General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsConservative RAGE on Facebook After Obama Wins
As many of you may, or may not know, that I am sixteen, and I oftentimes find myself getting into heated arguments over politics with teachers and friends. One of my conservative friends, whose name is David, from California had this to say after Obama won re-election on Tuesday:
God DAMN it America. You re-elected this idiot who is going to put us over 20 trillion in debt?! What the HELL is wrong with you! Too lazy to get a job? Too lazy to work for a living so you steal it from others? Well congratulations, you just ruined the God damned lives of so many more people. Have fun paying insane taxes and losing all of our God damned defenses, now we're an open target, now every military family will suffer, all because of YOU. I hope you can look back at all the suffering there is to come and see the mistake you have made in your blind looks at this moron who you just put back in the Oval Office. It should be by POPULAR VOTE!
Now, many of you can obviously see the inaccuracies and idiocy laced in this posting, but I guessed I was warned as my best friend (who speaks to David more than I do) told me that he was becoming angry over my anti-conservative postings on Facebook. Well, my belligerent self couldn't let this go by. Here was my response (I was responding to the original post and his eventual assertion that Bush added only $80 billion to the debt and PBO added $16 trillion).
Really? Bush put us $80 billion in debt? So, how was it that Bush comes in with a surplus and leaves with $11 trillion in debt? Yes, Obama has added $5 trillion to the debt but that was through stimulus (which works by the way, unlike Austerity), bailing out the banks and the auto industry. Plus, Republicans love to call Obama a "socialist," this man bailed out Wall Street. He, in a sense, saved the Capitalist system, and he let the banks use the bailout money as they pleased. So, since he wants to raise taxes 3% on upper income people, he becomes a socialist. Reality check, taxes were above 70% under Eisenhower and 50% under Reagan.
Also, on the defense point, Thomas Jefferson, a huge proponent of small government, cut military spending and closed foreign embassies in order to cut the federal debt.
Here's the rest of the discussion:
David: Ohhhhh OK Aaron, magically 11 trillion shows up, no, 15.2 trillion came when Obama came up. Stop believing every picture you see on Facebook and google search, open your damned eyes and see what the Hell is happening to this country.
Me: Let me quote Bill Clinton, "It's arithmetic."
David: Oh yeah Clinton was REAAALLL great. Charts made on facebook are not arithmetic.
Me: From PolitiFact: "$10.63 trillion debt Obama inherited when he came into office January 19, 2009."
David: Oh, because the internet is all true Aaron.
One of his friends interjected to say: "The economy was at a surplus with Clinton. Are you high David? lol"
Me: Yes, because Fox is true.
David: 99% of media is all bull, and you're a blind fool for believing it all.
Me: I guess the Romney campaign won't be dictated by fact checkers. Have fun in alternate reality land. Time to watch Mr. Romney's concession speech.
David: Popular vote is how an election should be won.
Me: So, Gore should have been elected in 2000?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Then, there was some random idiot saying that our votes don't count, we'll call him Philly.
Philly: A candidate must receive an absolute majority of electoral votes (currently 270) to win the Presidency... Your vote dosnt mean shit A candidate must receive an absolute majority of electoral votes (currently 270) to win the Presidency... Your vote doesnt and never mattered.. The number of electors is 538, based on the total voting membership of the United States Congress (435 Representatives and 100 Senators).. Check your 12th and 23rd amendments .. - from the words of madude mike speakin the truth..but hey at least yall got stickers and buttons and bumper stickers..#blindedneanderthals
Me: I've know that for some time, but your vote, in a sense, does matter since the electors pledge to vote for the candidate who won their state. Now, yes, there are 'faithless electors' who will vote for another candidate but it is generally one vote which has never swayed an election in the other candidate's favor. By the way, ask Mr. Gore if the vote of the people didn't matter. #537
Also, the Electoral College existed before the 12th Amendment, that amendment simply made it that the electors voted for the President/VP ticket instead of individually voting for both, which resulting in the Adams/Jefferson administration from 1796-1800, and the 23rd simply gave DC the ability to send 3 electors to vote. Once again, the Electoral College had existed before that, since it was established in the Constitution (article 2, section 1, clause 2). How about you read up on these things before you post them on Facebook.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Idiocy at its finest...
Epiphany4z
(2,234 posts)drum roll....Obama won the popular vote
wryter2000
(46,051 posts)If David doesn't get his information from googling or from the media, where does he get it? The voices in his head?
Qutzupalotl
(14,313 posts)Obama didn't like that accounting trick, so it's now officially part of the debt. Unfortunately, that makes it look like he did that spending, around $2 trillion, but of course it was Bush's wars.
JSK
(1,123 posts)It's shocking how few people know that. Bush never put the cost of his wars in his budget; funding was indeed done through supplemental appropriations, in the hopes that we wouldn't really notice how many zillions were being spent. Obviously, it worked.
In February 2009, President Obama announced that there would be no more budgetary trickery and that, in the interest of transparency, he was putting Bush's war debt on the books where it belonged all along. So of course, Republicans accuse him of adding that much to the debt.
Another fact: 82% of our current debt is from spending by Republican administrations.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/02/weighing-the-ir/
Qutzupalotl
(14,313 posts)That first debate would have been a good time, but it's hard to condense into a snappy soundbite.
Thank you for the link. I had only surmised what happened, but missed the story.
Sailingdiver
(140 posts)Although it will sometimes seem like you're trying to push string it is important you check everyone of these stupid bastard's nonsense remarks!
AaronMayorga
(128 posts)Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Love to see repukes suffering.
malaise
(269,026 posts)Welcome
Baitball Blogger
(46,725 posts)Well done Aaron.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Good job!
maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)Will that STFU him?
AaronMayorga
(128 posts)I later told him. "Don't worry, your state will give Obama the popular vote."
Rockyj
(538 posts)You are 16 years old? Wow...incredible & excellent comebacks!
surrealAmerican
(11,361 posts)is "David" also 16? Does he have a job? ... or is he just angry that people whose parents are unable to support them might have the same chance he gets at life?
AaronMayorga
(128 posts)Blanks
(4,835 posts)Was they manipulated federal government outlays to:
1) Create the recession by reducing outlays
2) Create the large increase in outlays so that Obama's first budget was a huge increase.
Since Obama took office in 2009 (he had Bush's final approved budget. When conservatives talk about Obama's run away spending; this is what they are talking about.
You can see in the graph that the rate of increase for 2007 and 2008 were reduced for some reason, and then increased dramatically in 2009.
They caused the recession (possibly intentionally) and then 'created' runaway spending just before Obama took office.
Of course some of the increase in 2009 was because of TARP. Check the numbers yourself, but it looks like a setup to me. Of course if you look at a graph showing just outlays beginning in 2007; it looks like Obama has gone crazy with the budget, but the reality is that it was Bush's final budget that was such a huge increase, and the increase had slowed just before that.
It's very deceptive, but the conservatives but into it.
Shilo
(101 posts)BlueMan Votes
(903 posts)what a maroon.
We People
(619 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:38 PM - Edit history (1)
Wright that was on continuous loop on FNC 4 years ago. The only difference I hear is that David added the word "it." Oh yeah, and I guess he's not black.
(Sorry, I know that's a little off topic in a way, but the phrase reminded me of the '08 election.)
On edit: added the last sentence
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)Let's see if he's as eager to explain that as elaborate internet lying.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)They really should have waited to make sure that Romney actually won the popular vote, because now they just look really stupid. I actually agree with them on the poplar vote issue, but strangely enough known of them were for it in 2000.
EC
(12,287 posts)LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)doesn't tell them.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)The top federal income tax rate was lowered from 70% to 50% in 1981, and from 50% to 28% in 1986.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You wrote, "So, how was it that Bush comes in with a surplus and leaves with $11 trillion in debt?"
This is comparing apples and oranges. The apples are the net surplus or deficit in the federal budget in one particular year. The oranges are the total accumulated federal debt.
At the end of Clinton's term, the budget was in surplus for that year, which meant that the debt was being reduced, but it was still trillions of dollars. Bush turned the year-to-year surplus into a deficit, but he didn't add $11 trillion in debt all by himself.
Of course, on the basics you were correct. The Republicans excel at making impassioned speeches about the need for a balanced budget, are actually the big deficit spenders, chiefly because they insist on bloated military spending and tax cuts for the rich.