AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Free Dating

Why I Would Vote For A Pineapple Over Obama -- Reason # 8,357,435

posted 3/10/2012 6:51:19 PM |
5 kudosgive kudos what's this?
    report abuse
  DiamondRain

Obama's record spending spree is bankrupting the country.

It has gone virtually unmentioned in the media but while you were sleeping, the US government set a new record in February -- the highest monthly budget deficit ever recorded in the history of the nation -- $229 billion dollars of overspending red ink in a SINGLE MONTH. This eclipses the last record monthly deficit set just one year ago and is fully one half of the largest deficit that ever happened under George Bush FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR.

But it isn't the only record the Obama regime holds when it comes to out of control spending: not by a long shot. Since Obama became president we not only have the largest budget deficits ever (by several multiples) but we also have the longest streak of monthly deficits under any president. There have now been 41 consecutive months of budget deficits. And every month Obama has been in office there has been a deficit. That eclipses the record under any previous president which is a paltry 11 months. They can't hold a candle to Obama's reckless spending.

The result of all of this? Three years in a row of annual deficits that are two to three times higher then the largest deficits ever before Obama (and headed for a perfect record of all 4 years of his term). A record national debt that has grown far more under the Obama administration than under any other administration in history. In short? A selling out of the country's future through massive spending increases that have been frittered away on waste, fraud, patronage and corruption with nothing to show for it for the citizens of the United States.

I would vote for a pineapple before I would vote for Obama. How could it do any worse?

Copy & paste to friend: (Click inside box; Ctrl + C to copy; Ctrl + V to paste)

   read more blogs!

Blogs by DiamondRain:
Obama Administration Defies US Law - Arms Muslim Terrorists In Egypt
The Myth Of MD Membership Loss -- Let's Get The Facts Straight And Stop The BS
Obama Throws The United States Marine Corps Under The Bus
STUNNING Admission: Obama Administration's Goal Is to INCREASE The Price Of Gas
Obama Popularity Hits New Low On The Economy - The Most Important Issue Of 2012
Why I Would Vote For A Pineapple Over Obama -- Reason # 8,357,435
Obama: Taxpayers Pick Up Tab for Abortions, Transgender Therapy for Illegals
1980
Where I Draw The Line
The Republican Debate And The Questions That Weren't Asked


Comments:
SweetNapaGuy

Mar 10 @ 7:52PM  
And the budget Romney is proposing, has a budget deficit about 50% greater than Obama's. (Massive spending increases on defense, massive tax cuts for the top 1%)

Or will chop off so many benefits for senior citizens that no other Republican will EVER be elected.

There are only three areas that are large enough in the budget to make a difference, in deficit reduction. Either trim defense, raise income through more taxes, or massive cuts to social security and/or medicare. If he's already planning on increasing expenditures in the military (including starting another war, with either Iran or Syria, or maybe both...), and reducing revenues by yet another round of give-aways to the top 1%, he's going to have to accept deficits at a higher level than Obama has. To get down to Obama's deficit levels, he's going to have to trim a LOT of money from senior citizens. (You're not going to balance the budget by stealing money from babies and NPR and planned parenthood, those don't amount to a hill of beans compared to the big three of defense, social security and medicare.)

And that's even with Romney potentially inheriting a recovered economy...
willy3411

Mar 10 @ 9:22PM  
Napa would only criticize people who disagree with him.
DiamondRain

Mar 10 @ 9:27PM  
Think about it. Use common sense even if you are not a numbers person and this stuff makes your head spin. Would Romney who is campaigning on a platform that Obama's budget deficits are bankrupting the country propose a budget with even bigger deficits? That's obviously absurd.

On the contrary, Romney is proposing making a balanced budget the law: so the catastrophic deficits Obama is running up can never happen again.
SweetNapaGuy

Mar 10 @ 10:00PM  
He's proposing to increase military budgets and decrease taxes on the wealthiest.

To maintain a deficit equivalent to Obama, every extra dollar spent on the military and every dollar given back to the wealthiest has to come from somewhere. What's left? A bunch of small programs (on the order of 1-5% of the military, social security, or medicare budgets), but which have major benefits for those poor enough to need them? Or major cuts in social security or medicare?

If he wants to cut the budget below that of Obama's, he's got to take BIGGER cuts into programs benefiting the poorest, the elderly, and the disabled.

Simple common sense. You can cut EVERY program outside the big three, and not get rid of the deficit. So you've got to start cutting into the big three, or start raising taxes. Since he's stated he's not going to raise taxes (and, in fact, he's going to ask for even larger cuts), and he's not going to cut the defense budget (and, in fact, he's gong to ask for even larger budgets), that leaves medicare and social security.

Well, it's political suicide to cut those two. Even the Paul Ryan plan doesn't actually cut medicare until a dozen years in the future (to stop any revolt from the seniors). So... what is he going to do?

So pretty much, more borrowing, larger deficits, and again the Republicans lead the way in creating our nation's public debt.

***************

And hi, Willy! I was hoping you'd actually post SOMETHING, but... Well, no, I had no hope of that...
Angel54214

Mar 10 @ 10:05PM  
Congressional Budget Office:
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43046
RANDY72

Mar 10 @ 10:16PM  
Napa would only criticize people who disagree with him.
I'm not afraid of sournappygay....he still lives with his sister...
he has no job and expects you to pay him his rocking chair money.....


guys like that are all mouth like a gator......now picture a gator with a tweety bird back side.....that's napa
that1guy1988

Mar 11 @ 12:46AM  
Napa Romney has promised a balanced budget. However, it is impossible to attain anytime soon, not because of his plan but because of those who served before him. Obama should be declared an enemy of the US considering that he has single handedly managed to put the US in the worst depression since the Great Depression.
SweetNapaGuy

Mar 11 @ 12:56AM  


And I'm not afraid to stand up to those who think neo-Nazism is a good thing, nor those who seek to bring about a Christian version of the Taliban.

None of which is even remotely relevant to the topic at hand, which is the budget deficit, and how supposedly the Republican plan would (1) reduce taxes by about 20-ish% (per Romney's proposal to reduce tax rates by 20%, eliminate all taxes on the non-earned income of the top 1%, and remove all alternative-minimum taxes); (2) increase military spending sufficient to add multiple new ships, scores of new planes (hundreds?), and 100,000 more active-duty personnel (as Romney suggested in recent days); (3) not touch Medicare for at least a decade, aside from adopting Obama's cuts, before essentially eliminating it (per the Paul Ryan plan); (4) not touch Social Security for at least a decade, before essentially giving the money over to Wall Street (per his plan from November 2011); and (5) somehow manage a deficit that is LESS than Obama's.

Essentially, with drastically less revenue coming in (roughly $400B less, give or take a couple hundred billion), and massive increase in defense spending, and no cuts to current Medicare and Social Security, where are the cuts going to come from?

Now, we could discuss this, or we could trade insults. I know the opinion of willy and Randy (one blames me for FORCING him to break the rules; the other thinks that I should have said "sieg heil" when his girlfriend started spouting the anti-Semitic b.s.). But if anyone else wants to chime in about how it's possible to cut $400B in revenue, and add another couple hundred billion in additional expenses (so, at LEAST an additional $500B, +/-, of deficit to get rid of...), I'd be pleased to hear it.

But please visit this webpage and start pulling together some REAL numbers. Because I've found that people's beliefs about the size of the numbers, often bears little resemblance to the reality.
RANDY72

Mar 11 @ 1:15AM  
And I'm not afraid to stand up to those who think neo-Nazism is a good thing,


then why do you promote the NAZI agenda?




nor those who seek to bring about a Christian version of the Taliban.

why do you promote terrorism against Americans?



None of which is even remotely relevant to the topic at hand, which is the budget deficit,

you can't even hold a coherent thought in your head and you are going to tell us what this is?


and how supposedly the Republican plan would (1) reduce taxes by about 20-ish% (per Romney's proposal to reduce tax rates by 20%, eliminate all taxes on the non-earned income of the top 1%, and remove all alternative-minimum taxes); (2) increase military spending sufficient to add multiple new ships, scores of new planes (hundreds?), and 100,000 more active-duty personnel (as Romney suggested in recent days); (3) not touch Medicare for at least a decade, aside from adopting Obama's cuts, before essentially eliminating it (per the Paul Ryan plan); (4) not touch Social Security for at least a decade, before essentially giving the money over to Wall Street (per his plan from November 2011); and (5) somehow manage a deficit that is LESS than Obama's.





see what I mean? more incoherent babbling.....have you figured out why you are never taken seriously?





Essentially, with drastically less revenue coming in (roughly $400B less, give or take a couple hundred billion), and massive increase in defense spending, and no cuts to current Medicare and Social Security, where are the cuts going to come from?




If we dropped all of the welfare payments to lazy loons like yourselves the deficit would definitely be eliminated...




Now, we could discuss this, or we could trade insults.


looking at you is a big insult to my senses




I know the opinion of willy and Randy (one blames me for FORCING him to break the rules; the other thinks that I should have said "sieg heil" when his girlfriend started spouting the anti-Semitic b.s.).


you are truly anti-American and of the devil....there is no denying that

lie as you may






But if anyone else wants to chime in about how it's possible to cut $400B in revenue, and add another couple hundred billion in additional expenses (so, at LEAST an additional $500B, +/-, of deficit to get rid of...), I'd be pleased to hear it.


you don't want to hear it liar.....you have been given the answer to this

now get with your boyfriend
SweetNapaGuy

Mar 11 @ 1:34AM  
Okay, consider Randy's post an example of what I'm hoping to avoid. As I stated, people often vastly overestimate the size of programs they wish to cut.

Now, I'd ask Randy to back up his assertions with even one link, but it's been conclusively established that he considers his own knee-jerk reactions to be more real than any source. Even the most right-wing source (e.g., Fox News or World Net Daily) are considered to be too "liberal" for him.

Obviously, that is not a suitable debating tactic. But I've given up in despair of ever seeing anything better from him.

So... Anyone care to actually post some actual data? Or are we only going to be blessed by the yammering of good old Randy boy?
DiamondRain

Mar 11 @ 1:52AM  
Maybe you should ask George W. Bush that question.

He inherited Clinton's disastrous dot com bubble crash economy and the worst foreign enemy attack on American soil in history right at the beginning of his term and still managed to create a booming economy and keep the average unemployment rate to 5,2 percent for 8 years while never producing a single deficit that was even a fraction of any one of the 4 deficits that Obama has produced so far.

If Bush was the moron and incompetent that you and others on the left have called him, what does that make Obama?
sloriver

Mar 11 @ 4:59AM  
As long as you don't believe Republicans set records for spending also you'll never realized the real problem. We allow a bunch of greedy bastards to vote for whomever gives them the most. But then that's all of us, isn't it? Would you actually vote for someone who said he'd raise YOUR taxes and not someone elses? Not likly. The fact is, we all need to pay more in order to balance our budget and keep basic services and keep faith with those who've paid social security taxes that were then treated as general funds. All the bitching and griping isn't going to help. It just makes you feel better about being one of the people sucking tit. Just like me. And if you've lived in America for the last 6 decades you ARE sucking tit.
sloriver

Mar 11 @ 5:20AM  
I'm not sure what the tax cuts for the top 1% will do to help balance the budget. The famous Bush tax cut provided an 83 dollar ( 2%) reduction in taxes for a family of four making 50K per year. For Dick Cheney that tax cut amounted to $86,000 (3%). I was that 83 dollar reduction. Dick's tax cut didn't help me much but probably kept him in Armani and lobster for the year. Tax cuts are not the answer. Spending cuts and tax increases are. You balance the budget by spending no more than your income. We can do that but not without pain. Pain for all. Welfare riches need to be cut too.
lamearsesite

Mar 11 @ 9:30AM  
...I'm not afraid to stand up to those who think neo-Nazism is a good thing...

The mating cry of the fact-less. Out of facts, start branding the opposition NAZIs, all the more apparent since this entire blog and in fact the debate as a whole has nothng to do with actual NAZIsm. Or are we gonna start reporting on black helicopter sightings and secret concentration camps (set up by republicans but somehow still operating under Obama) in Modesto.

It's been three years, when exactly do we stop blaming Bush for everything and Obama gets to be a big boy and take responsibility for his own administration's actions? In Michigan the Grandholm administration blamed everything on Engler for her entire 8 years as governor, although towards the end Bush too was at fault.
texasgirl8585

Mar 11 @ 11:43AM  
I'm not sure what the tax cuts for the top 1% will do to help balance the budget.
Well, raising taxes on them won't do a flippin' thing, either.
alivenwell351

Mar 11 @ 12:01PM  
It's been three years, when exactly do we stop blaming Bush for everything and Obama gets to be a big boy and take responsibility for his own administration's actions?

Exactly!!!

When a coach that went 12-84 over 8 years gets fired, and his replacement goes 6-30 over the next 3, the continuing disaster is squarely 100% on the new guy, The old guy is long gone!!

However, when the potential replacement candidates are, at best, no better, no worse, or no different in any way that matters, and all but one of them would clearly be worse, that does create a dilemma, doesn't it??
SweetNapaGuy

Mar 11 @ 1:35PM  
The mating cry of the fact-less. Out of facts, start branding the opposition NAZIs,

Ummm... Let's back up a few steps.

A few years ago, there was a woman who migrated here from Plenty of Fish. She immediately started posting the most insane conspiracy blogs. If she found a site that supported her views, she'd label their opinions as "facts."

She started posting anti-Semitic blogs, pulled word-for-word from white supremacist websites. Because they stated what she wanted to believe, she believed them, even if they were basically the Protocols of Zion (i.e., a forgery that purported to be the agenda of a shadowy bunch of Jews who want to take over the world).

Because I vehemently opposed her, and often showed that her conspiracy theories were based on obvious falsehoods, she called in Randy as backup. And Randy has been doing the whole "stalk and post gibberish" routine for several years now.

Are we on the same frame of reference now? Randy is the mindless follower of a neo-Nazi who had to be kicked off the site several times before she got the message.
jayrh

Mar 11 @ 11:50PM  
Tax cuts are not the answer. Spending cuts and tax increases are.
and reducing revenues by yet another round of give-aways to the top 1%, he's going to have to accept deficits at a higher level than Obama has.
Unfortunately, this is how liberals think... They continuously try to use simple arithmetic for the calculus problem that is our economy. In other words, they try to take out the effects of higher or lower taxes on the economy. Every time that we've had a major tax cut, revenues have gone up, not down. Think of it as investing in the country for future growth. With our debt/ GDP now over 100%, the only real chance that you have of real progress towards fiscal sanity is to maximize growth.

Liberals continually try to disparage Reagan's record. True, he did build up our military after the disaster of the Carter years, but they somehow gloss over the fact that he nearly doubled federal revenue. The point too, is that we shouldn't have to struggle to get back ahead of the curve with our military. We can make it more efficient but it only costs the country more when you try to cut the military as Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and now Barak Obama have done and is doing. If Clinton had not devastated our military and intelligence capabilities, would we have even had 9-11? Maybe, but without boots on the ground in foreign countries and active intelligence, it was vastly harder to prevent. Certainly if Clinton had made intelligence a priority after the 93 World Trade Center bombing, the USS Cole and embassy bombings in Africa, we would have stood a much better chance...
DiamondRain

Mar 12 @ 12:36AM  
It's part of the liberal mentality. They are no hope flat earthers. They see the world as a static place where wealth is a fixed commodity that can never and should never be expanded. Instead they think we should take what exists, divide it up and dilute it so that everyone is equally poor and destitute. They don't believe in or like the concept of "growth." They think it is an evil, greedy concept and that it is something we must avoid at all costs. So all their policies, thoughts and ideas revolve around a static, no growth philosophy where mankind never strives to improve himself or reaches for the stars.

That's why you always get stagnation in the economy, and in a society when liberals are in charge. And that's why they measure success, not on how much growth and prosperity they have created, but how many people they have been able to get to depend on government instead of being independent and self sufficient.

Liberals continually try to disparage Reagan's record.

They can try to disparage it all they want, but one simple fact tells the whole story.

Reagan was reelected for a second term by a vote of the people in the biggest landslide ever recorded for any president winning 49 of the 50 states. That's the only story people need to know to decide who is right.
PeacefulGuy

Mar 12 @ 12:47PM  
DR i'll vote for that Pineapple also.. At least a pineapple is tasty unlike the bitter liberal administration we have in office today that does nothing but blame someone else for problems they've created..

Since Obama has tagged on 5 trillion more in debt and seeing that interest is being paid on that debt -- One has to wonder just how many jobs Obama has really eliminated from the American work force.. To top it all off Obama managed to outspend Bush in only three years time... We have nothing to show for it but high unemployment --higher fuel cost ---higher ulitity cost -- insurance cost --lower wages -- wiped out 401k programs ---peoples life savings lost -- retirement funds that make no money --and the list goes on... Yeah that pineapples looking pretty darn good right now...

If a pineapples doesn't decide to run, i'd even vote for none of the above..

Anything or anybody but Obama..
ttomtarr

Mar 12 @ 12:58PM  
For Dick Cheney that tax cut amounted to $86,000 (3%).

That is an excellent example of how tax cuts provide jobs. Cheney moved Halliburton to Dubai. His tax cuts trickled into the pockets and banks of the United Arab Emirates, you know, the place making trillions from the economic chaos ole Dick and George created, that bastion of freedom and liberty where the Sheik's friends and family beat and murder their servants when the whim takes them.
jayrh

Mar 12 @ 1:37PM  
That is an excellent example of how tax cuts provide jobs.
And yet, Reagan's tax cuts helped create 20 million jobs and nearly doubled revenue.
You've had similar results for the overall economy every time we've had major tax cuts!
PeacefulGuy

Mar 12 @ 4:26PM  
Will somebody please give Napa some tissues!
free adult dating | mission statement | testimonials | safety warning | report abuse | safe list | privacy | legal | advertise | link to us

© Copyright 2000-2014 Online Singles, LLC.
OS-WEB01