100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Who's The Coolest? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 10/20/12 09:28 AM
|
|
So because the % is smaller he's not spending as much? Even though the % is smaller the amount is still larger. numbers,, use whichever ones you want,,,, Id say having 600 tagged onto a 1000 dollar loan wouldnt upset me as much as having 500 added to a 500 dollar loan but thats just me You'd rather be 1600 in debt over 3 years than 1000 in debt over 8 years.  ID rather go from having 10000 dollars in debt to having 16000 in debt than go from having 1000 dollars in debt ti 2800 dollars in debt yes although Id be more concerned with my Budget being balanced than I would how many bills I had Id say it would be better to have a mortgage and car note (debts) That I was on top of and keeping paid, than to live in a cardboard box with no 'debt' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the trillions in debt was 'made' before he took office,,,,thats verifiable numbers,,,, as to the rest,, everyone has their opinion,,,,  election 2012 Yea, we had 16 trillion in debt four years ago...........   Not to mention the worst unemployment numbers in history almost 13% and growing in Nevada, the worst in the Nation. What an a$$hole, November 6th cant come fast enough. nope we had 10.6 trillion, up from 5.6 trillion when Bush took office and 4.1 when clinton took office and 2.9 when bush sr took office and 1.0 when Reagan took office ,,the TRILLIONS originally mentioned have been in the making for several administrations,,, Ok so Bush raised it 5 trillion in 8 years It only took Obama 3 years to add 6 trillion and that's ok? the rising debt is not ok, its also not unique to this president its been in the trillions LONG before obama or even bush and in terms of increase , it rose by 100 percent under bush, its risen 60 percent under Obama and back when raegan was in office it rose 188 percent basically, obama could be in office four more years and would still hve done better than the revered raegan even if it rises another 120 percent (ending at roughly 28 trillion) Wow! That must be the worst math in history! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the trillions in debt was 'made' before he took office,,,,thats verifiable numbers,,,, as to the rest,, everyone has their opinion,,,, election 2012 Yea, we had 16 trillion in debt four years ago........... Not to mention the worst unemployment numbers in history almost 13% and growing in Nevada, the worst in the Nation. What an a$$hole, November 6th cant come fast enough. nope we had 10.6 trillion, up from 5.6 trillion when Bush took office and 4.1 when clinton took office and 2.9 when bush sr took office and 1.0 when Reagan took office ,,the TRILLIONS originally mentioned have been in the making for several administrations,,, These numbers are bogus, if you want to see the real deal then go to http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html This jackass in chief we got is a big spender, spends money like we got it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So because the % is smaller he's not spending as much? Even though the % is smaller the amount is still larger. numbers,, use whichever ones you want,,,, Id say having 600 tagged onto a 1000 dollar loan wouldnt upset me as much as having 500 added to a 500 dollar loan but thats just me You'd rather be 1600 in debt over 3 years than 1000 in debt over 8 years. ID rather go from having 10000 dollars in debt to having 16000 in debt than go from having 1000 dollars in debt ti 2800 dollars in debt yes although Id be more concerned with my Budget being balanced than I would how many bills I had Id say it would be better to have a mortgage and car note (debts) That I was on top of and keeping paid, than to live in a cardboard box with no 'debt' Way to skew the numbers. If we couldn't afford the 5 trillion over 8 years what makes you think we can afford the 6 trillion in just over 3 years? One would think you would change your spending habits. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 10/20/12 09:51 AM
|
|
the trillions in debt was 'made' before he took office,,,,thats verifiable numbers,,,, as to the rest,, everyone has their opinion,,,, election 2012 Yea, we had 16 trillion in debt four years ago........... Not to mention the worst unemployment numbers in history almost 13% and growing in Nevada, the worst in the Nation. What an a$$hole, November 6th cant come fast enough. nope we had 10.6 trillion, up from 5.6 trillion when Bush took office and 4.1 when clinton took office and 2.9 when bush sr took office and 1.0 when Reagan took office ,,the TRILLIONS originally mentioned have been in the making for several administrations,,, Ok so Bush raised it 5 trillion in 8 years It only took Obama 3 years to add 6 trillion and that's ok? the rising debt is not ok, its also not unique to this president its been in the trillions LONG before obama or even bush and in terms of increase , it rose by 100 percent under bush, its risen 60 percent under Obama and back when raegan was in office it rose 188 percent basically, obama could be in office four more years and would still hve done better than the revered raegan even if it rises another 120 percent (ending at roughly 28 trillion) Wow! That must be the worst math in history! really? explain the error reagan came in at 930 billion by the time he left it was 2.6 trillion dollars (an increase of 188 percent in debt) bush came in it was 5 trillion by the time he left it was 10 trillion (an increase of 100 percent in the debt) obama came in it was 10 trillion and it is now at 16 trillion (an increase of 60 percent) if obama equaled the rate at which RAEGAN increased the debt, (188 percent) that would mean by the time he left the debt would be 28 trillion dollars do you think he would be as revered as Raegan. when he is already dogged about the 60 percent increase? ,,,,the math is not flawed,, the judgements are just hypocritical and inconsistent NOTE: the unemployment also rose for 7.5 to 10.4 in reagans first two years (absent the financial crises) and took until his second term to return to its preterm rates,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So because the % is smaller he's not spending as much? Even though the % is smaller the amount is still larger. numbers,, use whichever ones you want,,,, Id say having 600 tagged onto a 1000 dollar loan wouldnt upset me as much as having 500 added to a 500 dollar loan but thats just me You'd rather be 1600 in debt over 3 years than 1000 in debt over 8 years. ID rather go from having 10000 dollars in debt to having 16000 in debt than go from having 1000 dollars in debt ti 2800 dollars in debt yes although Id be more concerned with my Budget being balanced than I would how many bills I had Id say it would be better to have a mortgage and car note (debts) That I was on top of and keeping paid, than to live in a cardboard box with no 'debt' Way to skew the numbers. If we couldn't afford the 5 trillion over 8 years what makes you think we can afford the 6 trillion in just over 3 years? One would think you would change your spending habits. the only indication of whether one can 'afford' long term obligations (car notes and mortgates,,etc) is by whether they are overdue (deficits) or whether there is pocket money left (surplus) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 10/20/12 09:49 AM
|
|
the trillions in debt was 'made' before he took office,,,,thats verifiable numbers,,,, as to the rest,, everyone has their opinion,,,, election 2012 Yea, we had 16 trillion in debt four years ago........... Not to mention the worst unemployment numbers in history almost 13% and growing in Nevada, the worst in the Nation. What an a$$hole, November 6th cant come fast enough. nope we had 10.6 trillion, up from 5.6 trillion when Bush took office and 4.1 when clinton took office and 2.9 when bush sr took office and 1.0 when Reagan took office ,,the TRILLIONS originally mentioned have been in the making for several administrations,,, These numbers are bogus, if you want to see the real deal then go to http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html This jackass in chief we got is a big spender, spends money like we got it. which numbers is your link supposed to prove 'bogus' exactly? and I can only pull up a few specific years on the link dating only back to 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Using a percent doesn't matter.
I'm not saying the spending under past presidents is ok. How much did Reagan, Clinton, and Bush spend in their 8 years as president? Hmmm less than Obama has spent in less than one term. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 10/20/12 10:09 AM
|
|
Using a percent doesn't matter. I'm not saying the spending under past presidents is ok. How much did Reagan, Clinton, and Bush spend in their 8 years as president? Hmmm less than Obama has spent in less than one term. I was speaking debts, not spending that makes a difference people trying to lose weight for instance, I guarantee someone weighing 150 would feel more successful losing 15 pounds (10 percent body weight) than would someone weighing 300 pounds who lost 20 (7 percent body weight) even though in raw numbers the latter lost 'more' poundage,, they still didnt lose as 'significant' a portion of the weight they had,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Using a percent doesn't matter. I'm not saying the spending under past presidents is ok. How much did Reagan, Clinton, and Bush spend in their 8 years as president? Hmmm less than Obama has spent in less than one term. I was speaking debts, not spending that makes a difference people trying to lose weight for instance, I guarantee someone weighing 150 would feel more successful losing 15 pounds (10 percent body weight) than would someone weighing 300 pounds who lost 20 (7 percent body weight) even though in raw numbers the latter lost 'more' poundage,, they still didnt lose as 'significant' a portion of the weight they had,,, Then you need to go only by the first 3 years of previous presidents. You can't compare 8 years to 3 years. Unless you want to forcast Obama for having 8 years then he would be at what around 140% assuming the amount doesn't go higher in any of the next 5 years. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 10/20/12 10:46 AM
|
|
Using a percent doesn't matter. I'm not saying the spending under past presidents is ok. How much did Reagan, Clinton, and Bush spend in their 8 years as president? Hmmm less than Obama has spent in less than one term. I was speaking debts, not spending that makes a difference people trying to lose weight for instance, I guarantee someone weighing 150 would feel more successful losing 15 pounds (10 percent body weight) than would someone weighing 300 pounds who lost 20 (7 percent body weight) even though in raw numbers the latter lost 'more' poundage,, they still didnt lose as 'significant' a portion of the weight they had,,, Then you need to go only by the first 3 years of previous presidents. You can't compare 8 years to 3 years. Unless you want to forcast Obama for having 8 years then he would be at what around 140% assuming the amount doesn't go higher in any of the next 5 years. no, at the end of this four years, or at least at this point, the debt is 60 percent higher,, not 140 percent 60 percent is roughly the rate of increase in debt under Raegan at the end of his first term as well,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Using a percent doesn't matter. I'm not saying the spending under past presidents is ok. How much did Reagan, Clinton, and Bush spend in their 8 years as president? Hmmm less than Obama has spent in less than one term. I was speaking debts, not spending that makes a difference people trying to lose weight for instance, I guarantee someone weighing 150 would feel more successful losing 15 pounds (10 percent body weight) than would someone weighing 300 pounds who lost 20 (7 percent body weight) even though in raw numbers the latter lost 'more' poundage,, they still didnt lose as 'significant' a portion of the weight they had,,, Then you need to go only by the first 3 years of previous presidents. You can't compare 8 years to 3 years. Unless you want to forcast Obama for having 8 years then he would be at what around 140% assuming the amount doesn't go higher in any of the next 5 years. no, at the end of this four years, or at least at this point, the debt is 60 percent higher,, not 140 percent No siht!!! So Obama has only raised it 60% in 3 years What I am saying is your using a 8 year period for past presidents. NOT THE SAME IF YOU ONLY USE 3 YEARS FOR OBAMA THEN YOU CAN ONLY USE THE FIRST 3 YEARS OF PAST PRESIDENTS. a little reading comprehension goes a long way. If you want to use 8 years then you have to project that Obamas will be atleast 140% over a 8 year span. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
TJN
on
Sat 10/20/12 10:48 AM
|
|
DP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is great that the President enjoys himself in public and is cool and calm. It is makes him more human and more like us. Cool is a mannerism that many of us have. I too am described as cool.
Maybe to a someone who has issues with President Obama for more than his mannerisms would find it offensive? He is a complete diplomat and gentleman with respect for all, understanding of more than most and a desire to make this the best country. How can any of that be bad? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the trillions in debt was 'made' before he took office,,,,thats verifiable numbers,,,, as to the rest,, everyone has their opinion,,,, election 2012 Yea, we had 16 trillion in debt four years ago........... Not to mention the worst unemployment numbers in history almost 13% and growing in Nevada, the worst in the Nation. What an a$$hole, November 6th cant come fast enough. nope we had 10.6 trillion, up from 5.6 trillion when Bush took office and 4.1 when clinton took office and 2.9 when bush sr took office and 1.0 when Reagan took office ,,the TRILLIONS originally mentioned have been in the making for several administrations,,, These numbers are bogus, if you want to see the real deal then go to http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html This jackass in chief we got is a big spender, spends money like we got it. The only large surge in spending was during the stimulus that brought us out of the depression we were dropping into. Outside of that it is a steady spending that is supporting two wars and the bush tax cuts for the most part. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Using a percent doesn't matter. I'm not saying the spending under past presidents is ok. How much did Reagan, Clinton, and Bush spend in their 8 years as president? Hmmm less than Obama has spent in less than one term. I was speaking debts, not spending that makes a difference people trying to lose weight for instance, I guarantee someone weighing 150 would feel more successful losing 15 pounds (10 percent body weight) than would someone weighing 300 pounds who lost 20 (7 percent body weight) even though in raw numbers the latter lost 'more' poundage,, they still didnt lose as 'significant' a portion of the weight they had,,, Then you need to go only by the first 3 years of previous presidents. You can't compare 8 years to 3 years. Unless you want to forcast Obama for having 8 years then he would be at what around 140% assuming the amount doesn't go higher in any of the next 5 years. no, at the end of this four years, or at least at this point, the debt is 60 percent higher,, not 140 percent No siht!!! So Obama has only raised it 60% in 3 years What I am saying is your using a 8 year period for past presidents. NOT THE SAME IF YOU ONLY USE 3 YEARS FOR OBAMA THEN YOU CAN ONLY USE THE FIRST 3 YEARS OF PAST PRESIDENTS. a little reading comprehension goes a long way. If you want to use 8 years then you have to project that Obamas will be atleast 140% over a 8 year span. using the three year module raegan ( 928.8 billion to 1.6 trillion) 72 percent increase bush jr (5.7 trillion to 7.4 trillion) 30 percent increase obama jr (10.6 to 16.1 trillion) 50 percent increase smack in the middle of one of the most criticized presidents and one of the most revered |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the trillions in debt was 'made' before he took office,,,,thats verifiable numbers,,,, as to the rest,, everyone has their opinion,,,, election 2012 Yea, we had 16 trillion in debt four years ago........... Not to mention the worst unemployment numbers in history almost 13% and growing in Nevada, the worst in the Nation. What an a$$hole, November 6th cant come fast enough. nope we had 10.6 trillion, up from 5.6 trillion when Bush took office and 4.1 when clinton took office and 2.9 when bush sr took office and 1.0 when Reagan took office ,,the TRILLIONS originally mentioned have been in the making for several administrations,,, Ok so Bush raised it 5 trillion in 8 years It only took Obama 3 years to add 6 trillion and that's ok? the rising debt is not ok, its also not unique to this president its been in the trillions LONG before obama or even bush and in terms of increase , it rose by 100 percent under bush, its risen 60 percent under Obama and back when raegan was in office it rose 188 percent basically, obama could be in office four more years and would still hve done better than the revered raegan even if it rises another 120 percent (ending at roughly 28 trillion) Wow! That must be the worst math in history! really? explain the error reagan came in at 930 billion by the time he left it was 2.6 trillion dollars (an increase of 188 percent in debt) bush came in it was 5 trillion by the time he left it was 10 trillion (an increase of 100 percent in the debt) obama came in it was 10 trillion and it is now at 16 trillion (an increase of 60 percent) if obama equaled the rate at which RAEGAN increased the debt, (188 percent) that would mean by the time he left the debt would be 28 trillion dollars do you think he would be as revered as Raegan. when he is already dogged about the 60 percent increase? ,,,,the math is not flawed,, the judgements are just hypocritical and inconsistent NOTE: the unemployment also rose for 7.5 to 10.4 in reagans first two years (absent the financial crises) and took until his second term to return to its preterm rates,,, The error is easy to explain, but difficult for you to understand. Take the 24 trillion that you think is OK for Obama to spend without a problem and multiply that by what the US is now paying as a debt interest rate and compare the balance to what we are paying today in debt costs to the total national income. If you can do the math (rather simple) you will understand just how meaningless the numbers you posted really are. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the trillions in debt was 'made' before he took office,,,,thats verifiable numbers,,,, as to the rest,, everyone has their opinion,,,, election 2012 Yea, we had 16 trillion in debt four years ago........... Not to mention the worst unemployment numbers in history almost 13% and growing in Nevada, the worst in the Nation. What an a$$hole, November 6th cant come fast enough. nope we had 10.6 trillion, up from 5.6 trillion when Bush took office and 4.1 when clinton took office and 2.9 when bush sr took office and 1.0 when Reagan took office ,,the TRILLIONS originally mentioned have been in the making for several administrations,,, Ok so Bush raised it 5 trillion in 8 years It only took Obama 3 years to add 6 trillion and that's ok? the rising debt is not ok, its also not unique to this president its been in the trillions LONG before obama or even bush and in terms of increase , it rose by 100 percent under bush, its risen 60 percent under Obama and back when raegan was in office it rose 188 percent basically, obama could be in office four more years and would still hve done better than the revered raegan even if it rises another 120 percent (ending at roughly 28 trillion) Wow! That must be the worst math in history! really? explain the error reagan came in at 930 billion by the time he left it was 2.6 trillion dollars (an increase of 188 percent in debt) bush came in it was 5 trillion by the time he left it was 10 trillion (an increase of 100 percent in the debt) obama came in it was 10 trillion and it is now at 16 trillion (an increase of 60 percent) if obama equaled the rate at which RAEGAN increased the debt, (188 percent) that would mean by the time he left the debt would be 28 trillion dollars do you think he would be as revered as Raegan. when he is already dogged about the 60 percent increase? ,,,,the math is not flawed,, the judgements are just hypocritical and inconsistent NOTE: the unemployment also rose for 7.5 to 10.4 in reagans first two years (absent the financial crises) and took until his second term to return to its preterm rates,,, The error is easy to explain, but difficult for you to understand. Take the 24 trillion that you think is OK for Obama to spend without a problem and multiply that by what the US is now paying as a debt interest rate and compare the balance to what we are paying today in debt costs to the total national income. If you can do the math (rather simple) you will understand just how meaningless the numbers you posted really are. lol your post proves that numbers are only as meaningless as the interpreter wishes them to be and the interpreter picks which 'data' is significant,,, the raw numbers, the percentages, or the interest rate,,,,etc,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the trillions in debt was 'made' before he took office,,,,thats verifiable numbers,,,, as to the rest,, everyone has their opinion,,,, election 2012 Yea, we had 16 trillion in debt four years ago........... Not to mention the worst unemployment numbers in history almost 13% and growing in Nevada, the worst in the Nation. What an a$$hole, November 6th cant come fast enough. nope we had 10.6 trillion, up from 5.6 trillion when Bush took office and 4.1 when clinton took office and 2.9 when bush sr took office and 1.0 when Reagan took office ,,the TRILLIONS originally mentioned have been in the making for several administrations,,, These numbers are bogus, if you want to see the real deal then go to http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html This jackass in chief we got is a big spender, spends money like we got it. The only large surge in spending was during the stimulus that brought us out of the depression we were dropping into. Outside of that it is a steady spending that is supporting two wars and the bush tax cuts for the most part. Were out of the depression? You might wanna tell that to the 13% of the people in Nevada that are unemployed. It wasn't even 6% under President Bush. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A depression in economics may be somewhat hard to define. A standard definition of an economic depression is a significant decline in the gross domestic product (GDP).
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm see, we no longer have a NEGATIVE Gdp growth,,, |
|
|
|
|
