Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Stumpie won't give a visa to some Iranian
186 views
Skip to first unread message
micky
Jan 7, 2020, 7:09:32 AM1/7/20
to
Stumpie won't give a visa to some Iranian.
So that he can talk at the UN.
I don't like the guy, but when the US offered to host the UN they
assumed an obligation to let anyone in that the UN wants in.
One time Yasser Arafat wanted in, and the State Department said he could
stay within about a quarter or a half mile of the UN, maybe less. They
have a hotel that's not advertised as a hotel, for visitors to the UN.
A reasonable plan.
Then Arafat decided to go to Lincoln Center, which is on the other side
of Manhattan. betweem 8th and 9th, instead of 1st Ave. where the UN is.
for a play or concert.
Someone noticed him before the performance started, and the police threw
him out, with Mayor Ed Koch's agreement or encouragement. But they sent
him back to the UN and didn't make him leave the country.
A reasonable actual solution.
Stumpie has no right to keep out invitees to the UN, and if he does it a
lot, the whole UN will move out of the US.
Make America Small Again, that's what he's doing.
So that he can talk at the UN.
I don't like the guy, but when the US offered to host the UN they
assumed an obligation to let anyone in that the UN wants in.
One time Yasser Arafat wanted in, and the State Department said he could
stay within about a quarter or a half mile of the UN, maybe less. They
have a hotel that's not advertised as a hotel, for visitors to the UN.
A reasonable plan.
Then Arafat decided to go to Lincoln Center, which is on the other side
of Manhattan. betweem 8th and 9th, instead of 1st Ave. where the UN is.
for a play or concert.
Someone noticed him before the performance started, and the police threw
him out, with Mayor Ed Koch's agreement or encouragement. But they sent
him back to the UN and didn't make him leave the country.
A reasonable actual solution.
Stumpie has no right to keep out invitees to the UN, and if he does it a
lot, the whole UN will move out of the US.
Make America Small Again, that's what he's doing.
Bod
Jan 7, 2020, 7:28:10 AM1/7/20
to
--
Bod
Bod
Jan 7, 2020, 7:49:32 AM1/7/20
to
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/10/16/us-students-are-terrible-at-geography
--
Bod
rbowman
Jan 7, 2020, 9:47:38 AM1/7/20
to
On 01/07/2020 05:09 AM, micky wrote:
> Stumpie has no right to keep out invitees to the UN, and if he does it a
> lot, the whole UN will move out of the US.
Now there's a win-win... You can thank Robert Moses for the UN's
> Stumpie has no right to keep out invitees to the UN, and if he does it a
> lot, the whole UN will move out of the US.
location. He was another unelected power grabber.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_Broker
Clare Snyder
Jan 7, 2020, 11:55:49 AM1/7/20
to
Bod
Jan 7, 2020, 12:23:09 PM1/7/20
to
--
Bod
rbowman
Jan 7, 2020, 10:18:12 PM1/7/20
to
micky
Jan 8, 2020, 3:48:53 AM1/8/20
to
In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 07 Jan 2020 07:09:28 -0500, micky
And most of what I read said -- and nothing really said otherwise -- was
that Arfat had been invited to the concert by someone who was organizing
it. But it was a NYCity function, and Giuliani was the mayor. He had
his chief of staff along with the police chief go to Arfat's seat and
tell him to leave. Arfat stayed a little while longer and left,
claiming he had another meeting to go to, LOL.
My friend tells me this related story:
A friend from law school had a great uncle who was the East German rep
to the UN. He was persona non grata in the US but was allowed to attend
the UN and travel within a 25 mile radius of NYC. Once, when I was
visiting my friend's parents' apartment in Brooklyn they walked him to
his car (a chauffeured Cadillac limousine). Before leaving he walked a
few cars back and tapped on the side window of a plain black Ford sedan.
My friend asked if those were his body guards. He said no, they were
his FBI minders. He explained that once he had left a meeting and they
didn't see him leave and got into trouble for losing track of him. So
now they had an arrangement that he made sure to let them know when he
was leaving so they could follow him."
Twenty-five miles is a lot, and would easily include Lincoln Center. I
guess either Arafat had a smaller range or maybe he and my friend's
friend's great uncle were limited to what sort of places they could go
to. Maybe without family in NYC, a half-mile range was enough. I seem
to remember it was 1/2 mile, but I got Giuliani wrong so maybe not. OR
maybe, and this seems likely now, there was no restriction on his being
there, except for Giuilian who hated him, deservedly, because he was a
terrorist murderer, claiming now not to be one.
Now he was primarily an embezzler, taking miilons of dollars that
European nations gave the Palestinian Arabs and keeping it for himself.
When he died, his henchmen went to Paris to see Mrs. Arafat, who had
lived there for years -- and Arafat would visit her and enjoy the
Parisan life-style -- and ask for a bigger share of the money Arafat had
stolen. She may have given them some, to avoid being killed. The news
said that she said no. Of course they had all gotten some of the
graft when Arafat was alive, just as Mahmoud Abbas, the current head of
the PA, and his loyal assistants are probably getting millions from the
aid that continues to go to his organization. According to one of his
own aides, he is "worth" $100 million dollars, money that should have
gone to the Arabs living under his rule. They would be a lot happier if
he'd spent that money on them. You can tell he learned a lot when
working for Arafat.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6638877/mahmoud-abbas-net-worth-how-long-president-palestinian-authority/
Well, I'm off the subject so I'll get back on.
More that I just found about Giuliani, at the bottom**
>him back to the UN and didn't make him leave the country.
>
>A reasonable actual solution.
>
>Stumpie has no right to keep out invitees to the UN, and if he does it a
>lot, the whole UN will move out of the US.
My friend, who lived in NYC much much longer than I did, from birth
around 1950 to about 2010, and who knows much more about NY, ssaid that
there is a 1947 treaty which allows foreign diplomats into the country
to attend the UN.
Of course there is! They could never have gotten the UN off the ground
without such a treaty. Stumpie doesn't care. The Iranian guy,
Foreign Minister Zurif (sp?) , seems not to know about this because he
says he's not coming. Or more likely, he knows about the treaty but
feels it's better for Iranian public relations to look oppressed. For
example, he also said: "Iran does not want a nuclear bomb. If we were
going to build one we would have done it a long time ago" even though a
lot of things kept them from doing it a long time ago and even though
his words won't stop them from announcing they have one in n years.
>Make America Small Again, that's what he's doing.
MASA Make America Small Again
**Although he got great praise as mayor of NYC, he showed the same bad
tendencies he shows now.
His term was up on New Year's Day, about 4 months after the 9/11 attack,
"Mr. Giuliani left elected office at the end of 2001 — he sought a
three-month extension of his term on the grounds that the city needed
him as mayor to oversee the recovery from the Sept. 11 attacks "
Mr. Giuliani has said that much of his success as mayor arose from his
willingness to take extreme positions by the standards of New York’s
political culture in the 1990s. That same temperament — no matter how
titrated and calculated he may believe it to have been — got him into
any number of fights that ended up hurting people and costing the city
money to get out of lawsuits that accused the mayor and his aides of
abusive, personal retaliation.
When a limousine driver criticized a red-light trap set up by the police
in the Bronx, Mr. Giuliani was infuriated. He waved police documents at
a news conference and wrongly said that the man had been convicted of a
serious sexual assault.
An advocacy and housing organization for people with AIDS lost its city
contract after criticizing Mr. Giuliani’s policies; others who claimed
retaliation by Mr. Giuliani or his aides included a jail warden who
supported a political opponent of the mayor and a police officer who
publicly criticized what she saw as recklessness in certain
stop-and-frisk tactics.
After Mr. Giuliani left office, the city paid about $7 million to settle
lawsuits in these cases. The payments, the city said, were not
admissions of wrongdoing by Mr. Giuliani.
On the global front, Mayor Giuliani frequently used the United Nations
as a chew toy. That played well with many New Yorkers fed up with
street-parking privileges enjoyed by diplomats and consular employees.
Moreover, they ignored parking summonses. Mr. Giuliani won cheers when
he said the United Nations was “acting like the worst kind of
deadbeats.” He suggested that the body could leave town, but later
explained that he was just trying to push the United Nations and the
State Department into taking more responsibility for the scofflaws.
In his 2008 campaign, Mr. Giuliani cited his 1995 confrontation with Mr.
Arafat as evidence of his muscular foreign-policy approach. Not everyone
saw it that way, including Gillian Sorensen, a United Nations official
who was backstage with Mr. Giuliani when he learned about Mr. Arafat’s
presence.
“He claimed that as his qualification to be a leader — imagine!” Ms.
Sorensen said. “I have to call it a tantrum, like a 2-year-old, red in
the face. I simply cannot imagine him being in the most visible
diplomatic assignment, secretary of state. People should know in advance
what they’re getting.”
And he’s proud of it.
<NONONOa...@rushpost.com> wrote:
>Stumpie won't give a visa to some Iranian.
>
>So that he can talk at the UN.
>
>I don't like the guy, but when the US offered to host the UN they
>assumed an obligation to let anyone in that the UN wants in.
>
>One time Yasser Arafat wanted in, and the State Department said he could
>stay within about a quarter or a half mile of the UN, maybe less. They
>have a hotel that's not advertised as a hotel, for visitors to the UN.
>A reasonable plan.
>
>Then Arafat decided to go to Lincoln Center, which is on the other side
>of Manhattan. betweem 8th and 9th, instead of 1st Ave. where the UN is.
>for a play or concert.
>
>Someone noticed him before the performance started, and the police threw
>him out, with Mayor Ed Koch's agreement or encouragement. But they sent
A friend I sent a copy of this to corrected me. It was Mayor Giuliani.
>Stumpie won't give a visa to some Iranian.
>
>So that he can talk at the UN.
>
>I don't like the guy, but when the US offered to host the UN they
>assumed an obligation to let anyone in that the UN wants in.
>
>One time Yasser Arafat wanted in, and the State Department said he could
>stay within about a quarter or a half mile of the UN, maybe less. They
>have a hotel that's not advertised as a hotel, for visitors to the UN.
>A reasonable plan.
>
>Then Arafat decided to go to Lincoln Center, which is on the other side
>of Manhattan. betweem 8th and 9th, instead of 1st Ave. where the UN is.
>for a play or concert.
>
>Someone noticed him before the performance started, and the police threw
>him out, with Mayor Ed Koch's agreement or encouragement. But they sent
And most of what I read said -- and nothing really said otherwise -- was
that Arfat had been invited to the concert by someone who was organizing
it. But it was a NYCity function, and Giuliani was the mayor. He had
his chief of staff along with the police chief go to Arfat's seat and
tell him to leave. Arfat stayed a little while longer and left,
claiming he had another meeting to go to, LOL.
My friend tells me this related story:
A friend from law school had a great uncle who was the East German rep
to the UN. He was persona non grata in the US but was allowed to attend
the UN and travel within a 25 mile radius of NYC. Once, when I was
visiting my friend's parents' apartment in Brooklyn they walked him to
his car (a chauffeured Cadillac limousine). Before leaving he walked a
few cars back and tapped on the side window of a plain black Ford sedan.
My friend asked if those were his body guards. He said no, they were
his FBI minders. He explained that once he had left a meeting and they
didn't see him leave and got into trouble for losing track of him. So
now they had an arrangement that he made sure to let them know when he
was leaving so they could follow him."
Twenty-five miles is a lot, and would easily include Lincoln Center. I
guess either Arafat had a smaller range or maybe he and my friend's
friend's great uncle were limited to what sort of places they could go
to. Maybe without family in NYC, a half-mile range was enough. I seem
to remember it was 1/2 mile, but I got Giuliani wrong so maybe not. OR
maybe, and this seems likely now, there was no restriction on his being
there, except for Giuilian who hated him, deservedly, because he was a
terrorist murderer, claiming now not to be one.
Now he was primarily an embezzler, taking miilons of dollars that
European nations gave the Palestinian Arabs and keeping it for himself.
When he died, his henchmen went to Paris to see Mrs. Arafat, who had
lived there for years -- and Arafat would visit her and enjoy the
Parisan life-style -- and ask for a bigger share of the money Arafat had
stolen. She may have given them some, to avoid being killed. The news
said that she said no. Of course they had all gotten some of the
graft when Arafat was alive, just as Mahmoud Abbas, the current head of
the PA, and his loyal assistants are probably getting millions from the
aid that continues to go to his organization. According to one of his
own aides, he is "worth" $100 million dollars, money that should have
gone to the Arabs living under his rule. They would be a lot happier if
he'd spent that money on them. You can tell he learned a lot when
working for Arafat.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6638877/mahmoud-abbas-net-worth-how-long-president-palestinian-authority/
Well, I'm off the subject so I'll get back on.
More that I just found about Giuliani, at the bottom**
>him back to the UN and didn't make him leave the country.
>
>A reasonable actual solution.
>
>Stumpie has no right to keep out invitees to the UN, and if he does it a
>lot, the whole UN will move out of the US.
around 1950 to about 2010, and who knows much more about NY, ssaid that
there is a 1947 treaty which allows foreign diplomats into the country
to attend the UN.
Of course there is! They could never have gotten the UN off the ground
without such a treaty. Stumpie doesn't care. The Iranian guy,
Foreign Minister Zurif (sp?) , seems not to know about this because he
says he's not coming. Or more likely, he knows about the treaty but
feels it's better for Iranian public relations to look oppressed. For
example, he also said: "Iran does not want a nuclear bomb. If we were
going to build one we would have done it a long time ago" even though a
lot of things kept them from doing it a long time ago and even though
his words won't stop them from announcing they have one in n years.
>Make America Small Again, that's what he's doing.
**Although he got great praise as mayor of NYC, he showed the same bad
tendencies he shows now.
His term was up on New Year's Day, about 4 months after the 9/11 attack,
"Mr. Giuliani left elected office at the end of 2001 — he sought a
three-month extension of his term on the grounds that the city needed
him as mayor to oversee the recovery from the Sept. 11 attacks "
Mr. Giuliani has said that much of his success as mayor arose from his
willingness to take extreme positions by the standards of New York’s
political culture in the 1990s. That same temperament — no matter how
titrated and calculated he may believe it to have been — got him into
any number of fights that ended up hurting people and costing the city
money to get out of lawsuits that accused the mayor and his aides of
abusive, personal retaliation.
When a limousine driver criticized a red-light trap set up by the police
in the Bronx, Mr. Giuliani was infuriated. He waved police documents at
a news conference and wrongly said that the man had been convicted of a
serious sexual assault.
An advocacy and housing organization for people with AIDS lost its city
contract after criticizing Mr. Giuliani’s policies; others who claimed
retaliation by Mr. Giuliani or his aides included a jail warden who
supported a political opponent of the mayor and a police officer who
publicly criticized what she saw as recklessness in certain
stop-and-frisk tactics.
After Mr. Giuliani left office, the city paid about $7 million to settle
lawsuits in these cases. The payments, the city said, were not
admissions of wrongdoing by Mr. Giuliani.
On the global front, Mayor Giuliani frequently used the United Nations
as a chew toy. That played well with many New Yorkers fed up with
street-parking privileges enjoyed by diplomats and consular employees.
Moreover, they ignored parking summonses. Mr. Giuliani won cheers when
he said the United Nations was “acting like the worst kind of
deadbeats.” He suggested that the body could leave town, but later
explained that he was just trying to push the United Nations and the
State Department into taking more responsibility for the scofflaws.
In his 2008 campaign, Mr. Giuliani cited his 1995 confrontation with Mr.
Arafat as evidence of his muscular foreign-policy approach. Not everyone
saw it that way, including Gillian Sorensen, a United Nations official
who was backstage with Mr. Giuliani when he learned about Mr. Arafat’s
presence.
“He claimed that as his qualification to be a leader — imagine!” Ms.
Sorensen said. “I have to call it a tantrum, like a 2-year-old, red in
the face. I simply cannot imagine him being in the most visible
diplomatic assignment, secretary of state. People should know in advance
what they’re getting.”
And he’s proud of it.
trader_4
Jan 8, 2020, 10:07:06 AM1/8/20
to
WTF is the matter with you libs? Just because Arafat was allowed into NYC
to attend the UN, does not mean that we have to allow him to attend whatever
events that he pleases. By your own words:
"it was a NYCity function, and Giuliani was the mayor. He had
> his chief of staff along with the police chief go to Arfat's seat and
> tell him to leave. "
he didn't throw him out of NYC. He threw him out of a NYC event.
Quite stunning that even you would disagree with that, but such is the
state of the Democrats today. I'm sure Truman, JFK, LBJ, Humphrey,
Scoop Jackson, Joe Lieberman, would all agree. But they are gone and
now loony tunes rule.
AC
Jan 11, 2020, 8:24:08 PM1/11/20
to
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 8 Jan 2020 07:07:00 -0800 (PST), trader_4
Yes, he should and he probably is.
>WTF is the matter with you libs? Just because Arafat was allowed into NYC
>to attend the UN, does not mean that we have to allow him to attend whatever
>events that he pleases.
Of course not.
>By your own words:
>
>"it was a NYCity function, and Giuliani was the mayor. He had
>> his chief of staff along with the police chief go to Arfat's seat and
>> tell him to leave. "
>
>
>Giuliani was absolutely correct. He didn't block him from the UN,
>he didn't throw him out of NYC. He threw him out of a NYC event.
>Quite stunning that even you would disagree with that, but such is the
I read the posts here and I didn't see the OP disagree with kicking him
out. His point was that the US can't refuse a visa to let someone
invited by the UN or sent by a member nation to meet with the UN, by
preventing admission to the US. It's reasonable beyond question that
if the UN is going to be in the US, the US can't interfere with who goes
there.
But he said, the US can restrict the area such a person goes to, to the
UN and the immediately surrounding area. Which is what Trump can do
now if he wants, but no more.
And the OP made the point that Giuliani is reckless and starts fights
based on false "information". I haven't seen you defending Guiliani
from doing just that sort of thing in the past year. It's not that
Giuilani has recently gone to the dogs; he has been like he is now for a
long time, but in some of the circumstances in the past, such behavior
was more acceptable.
>state of the Democrats today.
And now you're claiming that not just the OP but today's Democrats
would have objected to kicking Arafat out. You have no basis for saying
that. Stick to the facts, okay. We already have one big liar, in the
White House. We don't need more people who are 'factually challenged",
who make things up to suit their prejudices.
> I'm sure Truman, JFK, LBJ, Humphrey,
>Scoop Jackson, Joe Lieberman, would all agree. But they are gone and
>now loony tunes rule.
First you fantasize how other current Democrats would react, and then
you reach a conclusion based on your nonsensical fantasy. Amazing.
>WTF is the matter with you libs? Just because Arafat was allowed into NYC
>to attend the UN, does not mean that we have to allow him to attend whatever
>events that he pleases.
>By your own words:
>
>"it was a NYCity function, and Giuliani was the mayor. He had
>> his chief of staff along with the police chief go to Arfat's seat and
>> tell him to leave. "
>
>
>Giuliani was absolutely correct. He didn't block him from the UN,
>he didn't throw him out of NYC. He threw him out of a NYC event.
>Quite stunning that even you would disagree with that, but such is the
out. His point was that the US can't refuse a visa to let someone
invited by the UN or sent by a member nation to meet with the UN, by
preventing admission to the US. It's reasonable beyond question that
if the UN is going to be in the US, the US can't interfere with who goes
there.
But he said, the US can restrict the area such a person goes to, to the
UN and the immediately surrounding area. Which is what Trump can do
now if he wants, but no more.
And the OP made the point that Giuliani is reckless and starts fights
based on false "information". I haven't seen you defending Guiliani
from doing just that sort of thing in the past year. It's not that
Giuilani has recently gone to the dogs; he has been like he is now for a
long time, but in some of the circumstances in the past, such behavior
was more acceptable.
>state of the Democrats today.
would have objected to kicking Arafat out. You have no basis for saying
that. Stick to the facts, okay. We already have one big liar, in the
White House. We don't need more people who are 'factually challenged",
who make things up to suit their prejudices.
> I'm sure Truman, JFK, LBJ, Humphrey,
>Scoop Jackson, Joe Lieberman, would all agree. But they are gone and
>now loony tunes rule.
you reach a conclusion based on your nonsensical fantasy. Amazing.
micky
Jan 11, 2020, 10:13:35 PM1/11/20
to
In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 11 Jan 2020 20:24:04 -0500, AC
Yes, for sure.
This is not the first or second or third time Trader has claimed I
posted things I didn't post and don't agree with.
He can be logical at times but now that he's decided I'm an enemy or
something, he doesn't care about logic, or he's just not very observant.
Poor reading comprehension would be the most favorabe explanation
> His point was that the US can't refuse a visa to let someone
>invited by the UN or sent by a member nation to meet with the UN, by
>preventing admission to the US. It's reasonable beyond question that
>if the UN is going to be in the US, the US can't interfere with who goes
>there.
Exactly. My posts are long enough, especially the 158 line post this is
all in reply to, without getting into every side issue that arises.
>But he said, the US can restrict the area such a person goes to, to the
>UN and the immediately surrounding area. Which is what Trump can do
>now if he wants, but no more.
>
>And the OP made the point that Giuliani is reckless and starts fights
>based on false "information". I haven't seen you defending Guiliani
>from doing just that sort of thing in the past year. It's not that
>Giuilani has recently gone to the dogs; he has been like he is now for a
>long time, but in some of the circumstances in the past, such behavior
>was more acceptable.
>
>
>>state of the Democrats today.
>
>And now you're claiming that not just the OP but today's Democrats
>would have objected to kicking Arafat out. You have no basis for saying
>that.
Trader is down on most Republicans now but it seems that doesn't stop
him from making up negative stuff about Democrats. It was perfectly
reasonsable in a column about Giuliani's current behaviour for the
columnist to talk about his past reckless behaviour that caused
lawsuits, including kicking out Arafat, which, even though a good thing,
seems to have ignored that he was invited by a city committee and not
that he just grabbed a ticket somewhere, someone else's ticket, as I
think Rudi said at the time.
One can do a good thing with bad means and one can do a bad thing with
legal means. Maybe that's where Trader misses the boat.
> Stick to the facts, okay. We already have one big liar, in the
>White House. We don't need more people who are 'factually challenged",
>who make things up to suit their prejudices.
>
>> I'm sure Truman, JFK, LBJ, Humphrey,
>>Scoop Jackson, Joe Lieberman, would all agree. But they are gone and
>>now loony tunes rule.
>
>First you fantasize how other current Democrats would react, and then
>you reach a conclusion based on your nonsensical fantasy. Amazing.
I wonder what other false statements he makes about me now that I don't
read his posts. (He used to do it when I did read his posts, so why
bother reading them.) Until he retracts and apologizes for saying I
put my party ahead of my country, I dont' want to bother reading his
crap, and I hope other readers will not take anything he says about me
seriously.
>
>>WTF is the matter with you libs? Just because Arafat was allowed into NYC
>>to attend the UN, does not mean that we have to allow him to attend whatever
>>events that he pleases.
>
>Of course not.
Of course not.
>
>>By your own words:
>>
>>"it was a NYCity function, and Giuliani was the mayor. He had
>>> his chief of staff along with the police chief go to Arfat's seat and
>>> tell him to leave. "
>>
>>
>>Giuliani was absolutely correct. He didn't block him from the UN,
>>he didn't throw him out of NYC. He threw him out of a NYC event.
>>Quite stunning that even you would disagree with that, but such is the
>
>I read the posts here and I didn't see the OP disagree with kicking him
>out.
Because I don't disagree. I thought it was good, at the time and still.
>>WTF is the matter with you libs? Just because Arafat was allowed into NYC
>>to attend the UN, does not mean that we have to allow him to attend whatever
>>events that he pleases.
>
>Of course not.
Of course not.
>
>>By your own words:
>>
>>"it was a NYCity function, and Giuliani was the mayor. He had
>>> his chief of staff along with the police chief go to Arfat's seat and
>>> tell him to leave. "
>>
>>
>>Giuliani was absolutely correct. He didn't block him from the UN,
>>he didn't throw him out of NYC. He threw him out of a NYC event.
>>Quite stunning that even you would disagree with that, but such is the
>
>I read the posts here and I didn't see the OP disagree with kicking him
>out.
This is not the first or second or third time Trader has claimed I
posted things I didn't post and don't agree with.
He can be logical at times but now that he's decided I'm an enemy or
something, he doesn't care about logic, or he's just not very observant.
Poor reading comprehension would be the most favorabe explanation
> His point was that the US can't refuse a visa to let someone
>invited by the UN or sent by a member nation to meet with the UN, by
>preventing admission to the US. It's reasonable beyond question that
>if the UN is going to be in the US, the US can't interfere with who goes
>there.
all in reply to, without getting into every side issue that arises.
>But he said, the US can restrict the area such a person goes to, to the
>UN and the immediately surrounding area. Which is what Trump can do
>now if he wants, but no more.
>
>And the OP made the point that Giuliani is reckless and starts fights
>based on false "information". I haven't seen you defending Guiliani
>from doing just that sort of thing in the past year. It's not that
>Giuilani has recently gone to the dogs; he has been like he is now for a
>long time, but in some of the circumstances in the past, such behavior
>was more acceptable.
>
>
>>state of the Democrats today.
>
>And now you're claiming that not just the OP but today's Democrats
>would have objected to kicking Arafat out. You have no basis for saying
>that.
him from making up negative stuff about Democrats. It was perfectly
reasonsable in a column about Giuliani's current behaviour for the
columnist to talk about his past reckless behaviour that caused
lawsuits, including kicking out Arafat, which, even though a good thing,
seems to have ignored that he was invited by a city committee and not
that he just grabbed a ticket somewhere, someone else's ticket, as I
think Rudi said at the time.
One can do a good thing with bad means and one can do a bad thing with
legal means. Maybe that's where Trader misses the boat.
> Stick to the facts, okay. We already have one big liar, in the
>White House. We don't need more people who are 'factually challenged",
>who make things up to suit their prejudices.
>
>> I'm sure Truman, JFK, LBJ, Humphrey,
>>Scoop Jackson, Joe Lieberman, would all agree. But they are gone and
>>now loony tunes rule.
>
>First you fantasize how other current Democrats would react, and then
>you reach a conclusion based on your nonsensical fantasy. Amazing.
read his posts. (He used to do it when I did read his posts, so why
bother reading them.) Until he retracts and apologizes for saying I
put my party ahead of my country, I dont' want to bother reading his
crap, and I hope other readers will not take anything he says about me
seriously.
Payer of Taxes
Jan 12, 2020, 7:15:01 AM1/12/20
to
On 1/11/20 10:13 PM, micky wrote:
> I wonder what other false statements he makes about me now that I don't
> read his posts. (He used to do it when I did read his posts, so why
> bother reading them.) Until he retracts and apologizes for saying I
> put my party ahead of my country, I dont' want to bother reading his
> crap, and I hope other readers will not take anything he says about me
> seriously.
Welfare is not a sustainable business model and is clearly bankrupting this country.
> I wonder what other false statements he makes about me now that I don't
> read his posts. (He used to do it when I did read his posts, so why
> bother reading them.) Until he retracts and apologizes for saying I
> put my party ahead of my country, I dont' want to bother reading his
> crap, and I hope other readers will not take anything he says about me
> seriously.
Expecting working people to give up part of their hard-earned paychecks to support lazy welfare people is financial rape.
So yes, the lazy welfare democrats are in fact destroying the United States.
Bod
Jan 12, 2020, 7:48:12 AM1/12/20
to
The US national debt has increased by more than $2 trillion dollars
since Donald Trump entered the White House, according to new data.
President reportedly not concerned because 'I won't be there'
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/us-national-debt-2-trillion-donald-trump-presidency-deficit-treasury-congressional-budget-office-a8710546.html
--
Bod
Grumpy Old White Guy
Jan 12, 2020, 7:56:37 AM1/12/20
to
--
Get off my lawn!
Bod
Jan 12, 2020, 8:02:25 AM1/12/20
to
default because you can print the money"
Trump: US can't default because we can print money ...
https://www.businessinsider.com › donald-trump-default-print-money-201...
9 May 2016 - "First of all, you never have to default because you print
the money,"
He also doesn't care about the finacial debt he leaves because:
He said: "I won't be there"
--
Bod
trader_4
Jan 12, 2020, 8:40:55 AM1/12/20
to
He cited a piece criticizing Giuliani and one of the things cited was that he
had kicked Arafat out of Lincoln Center. Micky is often confused and hard
to decipher. If you agree with Giuliani, that's an odd thing to do.
His point was that the US can't refuse a visa to let someone
> invited by the UN or sent by a member nation to meet with the UN, by
> preventing admission to the US.
visas, not the UN.
It's reasonable beyond question that
> if the UN is going to be in the US, the US can't interfere with who goes
> there.
>
> But he said, the US can restrict the area such a person goes to, to the
> UN and the immediately surrounding area. Which is what Trump can do
> now if he wants, but no more.
>
> And the OP made the point that Giuliani is reckless and starts fights
> based on false "information".
Lincoln Center.
I haven't seen you defending Guiliani
> from doing just that sort of thing in the past year. It's not that
> Giuilani has recently gone to the dogs; he has been like he is now for a
> long time, but in some of the circumstances in the past, such behavior
> was more acceptable.
>
>
> >state of the Democrats today.
>
> And now you're claiming that not just the OP but today's Democrats
> would have objected to kicking Arafat out. You have no basis for saying
> that. Stick to the facts, okay. We already have one big liar, in the
> White House. We don't need more people who are 'factually challenged",
> who make things up to suit their prejudices.
>
> > I'm sure Truman, JFK, LBJ, Humphrey,
> >Scoop Jackson, Joe Lieberman, would all agree. But they are gone and
> >now loony tunes rule.
>
> First you fantasize how other current Democrats would react, and then
> you reach a conclusion based on your nonsensical fantasy. Amazing.
criticized Giuliani and included his tossing Arafat. You decipher it.
trader_4
Jan 12, 2020, 8:49:22 AM1/12/20
to
"On the global front, Mayor Giuliani frequently used the United Nations
as a chew toy. That played well with many New Yorkers fed up with
street-parking privileges enjoyed by diplomats and consular employees.
Moreover, they ignored parking summonses. Mr. Giuliani won cheers when
he said the United Nations was “acting like the worst kind of
deadbeats.” He suggested that the body could leave town, but later
explained that he was just trying to push the United Nations and the
State Department into taking more responsibility for the scofflaws.
In his 2008 campaign, Mr. Giuliani cited his 1995 confrontation with Mr.
Arafat as evidence of his muscular foreign-policy approach. Not everyone
saw it that way, including Gillian Sorensen, a United Nations official
who was backstage with Mr. Giuliani when he learned about Mr. Arafat’s
presence.
“He claimed that as his qualification to be a leader — imagine!” Ms.
Sorensen said. “I have to call it a tantrum, like a 2-year-old, red in
the face. I simply cannot imagine him being in the most visible
diplomatic assignment, secretary of state. People should know in advance
what they’re getting.”
as Giuliani doing things wrong, and then you claim that you actually
support it?
You sure are confused.
>
> He can be logical at times but now that he's decided I'm an enemy or
> something, he doesn't care about logic, or he's just not very observant.
> Poor reading comprehension would be the most favorabe explanation
years of bitching here, it's ALWAYS about a Republican, never about
any Democrat, ever. You just did it again, Trump and Giuliani, never
a Democrat.
>
> > His point was that the US can't refuse a visa to let someone
> >invited by the UN or sent by a member nation to meet with the UN, by
> >preventing admission to the US. It's reasonable beyond question that
> >if the UN is going to be in the US, the US can't interfere with who goes
> >there.
>
> Exactly. My posts are long enough, especially the 158 line post this is
> all in reply to, without getting into every side issue that arises.
>
> >But he said, the US can restrict the area such a person goes to, to the
> >UN and the immediately surrounding area. Which is what Trump can do
> >now if he wants, but no more.
> >
> >And the OP made the point that Giuliani is reckless and starts fights
> >based on false "information". I haven't seen you defending Guiliani
> >from doing just that sort of thing in the past year. It's not that
> >Giuilani has recently gone to the dogs; he has been like he is now for a
> >long time, but in some of the circumstances in the past, such behavior
> >was more acceptable.
> >
> >
> >>state of the Democrats today.
> >
> >And now you're claiming that not just the OP but today's Democrats
> >would have objected to kicking Arafat out. You have no basis for saying
> >that.
>
> Trader is down on most Republicans now but it seems that doesn't stop
> him from making up negative stuff about Democrats.
here, except just now, when I again pointed out the truth about you.
You're just a diehard Democrat hack.
It was perfectly
> reasonsable in a column about Giuliani's current behaviour for the
> columnist to talk about his past reckless behaviour that caused
> lawsuits, including kicking out Arafat, which, even though a good thing,
> seems to have ignored that he was invited by a city committee and not
> that he just grabbed a ticket somewhere, someone else's ticket, as I
> think Rudi said at the time.
First you claim you support Giuliani kicking Arafat out of a NYC event at
Lincoln Center. Now you say it was reckless. Of course if a DEMOCRAT had
done it, why then it would be wonderful and well thought out. You really
are an embarrassment, even for a Democrat.
>
> One can do a good thing with bad means and one can do a bad thing with
> legal means. Maybe that's where Trader misses the boat.
>
> > Stick to the facts, okay. We already have one big liar, in the
> >White House. We don't need more people who are 'factually challenged",
> >who make things up to suit their prejudices.
> >
> >> I'm sure Truman, JFK, LBJ, Humphrey,
> >>Scoop Jackson, Joe Lieberman, would all agree. But they are gone and
> >>now loony tunes rule.
> >
> >First you fantasize how other current Democrats would react, and then
> >you reach a conclusion based on your nonsensical fantasy. Amazing.
>
> I wonder what other false statements he makes about me now that I don't
> read his posts.
(He used to do it when I did read his posts, so why
> bother reading them.) Until he retracts and apologizes for saying I
> put my party ahead of my country, I dont' want to bother reading his
> crap, and I hope other readers will not take anything he says about me
> seriously.
posts, always criticizing Republicans, never once a Democrat. And you
blocked me because you can't defend the truth, so like libs today, you
run and hide in your safe space.
trader_4
Jan 12, 2020, 8:51:38 AM1/12/20
to
has gutted the party of all it's values. Who would think the Republican
Party would be spreading Putin lies? That's another good example.
trader_4
Jan 12, 2020, 8:52:46 AM1/12/20
to
Bod
Jan 12, 2020, 9:24:20 AM1/12/20
to
--
Bod
Grumpy Old White Guy
Jan 12, 2020, 10:43:07 AM1/12/20
to
On 1/12/2020 7:48 AM, Bod wrote:
The democrats have created too many social welfare programs. We need to cut back.
Bob F
Jan 12, 2020, 11:06:22 AM1/12/20
to
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/jul/29/tweets/republican-presidents-democrats-contribute-deficit/
Bob F
Jan 12, 2020, 11:14:31 AM1/12/20
to
On 1/12/2020 5:51 AM, trader_4 wrote:
straight years over the federal budget deficit. Now, under President
Trump, the deficit is skyrocketing—with nary a peep from the GOP. “This
is supposed to be the party, supposedly, of fiscal conservatism,” he
said in a speech in September. “Suddenly deficits do not matter, even
though just two years ago, when the deficit was lower, they said I
couldn’t afford to help working families or seniors on Medicare because
the deficit was an existential crisis. What changed?”
Most Popular
The Evangelicals Who Pray for War With Iran
Mike Pompeo Is the Most Dangerous Man in the World Right Now
America Has Never Cared About Sacred Sites
The Military Views Poor Kids as Fodder for Its Forever Wars
The Most Popular Crook in America
The former president is not naive; he knows the answer. What changed was
that Republicans, having swept the 2016 election, now fully control the
government’s purse strings. By the end of Trump’s first year, the
Republicans jacked the military’s budget by $80 billion and approved a
$1.5 trillion tax cut. So it was no surprise when the Treasury
Department reported last week that the deficit rose 77 percent in the
first quarter of the fiscal year over the same period the previous year.
This week, in its latest budget proposal, the White House had the gall
to warn that we “must protect future generations from Washington’s
habitual deficit spending,” but nonetheless projected the deficit would
rise substantially over the next three years.
https://newrepublic.com/article/153307/republicans-deficit-hypocrites-democrats-be-too
Bob F
Jan 12, 2020, 11:31:22 AM1/12/20
to
the problem.
The notion that the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility is one of
the most persistent myths in American politics. Republican presidential
administrations have consistently driven up the deficit—the amount that
government spending exceeds revenue—over the past four decades. The 1981
tax cut signed into law by Ronald Reagan, which slashed the rate for the
highest earners from 70 to 50 percent, “led to an explosion in the
budget deficit, hitting close to 6 percent of gross domestic product in
1983” The Washington Post’s Daniel Drezner observed last year. When that
tax cut failed to pay for itself and the deficit ballooned, the Reagan
administration responded with a series of largely forgotten tax
increases—while also passing the landmark Tax Reform Act of 1986, which
further cut the top rate to 28 percent.
Reagan’s deficit shenanigans became the playbook for generations of
conservative policymakers. “By creating a fiscal straitjacket through
lower taxes, conservatives leave Washington with less money and raise
the specter of deficits damaging the economy as a rationale to take away
the benefits that millions of Americans depend on,” wrote Julian Zelizer
in The Atlantic shortly before Trump signed his cuts into law. George W.
Bush, meanwhile, squandered a budget surplus by gifting enormous tax
cuts to the rich, then blew up the deficit to pay for two failed wars.
The New Republic Daily
Must-reads.
5 days a week.
Democrats, meanwhile, have dutifully focused on reducing the deficit.
Bill Clinton began his administration by signing a bill that increased
taxes and cut spending; it squeaked through Congress with zero
Republican votes. He would go on to embrace the language of fiscal
discipline and benefit cuts, signing a welfare reform bill into law that
has had devastating reverberations to this day. In a 1993 speech
outlining an economic program that would lead to budget surpluses by the
end of the decade, Clinton presented deficit reduction as a precursor to
social spending. “We’re not cutting the deficit just because experts say
it’s the thing to do, or because it has some intrinsic merit,” he said.
“We have to cut the deficit because the more we spend paying off the
debt, the less tax dollars we have to invest in jobs and education and
the future of this country.” (During the 2016 campaign, his wife,
Hillary Clinton echoed this line.) By the time Clinton left office, the
$290 billion budget deficit he had inherited had been transformed into a
$124 billion surplus.
https://newrepublic.com/article/153307/republicans-deficit-hypocrites-democrats-be-too
micky
Jan 12, 2020, 2:05:55 PM1/12/20
to
In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 12 Jan 2020 12:48:09 +0000, Bod
bankrupting this country. Welfare has gone down in the last 3 years and
the national debt has gone up by 2 trillion dollars, a trillion more
than in the same time period earlier.
>> Expecting working people to give up part of their hard-earned paychecks
>> to support lazy welfare people is financial rape.
It's a common trope of selfish people to claim most welfare recipients
are lazy. Most are children and disabled. I'm sure you'd be happy to
let them starve.
>> So yes, the lazy welfare democrats are in fact destroying the United
>> States.
You don't have any facts.
within the article, only has the one line you give as a sub-headline
with no context. In newspapers, headlines are often not even written by
an articles author, so maybe here not either. And then there is his
name, Buncombe. Altoghether, how can anyone trust this as accurate? Is
this typical of independent.co.uk, that it is or appears unrliable.
>
>https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/us-national-debt-2-trillion-donald-trump-presidency-deficit-treasury-congressional-budget-office-a8710546.html
<bodr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On 12/01/2020 12:14, Payer of Taxes wrote:
>> On 1/11/20 10:13 PM, micky wrote:
>>> I wonder what other false statements he makes about me now that I don't
>>> read his posts. (He used to do it when I did read his posts, so why
>>> bother reading them.) Until he retracts and apologizes for saying I
>>> put my party ahead of my country, I dont' want to bother reading his
>>> crap, and I hope other readers will not take anything he says about me
>>> seriously.
>>
>>
>> Welfare is not a sustainable business model and is clearly bankrupting
>> this country.
Total non sequitur, but I'll reply anyhow. It's not welfare that's been
>On 12/01/2020 12:14, Payer of Taxes wrote:
>> On 1/11/20 10:13 PM, micky wrote:
>>> I wonder what other false statements he makes about me now that I don't
>>> read his posts. (He used to do it when I did read his posts, so why
>>> bother reading them.) Until he retracts and apologizes for saying I
>>> put my party ahead of my country, I dont' want to bother reading his
>>> crap, and I hope other readers will not take anything he says about me
>>> seriously.
>>
>>
>> Welfare is not a sustainable business model and is clearly bankrupting
>> this country.
bankrupting this country. Welfare has gone down in the last 3 years and
the national debt has gone up by 2 trillion dollars, a trillion more
than in the same time period earlier.
>> Expecting working people to give up part of their hard-earned paychecks
>> to support lazy welfare people is financial rape.
are lazy. Most are children and disabled. I'm sure you'd be happy to
let them starve.
>> So yes, the lazy welfare democrats are in fact destroying the United
>> States.
>>
>>
> > Erm!
>
>The US national debt has increased by more than $2 trillion dollars
>since Donald Trump entered the White House, according to new data.
>
>President reportedly not concerned because 'I won't be there'
The url below is very disappointing. It doesn't have your alleged quote
>>
> > Erm!
>
>The US national debt has increased by more than $2 trillion dollars
>since Donald Trump entered the White House, according to new data.
>
>President reportedly not concerned because 'I won't be there'
within the article, only has the one line you give as a sub-headline
with no context. In newspapers, headlines are often not even written by
an articles author, so maybe here not either. And then there is his
name, Buncombe. Altoghether, how can anyone trust this as accurate? Is
this typical of independent.co.uk, that it is or appears unrliable.
>
>https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/us-national-debt-2-trillion-donald-trump-presidency-deficit-treasury-congressional-budget-office-a8710546.html
devnull
Jan 12, 2020, 2:11:00 PM1/12/20
to
On 1/12/20 11:31 AM, Bob F wrote:
> On 1/12/2020 7:43 AM, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote:
>> Yes, there are two ways to manage a checkbook. Either deposit more money or spend less.
>>
>> The democrats have created too many social welfare programs. We need to cut back.
>
> The repubs give the people with all the money endless tax breaks. That's the problem.
>
The democrats punish people who work with oppressive taxation and reward lazy people with welfare benefits. That's the problem.
> On 1/12/2020 7:43 AM, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote:
>> Yes, there are two ways to manage a checkbook. Either deposit more money or spend less.
>>
>> The democrats have created too many social welfare programs. We need to cut back.
>
> The repubs give the people with all the money endless tax breaks. That's the problem.
>
devnull
Jan 12, 2020, 2:16:54 PM1/12/20
to
On 1/12/20 11:14 AM, Bob F wrote:
> Barack Obama is dumbfounded. The Republicans harangued him for eight straight years over the federal budget deficit.
Do you mean the obamacare program where obama forced working people to pay for welfare people's healthcare tab?
> Barack Obama is dumbfounded. The Republicans harangued him for eight straight years over the federal budget deficit.
Bod
Jan 12, 2020, 2:38:33 PM1/12/20
to
could be right.
--
Bod
trader_4
Jan 12, 2020, 2:57:42 PM1/12/20
to
a Republican or Democrat president. They can't be that stupid, that they
don't understand Congress passes budgets and spending bills, so they
are deliberately biased and trying to screw with people. BTW, if you
want to just go by president, no one yet can beat Obama, he added $10 tril.
trader_4
Jan 12, 2020, 3:09:44 PM1/12/20
to
They controlled it for 40 years. Reagan and the Republicans would have
cut SPENDING, but the DEMOCRATS would not allow it. Also, the DEMOCRATS
controlled the SENATE too, for part of Reagan's two terms. It's stunning
what he managed to achieve with those morons in charge. They said he
was a war monger, that he was going to start WWIII. Instead, he rebuilt
the military, restored our respect for ourselves and the world's respect
for us, signed the biggest nuclear deal in history, the first that actually
reduced nuclear weapons and eliminated an entire class and he won the Cold
War, sending the USSR to the ash heap of history. Just as promised.
We had a booming economy, creating 300K, 400K new jobs a month, good jobs,
decent paying jobs in everything from construction to high tech. One monht
we hit 1.2 mil. GDP growth rate hit 8%! Now we think 200K jobs and
2.5% is great. WTF did we get for Obama's $10 tril?
The Washington Post’s Daniel Drezner observed last year. When that
> tax cut failed to pay for itself and the deficit ballooned, the Reagan
> administration responded with a series of largely forgotten tax
> increases—while also passing the landmark Tax Reform Act of 1986, which
> further cut the top rate to 28 percent.
>
> Reagan’s deficit shenanigans became the playbook for generations of
> conservative policymakers.
taxes, the top rate was 70%! Is that what you libs want today?
Might as well send the rest of jobs here overseas right now. What
Republicans today have perverted that into is that any tax cut at any
time is great idea. Big difference cutting taxes when the top rate
was 38%. Oh, and BTW, through all the years of Clinton and Obama
and with Democrats in control of Congress, tax rates have remained
pretty close to Reagan's 28%, compared to the confiscatory 70%.
But that's what you Democrats like. High confiscatory rates, then
you can accumulate power by passing a special tax break for whoever
greases you up the most. In the end you have a screwed up economy,
economic inefficiency, because people are doing what they have to do
to avoid taxes, not what makes economic sense. The great real estate
bubble and collapse was partly due to that. Encourage speculation to
avoid taxes, there's a bubble and collapse. Wow, what a surprise.
trader_4
Jan 12, 2020, 3:16:16 PM1/12/20
to
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 2:05:55 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
> In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 12 Jan 2020 12:48:09 +0000, Bod
> <bodr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On 12/01/2020 12:14, Payer of Taxes wrote:
> >> On 1/11/20 10:13 PM, micky wrote:
> >>> I wonder what other false statements he makes about me now that I don't
> >>> read his posts. (He used to do it when I did read his posts, so why
> >>> bother reading them.) Until he retracts and apologizes for saying I
> >>> put my party ahead of my country, I dont' want to bother reading his
> >>> crap, and I hope other readers will not take anything he says about me
> >>> seriously.
> >>
> >>
> >> Welfare is not a sustainable business model and is clearly bankrupting
> >> this country.
>
> Total non sequitur, but I'll reply anyhow. It's not welfare that's been
> bankrupting this country. Welfare has gone down in the last 3 years and
> the national debt has gone up by 2 trillion dollars, a trillion more
> than in the same time period earlier.
>
> >> Expecting working people to give up part of their hard-earned paychecks
> >> to support lazy welfare people is financial rape.
>
> It's a common trope of selfish people to claim most welfare recipients
> are lazy. Most are children and disabled. I'm sure you'd be happy to
> let them starve.
Here is a novel idea. Don't have kids if you can't support them.
> In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 12 Jan 2020 12:48:09 +0000, Bod
> <bodr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On 12/01/2020 12:14, Payer of Taxes wrote:
> >> On 1/11/20 10:13 PM, micky wrote:
> >>> I wonder what other false statements he makes about me now that I don't
> >>> read his posts. (He used to do it when I did read his posts, so why
> >>> bother reading them.) Until he retracts and apologizes for saying I
> >>> put my party ahead of my country, I dont' want to bother reading his
> >>> crap, and I hope other readers will not take anything he says about me
> >>> seriously.
> >>
> >>
> >> Welfare is not a sustainable business model and is clearly bankrupting
> >> this country.
>
> Total non sequitur, but I'll reply anyhow. It's not welfare that's been
> bankrupting this country. Welfare has gone down in the last 3 years and
> the national debt has gone up by 2 trillion dollars, a trillion more
> than in the same time period earlier.
>
> >> Expecting working people to give up part of their hard-earned paychecks
> >> to support lazy welfare people is financial rape.
>
> It's a common trope of selfish people to claim most welfare recipients
> are lazy. Most are children and disabled. I'm sure you'd be happy to
> let them starve.
What the libs did was create generations of welfare families.
The more kids you have, the more money you get. Have a father around,
well they expect him to work, so have children out of wedlock with
no father. The black out of wedlock birth rate since the beginning
of the war on poverty has gone from the teens to 60%. Pay for
something, encourage irresponsible behavior, that's what you get.
If Trump was smart, they should start an investigation into a sampling
of welfare across the country. Haul their asses in, like the IRS audits
working taxpayers. Heh, devnull, I bet you like that idea. Why
shouldn't welfare recipients be audited? Of course it's hard to prove
when Rufus is the father, he's not living there, the mother is selling
drugs, etc, etc. Welfare used to be community based, where people
knew what was going on. Today it's a debit card from the govt,
with little accountability at all.
Cindy Hamilton
Jan 12, 2020, 5:37:55 PM1/12/20
to
Cindy Hamilton
Bob F
Jan 12, 2020, 5:57:23 PM1/12/20
to
Obama was handed a collapsed economy. He turned it around.
Depending on who you ask, President Barack Obama added anywhere from
$2.8 trillion to $9 trillion to the national debt. With such a big gap,
you might be wondering who's lying. None of them, because there are
three ways to look at the debt added by any president.
The first, and most common, method is to subtract the debt level when
Obama took office from the debt level when he left. The second, and more
accurate, method is to add together Obama’s projected budget deficits.
The third method is the fairest but also the most complicated. It adds
just the deficits created by the president's specific initiatives.
Let's take a look at each method and see what they tell us about the
deficits President Obama added to the nation's debt.
Method 1: Debt Added Since Obama Took Office
The largest number comes from calculating how much the debt increased
during Obama's two terms. When Obama was sworn in on Jan. 20, 2009, the
debt was $10.626 trillion. When he left office on Jan. 20, 2017, it was
$19.947 trillion.1 It explains why some would say Obama added $9
trillion to the debt—more than any other president.
Method 2: Obama's Budget Deficits
The second method is to add up all of the budget deficits incurred while
Obama was in office. You shouldn’t hold any president accountable for
the deficit incurred during the first year. Most of that deficit belongs
to the previous president since he created the federal budget for that
year.
President George W. Bush's last budget, for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009,
created a deficit of $1.4 trillion.2 That fiscal year began on Oct. 1,
2008, and continued until Sept. 30, 2009. Although most of that deficit
occurred after Obama took office, it was a result of Bush's budget.
Similarly, the first deficit that occurred after President Donald Trump
took office was due to Obama's last budget.
Here are Obama’s deficits by year. They total $6.79 trillion.2
FY 2009: Congress added $253 billion from Obama's Economic Stimulus Act
to Bush’s last budget after Obama took office. This emergency funding
was to stop the Great Recession. That $253 billion accrues to Obama, not
Bush.3 Once the $253 billion is subtracted from the FY 2009 deficit, it
means Bush’s true budget deficit was $1.16 trillion.
FY 2010: Obama's first budget created a $1.294 trillion deficit.
FY 2011: This budget deficit was $1.300 trillion. Defense spending
hit $854.5 billion.
FY 2012: The deficit was $1.087 trillion.
FY 2013: This was the first Obama budget where the deficit, $679
billion, was less than $1 trillion. Sequestration forced a 10% cut in
spending.
FY 2014: The deficit was $485 billion. Tax revenue rose to $3.02
trillion.
FY 2015: The deficit fell further to $438 billion.
FY 2016: The deficit rose to $585 billion. Congress had added $58.6
billion to pay for the war in Afghanistan.
FY 2017: The deficit was $665 billion.4 It was $162 billion more
than the $503 billion deficit estimated in Obama's budget request.5
https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-under-obama-3306293
Bob F
Jan 12, 2020, 5:58:36 PM1/12/20
to
workers in decades.
Bob F
Jan 12, 2020, 6:04:15 PM1/12/20
to
do not give huge tax breaks to people who make more way money than they
can ever actually use. And they promote programs that actually benefit
working people. The Repubs NEVER pass anything aimed primarily at
improving the lives of anyone but corporations and the really rich. Our
deficit is mostly created by those stupid Repub tax cuts. Every time the
Repubs get power, they cut taxes and drastically increase the deficit.
Grumpy Old White Guy
Jan 12, 2020, 6:27:57 PM1/12/20
to
Grumpy Old White Guy
Jan 12, 2020, 6:31:46 PM1/12/20
to
Grumpy Old White Guy
Jan 12, 2020, 6:40:02 PM1/12/20
to
devnull
Jan 12, 2020, 8:45:05 PM1/12/20
to
On 1/12/20 3:16 PM, trader_4 wrote:
> If Trump was smart, they should start an investigation into a sampling
> of welfare across the country. Haul their asses in, like the IRS audits
> working taxpayers. Heh, devnull, I bet you like that idea. Why
> shouldn't welfare recipients be audited? Of course it's hard to prove
> when Rufus is the father, he's not living there, the mother is selling
> drugs, etc, etc. Welfare used to be community based, where people
> knew what was going on. Today it's a debit card from the govt,
> with little accountability at all.
That's got my vote. You know, *occasionally* you make sense.
> If Trump was smart, they should start an investigation into a sampling
> of welfare across the country. Haul their asses in, like the IRS audits
> working taxpayers. Heh, devnull, I bet you like that idea. Why
> shouldn't welfare recipients be audited? Of course it's hard to prove
> when Rufus is the father, he's not living there, the mother is selling
> drugs, etc, etc. Welfare used to be community based, where people
> knew what was going on. Today it's a debit card from the govt,
> with little accountability at all.
trader_4
Jan 13, 2020, 9:49:35 AM1/13/20
to
is public record and Obama added about $10 tril. Where did the $2.8
come from? Adam Schiff? AOC?
With such a big gap,
> you might be wondering who's lying. None of them, because there are
> three ways to look at the debt added by any president.
>
> The first, and most common, method is to subtract the debt level when
> Obama took office from the debt level when he left. The second, and more
> accurate, method is to add together Obama’s projected budget deficits.
> The third method is the fairest but also the most complicated. It adds
> just the deficits created by the president's specific initiatives.
initiatives"? It just becomes a pool of mush that liars can manipulate.
And what's really funny here is that now you're arguing this, because
YOU claimed that under Republican presidents, the debt goes up and I
nailed you with Obama's debt increase. You didn't bother looking at
whether the Congress was Democrat or Republican or anything else.
Now all of a sudden, it's but, but, but, what about "initiatives"
ROFL
micky
Jan 13, 2020, 11:01:11 AM1/13/20
to
In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 12 Jan 2020 15:04:05 -0800, Bob F
>can ever actually use. And they promote programs that actually benefit
>working people. The Repubs NEVER pass anything aimed primarily at
>improving the lives of anyone but corporations and the really rich. Our
+1
>deficit is mostly created by those stupid Repub tax cuts. Every time the
>Repubs get power, they cut taxes and drastically increase the deficit.
+1
<bobn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 1/12/2020 11:10 AM, devnull wrote:
>> On 1/12/20 11:31 AM, Bob F wrote:
>>> On 1/12/2020 7:43 AM, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes, there are two ways to manage a checkbook. Either deposit more
>>>> money or spend less.
>>>>
>>>> The democrats have created too many social welfare programs. We need
>>>> to cut back.
>>>
>>> The repubs give the people with all the money endless tax breaks.
>>> That's the problem.
>>>
>>
>> The democrats punish people who work with oppressive taxation and reward
>> lazy people with welfare benefits. That's the problem.
>
>The Democratic Party actually cares about people that are not rich. They
>do not give huge tax breaks to people who make more way money than they
+1
>On 1/12/2020 11:10 AM, devnull wrote:
>> On 1/12/20 11:31 AM, Bob F wrote:
>>> On 1/12/2020 7:43 AM, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes, there are two ways to manage a checkbook. Either deposit more
>>>> money or spend less.
>>>>
>>>> The democrats have created too many social welfare programs. We need
>>>> to cut back.
>>>
>>> The repubs give the people with all the money endless tax breaks.
>>> That's the problem.
>>>
>>
>> The democrats punish people who work with oppressive taxation and reward
>> lazy people with welfare benefits. That's the problem.
>
>The Democratic Party actually cares about people that are not rich. They
>do not give huge tax breaks to people who make more way money than they
>can ever actually use. And they promote programs that actually benefit
>working people. The Repubs NEVER pass anything aimed primarily at
>improving the lives of anyone but corporations and the really rich. Our
>deficit is mostly created by those stupid Repub tax cuts. Every time the
>Repubs get power, they cut taxes and drastically increase the deficit.
micky
Jan 15, 2020, 1:45:58 AM1/15/20
to
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 08 Jan 2020 03:48:47 -0500, micky
in the South Bronx, and I tuned it late, but somehow he got an urn with
the ashes of an old patient, and Becker is an unsentimental, sort of
cold character, who is annoyed that he's stuck with an urn, and a
cemetery wants $500 to put it in a niche, plus $250 for perpetual care.
So he tries to throw it in a dumpster or leave it on the subway, and of
course those ideas don't work, so he complains to the urn "Nowhere in
the 5 boros can one bury an urn, thank you Giuliani". Clearly a laugh
line at the time.
<NONONOa...@rushpost.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Someone noticed him before the performance started, and the police threw
>>him out, with Mayor Ed Koch's agreement or encouragement. But they sent
>
>A friend I sent a copy of this to corrected me. It was Mayor Giuliani.
Watching on TV an old rerun episode of "Becker" where he played a doctor
>
>>
>>Someone noticed him before the performance started, and the police threw
>>him out, with Mayor Ed Koch's agreement or encouragement. But they sent
>
>A friend I sent a copy of this to corrected me. It was Mayor Giuliani.
in the South Bronx, and I tuned it late, but somehow he got an urn with
the ashes of an old patient, and Becker is an unsentimental, sort of
cold character, who is annoyed that he's stuck with an urn, and a
cemetery wants $500 to put it in a niche, plus $250 for perpetual care.
So he tries to throw it in a dumpster or leave it on the subway, and of
course those ideas don't work, so he complains to the urn "Nowhere in
the 5 boros can one bury an urn, thank you Giuliani". Clearly a laugh
line at the time.
0 new messages