A little input before I respond.

[Virgil0211]

Remember that Obama Dunkin' Donuts poster from a while back? The one that lists 'got Obama' and 'prevented 2nd Great Depression' as one of Obama's triumphs? Well, I commented on it and got a response, and I was wondering if I could get some input while I draft a reply.

Here was my original comment.

-Without a trial and dumped his body at sea. Weren't we supposed to be better than that?
- Why are Bush's needless interventionist wars bad and Obama's good?
- Yeah, just screwed up an economy, the constitution, and healthcare instead.
- More like maintained, or do the estimates of the CBO before the stimulus plan no longer matter?
- Dunkin Donuts instead of Krispy Kreme? You couldn't even get THAT right.

Why make sure the Tea Party sees it? It's completely stupid. I cannot believe that the Tea Party is so difficult to criticize that THIS is the thing that they HAVE to see.

And here was the reply I got.

Point 1: Obama's needless interventionist wars are a continuation of Bush's. Obama has not started any wars - despite main-line Republican's beating him up over failing to intervene in Syria while Tea Party Republican's decry every dollar that gets spent - failing to realize that the President neither creates legislation nor determines budgets. The only thing that could be considered "Obama's" war would be the U.S.'s actions in Libya - which (unlike Iraq) had international support (a much larger percentage financially than either Iraq or Afghanistan) and was demanded by the House of Representatives (who later bitched about the cost of a war they wanted).

2. Obama did have the largest budget in history. It was approved by Congress AND the President before October 1, 2008. Obama was elected November 2008. Obama's only action to "increase" the budget was to roll the already approved special allocations for military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan into the Federal Budget. If you add all special allocations while Bush was in office into the Federal Budget, it actually went DOWN the first year Obama had any say in it.

3. The constitution: Homeland Security Act, secret prisons, arresting foreign AND US citizens without trials and taking them to a military base outside the US to prevent US law from having ready access to them, secret torture areas, etc.... oh, I'm talking about "W" - not Obama.

4. The "Great Recession": If congress controls the purse strings, and every time they make an agreement with the President regarding spending (you pass this, and we'll pass the bill you want) and then shows themselves to be liars (EVERY time, look at the congressional record - Obama passes stuff that has an agreement, and gets the Democrats to agree to pass it, and then the Tea Party REPUBLICANS back down on their word as if it wasn't worth the amount that they pay their unusually large staffs [by standards of congress] of family members and relations of business associates). There is ONLY 1 way to improve the economy: Spend money. If companies refuse to hire (as claimed by most fortune 500 company CEOs) until Congress gets off its ass and agrees on a budget, then the millions of unemployed aren't spending. If companies aren't spending on materials for increased production, then the companies aren't spending the money either. The states that have improved economies have LOTS of state money into hiring - like Texas adding 1 million new jobs, and 380,000 being state employees (and 500k being because of natural resources that no politician can take credit for, unless they killed the dinosaurs).

As far as the CBO: there are a LOT more accurate prediction organizations. However, using their numbers: "Short-term" growth of 2-3% (which is what it was in the early and mid 2000s) sustained for 5 years is enough time (according to Historical Economic figures) for companies to notice a turn-around and start hiring. Since economic figures showing how good a country is doing are based largely on spending (more spending = better economy, and saving money is bad) - a "good" economy is (in and of itself) a bubble. Bubbles depend on sustained input in order to maintain and increase (or grow). Since the CBO estimates that Obama's proposed budget would provide a Federally sustained growth of 2-3% before companies hiring (it assumes unemployment will continue at its current rate, so Federal spending will be entirely toward non-existent products already produced). Production to meet Federal demand will require comanies to hire, meaning consumers have more disposable income, which leads to an increase in their spending, which means companies have to increase output by hiring more people, which means consumers have more disposable income, which leads to an increase in their spending, which means companies have to increase output by hiring more people, which means consumers have more disposable income, which leads to an increase in their spending, which means companies have to increase output by hiring more people, which means consumers have more disposable income, which leads to an increase in their spending, which means companies have to increase output by hiring more people, which means....
you get the picture.

4. Krispy Kreme donuts are too sweet, and Dunkin has better coffee.

Any input/sources you guys can contribute while I'm writing something up?

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to put my original comment in there. :-P

[Travis Retriever]

Well I don't know why you're going to post a reply to the guy if he forgot to put the text in his comment, that's really something not worth responding to.

[Virgil0211]

Well I don't know why you're going to post a reply to the guy if he forgot to put the text in his comment, that's really something not worth responding to.

Lol. That was me, actually. The guy's reply to me is the second quote. Thanks for pointing that out, though.

Fixed.

[Goaticus]

I don't know about sources, but here would be my responses.

1. He was Commander in Chief and could have withdrew any time.

2. That would be a good point if I had claimed Bush was a great President.

3.Yes, Bush did a lot of horrible things. Obama promised to put a stop to that, could have done it with an Executive Order or two, and chose to do the exact same thing George Bush did.

4. If Congress does something that the President doesn't like he can veto it. Since he promised to lower the National Debt if he was serious he would have done that if Congress had given him a budget he found unacceptable.

A good Economy is not in itself a bubble anymore than a manic episode in a bipolar person is a sign of mental health.

Eat Eggs and Bacon instead of Krispy Kreme or Dunkin Doughnuts. If I'm expected to pay for your health care you could at least have the decency to not eat yourself into a diabetic coma.

[Ibrahim90]

Point 1: Obama's needless interventionist wars are a continuation of Bush's. Obama has not started any wars - despite main-line Republican's beating him up over failing to intervene in Syria while Tea Party Republican's decry every dollar that gets spent - failing to realize that the President neither creates legislation nor determines budgets. The only thing that could be considered "Obama's" war would be the U.S.'s actions in Libya - which (unlike Iraq) had international support (a much larger percentage financially than either Iraq or Afghanistan) and was demanded by the House of Representatives (who later bitched about the cost of a war they wanted).

yes, it is a continuation. but here's the thing: who said he needed to continue it? why not just let the Libyans to themselves, as well as the Syrians. and how does international support justify this? so it was Bullshit when Bush did this with a few countries, yet OK for Obama to do the same with other countries?

and while officially he doesn't create any of that, he does use executive orders as if to create legislation.

and yeah, congresspeople are hypocrites-what does that have to do with Obama's hypocrisy?

2. Obama did have the largest budget in history. It was approved by Congress AND the President before October 1, 2008. Obama was elected November 2008. Obama's only action to "increase" the budget was to roll the already approved special allocations for military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan into the Federal Budget. If you add all special allocations while Bush was in office into the Federal Budget, it actually went DOWN the first year Obama had any say in it.

and what about the next three years? IIRC, Obama raised the national debt at about $48,000 a second-five trillion + dollars in one term-even Bush wasn't this shit with the budget.

3. The constitution: Homeland Security Act, secret prisons, arresting foreign AND US citizens without trials and taking them to a military base outside the US to prevent US law from having ready access to them, secret torture areas, etc.... oh, I'm talking about "W" - not Obama.

If that's the case, why is Obama continuing them? so it's OK if Obama does all this, but if a republican does it, it's completely unconstitutional? what drugs is this asshole on?

it makes no difference who started it: it's who is doing it. Cain supposedly (bear with me-It's to make a point) started the act of Murder, so by his logic, all his successor murderers are OK in murdering

4. The "Great Recession": If congress controls the purse strings, and every time they make an agreement with the President regarding spending (you pass this, and we'll pass the bill you want) and then shows themselves to be liars (EVERY time, look at the congressional record - Obama passes stuff that has an agreement, and gets the Democrats to agree to pass it, and then the Tea Party REPUBLICANS back down on their word as if it wasn't worth the amount that they pay their unusually large staffs [by standards of congress] of family members and relations of business associates). There is ONLY 1 way to improve the economy: Spend money. If companies refuse to hire (as claimed by most fortune 500 company CEOs) until Congress gets off its ass and agrees on a budget, then the millions of unemployed aren't spending. If companies aren't spending on materials for increased production, then the companies aren't spending the money either. The states that have improved economies have LOTS of state money into hiring - like Texas adding 1 million new jobs, and 380,000 being state employees (and 500k being because of natural resources that no politician can take credit for, unless they killed the dinosaurs).

1-so who exactly proposes the budget again?
2-on Spending: then explain why all the spending in the Great depression didn't do dick to help the economy? or the 1970's? or today? remember the 5 trillion or so added to the debt? again, I ask: what drugs is this asshole on?
3-and why would a business wait on Government? srsly, why? shouldn't that tell you something about how retarded his "spend" idea is?
4-Texas is actually one of the least regulated states in this country (it's still too regulated), and Government Jobs take away labor that could have been used doing something more useful. and Econometrics as is understood by most people is bullshit.

As far as the CBO: there are a LOT more accurate prediction organizations. However, using their numbers: "Short-term" growth of 2-3% (which is what it was in the early and mid 2000s) sustained for 5 years is enough time (according to Historical Economic figures) for companies to notice a turn-around and start hiring. Since economic figures showing how good a country is doing are based largely on spending (more spending = better economy, and saving money is bad) - a "good" economy is (in and of itself) a bubble. Bubbles depend on sustained input in order to maintain and increase (or grow). Since the CBO estimates that Obama's proposed budget would provide a Federally sustained growth of 2-3% before companies hiring (it assumes unemployment will continue at its current rate, so Federal spending will be entirely toward non-existent products already produced). Production to meet Federal demand will require comanies to hire, meaning consumers have more disposable income, which leads to an increase in their spending, which means companies have to increase output by hiring more people, which means consumers have more disposable income, which leads to an increase in their spending, which means companies have to increase output by hiring more people, which means consumers have more disposable income, which leads to an increase in their spending, which means companies have to increase output by hiring more people, which means consumers have more disposable income, which leads to an increase in their spending, which means companies have to increase output by hiring more people, which means....
you get the picture.

at this point, I think he is OD'ing on the magic drug he is using.:

1-and why can't the growth be 5%? or 10%? why must it be 2-3%? do you know what causes this?
2-there is more to the economy than spending: investments should also be considered, as well as the state of the currency used (is it increasing or decreasing in value, or is it stable?) I mean, Germany spent trillions of marks in the early 1920's-were they rich by his logic? well, no, because a few million Marks at that time couldn't even buy a loaf of bread.
3-again, it's investment you also need to consider, and our monetary policy.
4-and why must an economy be a bubble? we're human beings, we're supposed to be smarter than that! and why must the economy tank? that's like arguing it's good to have an occasional Famine or AIDS pandemic.

4. Krispy Kreme donuts are too sweet, and Dunkin has better coffee.

what does coffee have to do with Donuts? honestly, when comparing two donut stores, you compare the Donuts, not the coffee and donuts. sheesh.

and no, Krispy isn't too sweet- srsly, the guy has no taste.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Never been to Krispy Kreme but Dunkin Donuts has nothing on Tim Hortons, I'll tell you that for a fact.

[Ibrahim90]

Never been to Krispy Kreme but Dunkin Donuts has nothing on Tim Hortons, I'll tell you that for a fact.

pardon my ignorance, but does it have chains outside Canada?

[Goaticus]

There was a Tim Hortons in Ann Arbor, Michigan. They had a lot of other great breakfast foods, not just doughnuts. There is one in Denver, but I haven't seen too many since moving out West.

[MrBogosity]

I just saw someone on Facebook repost the pic with the claim that Obama killed SOPA. Sigh...

Does he make the fucking sun rise in the morning too???

[Ibrahim90]

I just saw someone on Facebook repost the pic with the claim that Obama killed SOPA. Sigh...

Does he make the fucking sun rise in the morning too???

I was told the other day that he walks on water, was resurrected after 3 days, and turn water into Obamabots. That and he was born under a double rainbow on a very dry day.

There was a Tim Hortons in Ann Arbor, Michigan. They had a lot of other great breakfast foods, not just doughnuts. There is one in Denver, but I haven't seen too many since moving out West.

if only it was 1 hour to the North of Denver 

[evensgrey]

pardon my ignorance, but does it have chains outside Canada?

We had one in AFGANISTAN, dude.  And I've tried Krispy Kreme too, and they're crap compared to Tim Horton's.

(Damnably, I happen to currently be having to WORK in one of the damn things, but you do what you have to do.)

[Ibrahim90]

We had one in AFGANISTAN, dude.  And I've tried Krispy Kreme too, and they're crap compared to Tim Horton's.

(Damnably, I happen to currently be having to WORK in one of the damn things, but you do what you have to do.)

well, thing is, it's not where I'm living, so I didn't know. luckily, I have also been told there are chains in Denver. I hope to give it a try.

[Goaticus]

We had one in AFGANISTAN, dude.  And I've tried Krispy Kreme too, and they're crap compared to Tim Horton's.

(Damnably, I happen to currently be having to WORK in one of the damn things, but you do what you have to do.)

And by that you mean you're the CEO right? You can't oppose Government interference in the economy if you don't make at least 8 figures.