue to drop from 2.7 to 2.1 Trillion causing a 600 billion dollar Bush shortfall.

This is what was handed to Obama. Your blaming Obama for the 1.4 Trillion dollar deficit handed him by Bush is absurd.

 

If you have convinced yourself that Clinton is a demonic entity, I shall not attempt to disabuse you of your notion. You must find that very, very scary.

At present, she is also the odds-on favourite to be the next Democratic presidential nominee and POTUS.

​

I'm sure that frightens you as well.

The only practical cure is to stop giving yourself the jim jams with your lurid tales, and offer the American electorate a viable alternative.

 

I have not bragged about Obama's fiscal management at all. I was simply pointing out that blaming Obama for the 2009 fiscal Deficit created by Bush is abject nonsense.

1) Your claim that the Dem Congress was solely responsible for the 3.1 Trillion dollar budget request is nonsense.

The fact is that Bush had requested this much. Congress did not pass the budget under Bush because they were bickering over how the money was to be spent. The 3.1 Trillion was baked into the cake either way.

Regardless - most of that money had already been allocated(spent) prior to Obama stepping into office so it is complete and utter nonsense to blame Obama for this. Spending bills (continuing resolutions and so forth) had all been passed and approved by Bush prior to Obama stepping into office.

This accounts for 400 Billion of the 2009 Deficit "Not attributable to Obama"

2) Spending ended up being 3.5 Trillion (400 Billion higher than the 3.1 Trillion estimated) Much of this difference was from TARP which was authorized by Bush.

http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/06/Federal_Spending_Bush_Vs_Obama.png

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

Obama can be blamed for "at most" 200 Billion in spending over and above what was in the cake.

The link gives a list of Obama spending bills.

114 Billion was for "Stimulus Spending" of which 107 was spent during the 2009 (Necessary on a bipartisan basis due to the Bush crash)
31 Billion was for supplemental military and other spending. (it is argued that 25 Billion of the Military spending should be on Bushes head for Bush wars)

This takes care of most of the 400 Billion in excess spending (Almost all directly or directly attributable to Bush)

3) The 3.5 Trillion in spending has now been accounted for ( 3.45 under Bush or attributable to Bush but certainly not attributable to Obama)

As it turned out there was a 600 Billion dollar revenue shortfall due to revenues dropping from 2.7 to 2.1 Trillion (600 Billion)

We can debate on the degree of Bush Administration responsibility for the housing bubble and financial crash.

What is abject nonsense is claiming that this attributable to Obama which is what the Republican clown car was doing.

 

It should frighten everyone that the elitist, lying, 1%er who failed miserably as Sec. of State, could be President. Anyone proud of that fact is ignorant, or brainwashed. Most likely the first.

 

I recall how the pantywaists got themselves similarly verkempt in the last two presidential elections as well - in such a tizzy over their imaginary foreign born islamist socialist teleprompter-addicted african witch doctor in 2012 that they actually became giddy over the right-wing entertainment media's imminent Romney Landslide! Now, that was hilarious when the American electorate, especially those in the best-educated states (no surprise) again had a different idea!

Let's hope they figure out that they need to find and promote a viable canidate this time. Relentless bellywhinging, as has been amply demonstrated, just doesn't get it done.

 

It is hardly hyperbole to say clinton committed treason on the very people that democrats used to represent and support. He signed nafta. And that is treason. He presided over the repeal of glass stegall, that began under reagan with vice pres bush starting that ball a rolling.

Look, neoliberalism came back in with reagan, and every president since this traitor has followed that path, for it is the path that the big money elites wanted. Hedges has written about the death of real liberalism, the liberalism that used to try to protect the working people from the greed of the rich. They no longer do that, and of course Hillary will not do it either.

Of you are not an elite, then Sanders does represent your best economic interests as those of any kids and grandkids you might have one day. The trouble with white republican voters is that they vote against their own best economic interests, and do not realize, for they have bought into something that is just not true. Trickle down, globalization is designed NOT to make the middle prosper. It is designed to send far too much income and wealth to the top, which comes from everyone else. If you do not believe that, just look at the growth in disparity from reagan till today.

Clinton is no different from the republicans who are running. All need their billionaires, and all billionaires expect those they give their money to, to pay them back in policy, in tax codes, in something. To act like Clinton is owned, while the GOP is not, is due to not actually paying close attention. And by getting news from MSM, including FOX which is mainstream now.

 

I don't understand why you keep missing the point. You're BRAGGING about Hillary Clinton. That's the sad part. No one should brag about a female Mitt Romney with more legal trouble. Also, Clinton can't even manage her OWN finances, let alone our nation's! She almost went bankrupt at one point. Now she's making millions the same way you liberals whined about Romney making 4 years ago.

The part that's sad is that you support Hillary Clinton. That's the sad part. I hope she gets beat out by someone who actually cares about our nation's interests.

 

From the previous Democrat budget and the Democrats were certainly free to cut it. They did not.

In spite of Bush they increased spending 9% in 2008 and then with him out of the way increased it 18% in 2009.

Obama and the Dens own those deficits and the debt they have run up the last 7 years.

Now back to whether you will vote for Hillary even of she and her husband enriched themselves selling her political influence.

Well?

 

I laid the numbers out for you line by line. Since you have not even attempted to refute any of the numbers presented I will assume that you agree with them and my premise that the 2009 Deficit was mostly Bush.

 

Looks to me that there is a reasonable possibility we will have another Bush in the White House.

Not sure which is scarier ... Clinton/Bush ?

Lets do a comparison.

National Security: Both support the defense oligopoly which is a big part of what is driving our country into bankruptcy which is endangering the future of our children and long term internal and external security. Fail/Fail

Individual rights and freedoms: Neither respects individual rights and freedoms. Sure Clinton seems to win out on the surface through support of Abortion and Gay rights but this gets negated by her constant use of fallacious utilitarianism to restrict other rights and freedoms such as economic liberty, arbitrary search and seizure, privacy rights and so on.

At the end of the day I can't score one higher than the other . Abject fail/Abject fail

Healthcare: Both support the Health Oligopoly regardless of whether it is called "Clinton-Care" or "Bush-Care"

Every other first world country has universal healthcare which is administrated through a bloated and mind bogglingly inefficient bureaucracy which sucks up mind boggling amounts of money.

We provide no universal health care and have an efficient private system so we do not spend near as much as these other countries on healthcare ... "Right" ? Wrong - we spend more than the aforementioned.

How is such a thing possible ? Price fixing and anti competitive practices supported by both Clinton and Bush.

Abject fail/ Abject fail

Economy: Both support the Oligopolies who, through regulation and tax law and unfair practices, have destroyed any semblance of a fair and free market and who have created a system of indentured slavery.

Horrifically Abject Fail/ Horrifically Abject Fail

Environment: Neither have a clue about the current environmental issues facing the planet. For this I do not totally blame either because the folks that are suppose to be providing useful information such as the "EPA" have become so politically corrupt and so used to putting out bad science that certain realities are difficult to understand.

In case you were wondering. Global warming is currently 4th (if not 5th or 6th depending on who you ask) on the list of pressing environmental threats.

#1 is pollution of the Ocean via heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants. #2/#3 are industrialization/population growth which work to increase #1 and CO2 in ways far greater than miniscule, insignificant, or non existent reductions from oil sand vs conventional crude.

Building the Keystone will not decrease oil consumption by one drop. We either get the oil from Canada or places like Nigeria and Obama's own study stated the CO2 emission difference is insignificant. (most of the CO2 comes out the tailpipe).

From an "environmental perspective" a barrel of Canadian crude is way cleaner than a barrel from Nigeria. Canada has strict environmental regulations and does not put contaminants into the Ocean. Nigeria ?? 2) Shipping by pipeline is way safer than by Oil tanker.

Switching to more efficient lighting such as compact fluorescent and LED. Good idea right ... more efficiency = lower CO2 emissions.

BAD idea. Compact fluorescent and LED contain mercury "See greatest environmental threat" This stuff ends up either directly in the rivers/ocean or in a landfill which often ends up leaking into the oceans (I am talking North America here ... In places like China and India - Nightmare)

Here is the procedure to be followed if you break a compact fluorescent:

http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/cleaning-broken-cfl

You pretty much need to call in "Clean Harbors".

Overall assessment of the Clinton/Bush

Evil, police state loving, constitution hating, elitist oligopoly clown puppet/ Evil, police state loving, constitution hating, elitist, oligopoly clown puppet.

 

Hillary was not involved with approving or rejecting the uranium deal with Russia. Department of State had one vote on the 9-member committee approving the deal, and that was handled at a bureaucratic level way below Hillary. Other agencies, independent from State, also approved it. Such as Defense, Treasury, Energy, Nuclear Regulatory Agency, state of Utah nuclear regulators, and the Canadian foreign investment review agency. Did Hillary somehow control them too?

That story is a wacky fiction. However, all those in the Hillary-hating cult have too much invested in that big lie to back away from it now, so they're all going to keep doubling down on the big lie, heedless of how corrupt and dishonest it makes them look.

 

They were refuted from the getgo and as noted in the news reporting at the time which I quoted which you have not refuted. The last Bush/Republican budget and deficit was 2007. As cited the Democrats did not get all the spending they wanted in 2008 because Bush would not sign on to it. For 2009 the Democrats completely cut him out, postponed the spendinging bills until after the election and President OBAMA signed them into law with HIS spending priorities included.

You can obfuscate all you want but history is history and facts are facts.

 

As ever, if the Hillary haters persist in indulging themselves in their tantrum rather than offering the American electorate a preferable alternative, the results are entirely predictable.

 

This is truly frightening and disheartening. We have truly lost this country. When a third of the public would go along with such base corruption and treasonous behavior, it shows that there is little chance for redemption. The USA has been fouled and it's putrid rot is now showing for all to see. I am truly saddened by this and at this point I am ashamed to fly the Old Glory. I'd much rather fly the confederate flag.

 

Give the Constitution a break! The next President will appoint 2-4 new Justices. We have to elect a Republican who is far more likely to respect the proper interpretation of the Constitution! The court's recent history sucks!

 

As ever if the GOP haters persist throwing their tantrums to hide their owm misgivings and rather than offering an actual choice they better realize the outcome is not entirely predictable.

"Sanders — a self-described democratic socialist — has seen his crowds swell and is gaining ground in the polls on the formidable Democratic front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton. In New Hampshire, where Sanders was on yet another weekend swing, one survey last week showed him within 8 percentage points of Clinton.

Sanders’s emerging strength has exposed continued misgivings among the party’s progressive base about Clinton, whose team is treading carefully in its public statements. Supporters have acknowledged privately the potential for Sanders to damage her — perhaps winning an early state or two — even if he can’t win the nomination."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...b64a74-1daf-11e5-84d5-eb37ee8eaa61_story.html

And polling is showing the top tier Republicans tying or moving into the margin of error with Clinton.