Elections Blistering Criticism of President Obama's Legacy Highlights Dramatic Shift Inside Democratic Party

even if repubs win 2020, the repubs will never win another general election. the major demographic shifts ensure that most states and the presidency will go blue in the next decade.

I know. Mass immigration has destroyed, and will continue to destroy America. America will become a mixture of Latin America, Detroit & the middle-east.
 
It truly is bizarre how far left the Democratic party is drifting. Obama has been out of office what, less than 3 years?
 


It was already obvious that Obama and his supporters were racists.
 
Nah I'm just building a consistent profile of this weasel - a cowardly cuck that worships at the alter of the establishment and power. Too afraid to go against the grain and fight for the good so he's content to operate his life based on accentuating the worst demons of his nature: greed, envy, jealously, spite.
Lol college kids are funny
 
Missed this earlier.

So he "fixed" the debt by raising taxes but also doubling the debt. This is just an asinine claim for which you've provided zero data.

Fixed the debt by increasing revenue and decreasing outlays, yeah. Some combination of those two things are the only possible way to do it. Obviously he didn't double the debt.

You can just look at long-term debt projections over time. Example (note that "current" in that graph is pre-Trump):

CBO-webfig11.png


Yes, he did.

You keep asserting that, but you've provided no reasoning. It's just a completely nutso claim.

That isn't fixing immigration in any meaningful way, he successfully slowed immigration from Mexico which is what that graph shows.

The graph shows that the total unauthorized immigrant population stopped rising and started falling.

Of course it is, it's the only plausible explanation for why you're so high on a deeply flawed, mediocre President.

By any objective measure, he's been the most successful president at least since FDR, but he had a shorter time in office, fewer negatives, and really if you don't adjust for modern decision-making, there's no competition. So it's kind of a philosophical question. "Mediocre" or "deeply flawed" is just partisan bias preventing you from acknowledging the facts.
 
Missed this earlier.



Fixed the debt by increasing revenue and decreasing outlays, yeah. Some combination of those two things are the only possible way to do it. Obviously he didn't double the debt.

Yes, he did. I've posted direct evidence before whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. A finance professional should be able to grasp the simplicity of the numbers so clearly you're being purposefully obtuse here. Maybe Obama isn't quite as great as you and he think he is.

You can just look at long-term debt projections over time. Example (note that "current" in that graph is pre-Trump):

CBO-webfig11.png

So he didn't fix the debt, he put in temporary tax hikes (big surprise) yet failed to curtail spending to sufficient levels. He's a tax and spend Liberal, emphasis on spend. I agree though that raising taxes is one way to solve the country's financial woes. However, the debt issue clearly is not solved as you've claimed. Also, you'd think if he achieved something so great for the country the incoming administration would have left the policies in place. He should have known that if a Republican was elected his method of putting the country on the path to financial stability would not last.

You keep asserting that, but you've provided no reasoning. It's just a completely nutso claim.

It's just basic 1st grade arithmetic using widely available data. The nutso perspective appears to be on your side for this issue.

By any objective measure, he's been the most successful president at least since FDR, but he had a shorter time in office, fewer negatives, and really if you don't adjust for modern decision-making, there's no competition. So it's kind of a philosophical question. "Mediocre" or "deeply flawed" is just partisan bias preventing you from acknowledging the facts.

I'm really starting to lose respect for you here. He's the first openly Narcissistic President the country was duped into electing, I'll give you that. His legacy and Presidency is severely lacking, but he's black so Liberals think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread irregardless of actual, concrete accomplishments. No surprise there.
 
Somehow I feel this is only because Biden is running and the front runner. Watch if this continues after the primaries.
 
Yes, he did. I've posted direct evidence before whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. A finance professional should be able to grasp the simplicity of the numbers so clearly you're being purposefully obtuse here. Maybe Obama isn't quite as great as you and he think he is.

You posted no evidence of Obama doubling the debt at all. It's a ridiculous claim, and I'm telling you that as a finance professional. Some assumptions buried in the claim:

1. A president's influence on the debt begins the day he takes office and ends the day he leaves.
2. 100% of debt increase during a presidential term is related to the president's actions.
3. The best way to measure debt is by not adjusting for inflation, population growth, or GDP.

No analyst would consider any of those individually for a second. It's a ridiculous approach. So much so that even you as an ignorant layman can see that it's flawed, but you dishonestly promote it anyway out of blind partisanship.

So he didn't fix the debt, he put in temporary tax hikes (big surprise) yet failed to curtail spending to sufficient levels.

No, he fixed it. A later Congress and president once again put us on an unsustainable path that will thus require another fix. Just as we were put on an unsustainable path under Reagan, saw it fixed during the presidencies of Bush 41 and Clinton, and then were again put on an unsustainable path under Bush 43.

He's a tax and spend Liberal, emphasis on spend.

Huh? Spending growth during Obama's presidency was extraordinarily low. It's odd to me that you're so willing to confidently make false claims. If you'd just look stuff up before posting, you could save us a lot of time and yourself a lot of embarrassment.

I agree though that raising taxes is one way to solve the country's financial woes. However, the debt issue clearly is not solved as you've claimed. Also, you'd think if he achieved something so great for the country the incoming administration would have left the policies in place. He should have known that if a Republican was elected his method of putting the country on the path to financial stability would not last.

So it's Obama's fault that the GOP has been taken over by morons? Why do you think he could have done to improve the policy preferences of the opposing party?

I'm really starting to lose respect for you here. He's the first openly Narcissistic President the country was duped into electing, I'll give you that. His legacy and Presidency is severely lacking, but he's black so Liberals think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread irregardless of actual, concrete accomplishments. No surprise there.

You don't think you sound like a lunatic when you call Obama (?) a narcissist? And I think you're projecting. I don't know if you've gotten over your Jared Taylor fandom, but at least be aware that not everyone is as obsessed with race as you are.
 
It truly is bizarre how far left the Democratic party is drifting. Obama has been out of office what, less than 3 years?
Well, what else do they have? Promises of free stuff they know they won't deliver on? That might get them elected once. All they have are lies and shame.
 
I wonder if they'll bring up his history of crack use and getting his willy whacked by a fellow congressman.
 
You posted no evidence of Obama doubling the debt at all. It's a ridiculous claim, and I'm telling you that as a finance professional. Some assumptions buried in the claim:

1. A president's influence on the debt begins the day he takes office and ends the day he leaves.
2. 100% of debt increase during a presidential term is related to the president's actions.
3. The best way to measure debt is by not adjusting for inflation, population growth, or GDP.

No analyst would consider any of those individually for a second. It's a ridiculous approach. So much so that even you as an ignorant layman can see that it's flawed, but you dishonestly promote it anyway out of blind partisanship.



No, he fixed it. A later Congress and president once again put us on an unsustainable path that will thus require another fix. Just as we were put on an unsustainable path under Reagan, saw it fixed during the presidencies of Bush 41 and Clinton, and then were again put on an unsustainable path under Bush 43.



Huh? Spending growth during Obama's presidency was extraordinarily low. It's odd to me that you're so willing to confidently make false claims. If you'd just look stuff up before posting, you could save us a lot of time and yourself a lot of embarrassment.



So it's Obama's fault that the GOP has been taken over by morons? Why do you think he could have done to improve the policy preferences of the opposing party?



You don't think you sound like a lunatic when you call Obama (?) a narcissist? And I think you're projecting. I don't know if you've gotten over your Jared Taylor fandom, but at least be aware that not everyone is as obsessed with race as you are.
tenor.gif
 
You posted no evidence of Obama doubling the debt at all. It's a ridiculous claim, and I'm telling you that as a finance professional. Some assumptions buried in the claim:

1. A president's influence on the debt begins the day he takes office and ends the day he leaves.
2. 100% of debt increase during a presidential term is related to the president's actions.
3. The best way to measure debt is by not adjusting for inflation, population growth, or GDP.

So you'd prefer to say, "The debt nearly doubled in nominal terms during Obama's Presidency", but you don't necessarily attribute that to him since it's not something good, I gather.

No, he fixed it. A later Congress and president once again put us on an unsustainable path that will thus require another fix. Just as we were put on an unsustainable path under Reagan, saw it fixed during the presidencies of Bush 41 and Clinton, and then were again put on an unsustainable path under Bush 43.

He didn't fix it. He took steps to increase revenue but the debt has increased dramatically both during and after his Presidency. He failed completely if his goal was really to solve America's long-term debt woes as you claim.

Huh? Spending growth during Obama's presidency was extraordinarily low. It's odd to me that you're so willing to confidently make false claims. If you'd just look stuff up before posting, you could save us a lot of time and yourself a lot of embarrassment.

I like how you parsed the words there, "spending growth" was low. In reality, budget deficits were nearly twice the CBO projected levels capping out at $8.93 Trillion versus the $4.32 Trillion that was projected. The ACA actually made balancing the budget more difficult, not less. And the economic stimulus added $2 Trillion in new spending while another $5 trillion was added from new legislation.

Had the president and Congress simply stuck to CBO’s original budget baseline legislatively (even allowing for budget effects of the weak recovery), the deficit would have fallen well below $300 billion by 2013 and approached balance by 2018. Instead, expensive new policies slowed the deficit reduction, leading to $8.93 trillion in red ink rather than $4.32 trillion—which is $4.6 trillion in additional deficits. Readers can determine which new costs were justified, and which were not.

Obama leaves behind a budget with higher entitlement spending, lower discretionary spending, and (temporarily) lower net interest costs than originally projected. The ballooning national debt leaves taxpayers liable for exorbitant debt service costs when interest rates return to normal levels

https://www.manhattan-institute.org...erview-spending-taxes-and-deficits-10669.html

JVS: "Obama fixed the debt."

You don't think you sound like a lunatic when you call Obama (?) a narcissist?

No, why would I? I'm not a psychologist so I can't officially diagnose him obviously, but I've been studying psychology for many years and it's my opinion that he is. It's also the opinion of many others in the media and in politics including the following:

Media figures
Charles Krauthammer (former psychologist and Fox News political analyst)
David Cameron (former British Prime Minister)
Ben Stein (Author, media personality and speechwriter for Presidents Nixon and Ford)
Christopher Hitchens
Dinesh D'Souza (Conservative political author)

Publications
Washington Examiner
Politico
The Wall Street Journal
The National Review
The Daily Wire
Newsmax
Real Clear Politics
The Free Beacon
 
So you'd prefer to say, "The debt nearly doubled in nominal terms during Obama's Presidency", but you don't necessarily attribute that to him since it's not something good, I gather.

If you don't have a learning disability, and you read the post you're responding to, I have to assume dishonesty here. Am I wrong?

He didn't fix it. He took steps to increase revenue but the debt has increased dramatically both during and after his Presidency. He failed completely if his goal was really to solve America's long-term debt woes as you claim.

No, he put us on a long-term sustainable path in that area. As Reagan and Bush did before, Trump then took us off that path. Inevitably, a future Congress and president will have to restore us to a good path, though it's unlikely it will be done as effectively and with as little pain as it was done by Obama.

I like how you parsed the words there, "spending growth" was low. In reality, budget deficits were nearly twice the CBO projected levels capping out at $8.93 Trillion versus the $4.32 Trillion that was projected.

It's a fact that extraordinarily low (negative, in fact) spending growth occurred under Obama. The low revenue was a result of the GFC and some temporary tax cuts.

The ACA actually made balancing the budget more difficult, not less. And the economic stimulus added $2 Trillion in new spending while another $5 trillion was added from new legislation.

The ACA made balancing the budget far, far less difficult. That's the primary driver of the massively reduced long-term revenue (look at what happens to projected revenue if you repeal it, but also note that that's a conservative estimate of the savings).

No, why would I? I'm not a psychologist so I can't officially diagnose him obviously, but I've been studying psychology for many years and it's my opinion that he is. It's also the opinion of many others in the media and in politics including the following:

Media figures
Charles Krauthammer (former psychologist and Fox News political analyst)
David Cameron (former British Prime Minister)
Ben Stein (Author, media personality and speechwriter for Presidents Nixon and Ford)
Christopher Hitchens
Dinesh D'Souza (Conservative political author)

It's hard to tell sometimes if you're joking. Surely you don't regard these people as credible sources on the issue, do you? Stein is a creationist, who literally breaks into tears talking about Richard Nixon and what a great man he is. D'Souza is a two-bit con and a convicted felon.
 
Last edited:
Somehow I feel this is only because Biden is running and the front runner. Watch if this continues after the primaries.
I would laugh so hard if the Dems backed Biden and ran him for Pres. There's so much video evidence showing Biden perving out on little girls he'll get slaughtered in the attack ads.
 
Although Obama was not anywhere near left enough for my liking, he's still, in my mind, the greatest President of all time.
 
Obama was a B- level president.


His FP record is downright embarrassing.
 
They're just trying to undermine Biden any way that they can. It's pretty funny
 
Back
Top