OT disgusted with all presidential candidates

Obama is using the Cloward-Piven strategy to destroy (fundamentally transform) the USA. Do you not see this or are you OK with it?

RogerN

I do not see this. I just looked. i

And what's your evidence of this, Roger? Please be specific.

Getting as many people as possible depending on government, open border, executive amnesty, >$trillion per year deficit. Overload the system and it will collapse, then we will comply to his one world government.

Either Obama is an incompetent total idiot or he has a strategy to destroy (fundamentally transform) the USA.

RogerN

Nope, that doesn't do it. Deficits went up during the recession but they're going down now. Liberals call Obama the "Deporter-in-Chief," which isn't really true, but it's complicated. In the end, the effect is probably the same as Bush's policy:

Want to double-down and try again?

So what? The U.S government has been evolving since it was first formed. Do you think that returning to the government that existed in

They had some very radical ideas back in those days. No minimum salaries, no medical insurance, no unemployment. Own all the guns that you wanted. No religious freedom - In 1723 Maryland enacted laws imposing fines upon those who violated the Sunday laws, i.e., didn't go to church, opened their shops, etc. In 1739 Delaware put Sunday violators in the stocks.

You think I need to double down because Obama fooled you with his lies? Do you know that when people are turned away at the border, Obama counts them as deportations? Do you know the Obama administration came up with a new way to calculate economic figures to be able to claim things are better than they really are, it makes a better number so Obama can claim to helped more than he actually has? Figures don't lie but the liar in chief figures. Also, food and power aren't figured into the numbers so we don't get a real picture to begin with, except for people that don't eat or use energy.

So, if a president wanted to implement the Cloward Piven strategy, what would they do different than Obama? Do you also deny that Obama is granting amnesty to millions of illegals? I also hear we have record numbers of people that have renounced their citizenship, probably get better treatment if they are not citizens.

I didn't think you'd be that gullible, but the liberal media hides these things.

RogerN

Roger, your musings about that mythical "strategy" are nothing but nonsense. You know that you are wrong because the deficits are going down. You should give up your religion as it is misleading you in a big way.

You can deny truth all you want but it's still truth. Do you still believe Obama's "If you like your insurance you can keep it" and "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"? Do you also believe Obama's been the most transparent?

So, let's say the next president does this:

Spends $100 trillion the first year, blaming Obama because Obama was president for the first part of the year. The next year he spends $99 trillion, next year $98 trillion... and so on, lowering the deficit $1 trillion per year. They could make claims that they lowered the deficit by $1 trillion per year even though every year from what they inherited from Obama, even though they spent more than Obama ever dreamed of. That's exactly how the claim about Obama's deficit going down works. Obama's first 2/3 year was about 3X Bush's average but it was blamed on Bush, even though Bush didn't come up with the budget or spend the money, democrats did.

So Obama spent more on years with no wars than Bush did on years with 2 wars. Obama was handed a victory on the war on terrorism but managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Obama brought back the cold war, who could have seen that coming? Romney and Palin!

I think you've probably spent too many years believing leftist lies to accept reality.

RogerN

Is the deficit going down or is it that the deficit is still going up , but not as fast.

Dan

The deficit is going down; debt is still going up, but not as fast.

We've seen your "sources" for this kind of thing before, Roger. I'm not going to waste my time with it anymore. I wasted hours before on your cockeyed "facts."

And does the deficit include the interest the government pays on its debt?

Dan

Please don't let me get in the way of your enlightening the mislead, but could you post cites to the dropping deficits you mentioned? All the new wars Obama is getting us into far outstrip the reductions from the scaling down of Afghan and Iraq wars.

Try this graph:

Yes. Jeez. I'm surprised you didn't know that, since you're highly tuned in to financial matters.

Well that was sort of a trick question. The interest the government actua lly pays is counted. But I think the government is suppose to pay interest on the money borrowed from Social Security. And I do not think this inte rest is counted when calculating the defict. The amount borrowed is almost 5 trillion dollars.

I might be wrong here. I am attuned to financial stuff, But this I can not profit from knowing how it works and I can not change how they count the d eficit.

Dan

I don't know the state of the law on interagency borrowing and interest accounting regarding SS. The accounting has changed over the years.

It's an interesting curiosity, but, as you know, accounting for SS funds is like watching a mime putting flowers in a vase. There's really nothing there.

As far as I know, part of the government bonds is owned by the government, specifically social security trust fund and the bonds owned by the Federal reserve. The interest paid by the Treasury, for those bonds, goes back into the pocket of the government.