Should we declare war against ISIL or any of the terrorist groups

[other one]

Trillions of dollars isn't miniscule.

 

This has been fun shiloh, but you aren't really staying on topic, nor do you address evidence when it's brought up. See you later.

Speaking of staying on topic, I started this thread to talk about the fact that most insurance policies do not cover acts of war and how that might affect people who get damage from any ISIL attacks in the homeland.....   It seems that no one really wanted to discuss the subject and it headed off in all directions at the second post.....

 

i decided that it just didn't matter to folks and let it all go....    so have fun.......    but you really should check your insurance policies to see if they cover terrorist and acts of war.......     and maybe we should be telling our senators and representatives not to declare war on these people, but to just go kill them.........   all.

[Burning_Ember]

 

Trillions of dollars isn't miniscule.

 

This has been fun shiloh, but you aren't really staying on topic, nor do you address evidence when it's brought up. See you later.

Speaking of staying on topic, I started this thread to talk about the fact that most insurance policies do not cover acts of war and how that might affect people who get damage from any ISIL attacks in the homeland.....   It seems that no one really wanted to discuss the subject and it headed off in all directions at the second post.....

 

i decided that it just didn't matter to folks and let it all go....    so have fun.......    but you really should check your insurance policies to see if they cover terrorist and acts of war.......     and maybe we should be telling our senators and representatives not to declare war on these people, but to just go kill them.........   all.

 

I'm generally not too worried as there is a higher chance of being killed by a falling vending machine than a terrorist attack in America. It should be something you should be able to get coverage for though. There was a large flood in my area a while back and none of the insurance companies covered "overland flooding".

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

Trillions of dollars isn't miniscule.

 

 

I didn't say trillions dollars is miniscule.  I said the cost of those wars are miniscule compared to the amount of debt Obama has racked up.

 

This has been fun shiloh, but you aren't really staying on topic, nor do you address evidence when it's brought up. See you later.

 

I am not off topic.  I was responding directly to your comment above where you said:  "Usama Bin Laden WANTED America to invade after 9/11. If you go over his tapes, he celebrated the fact that America was spending trillions of dollars in war in the middle east. He wanted America to fight in the middle east because it's much easier to organize and recruit fighters for conflict in Afghanistan/Iraq. That is their home turf. They understand better how to exploit local geography, terrain, guerrilla tactics, culture, and politics than America does in that region. Sending soldiers to fight in the middle east is quite literally exactly what Al-Queda (and now ISIS wants for many different reasons. From their perspective;"

 

My response was that Obama's spending outstrips the cost of those wars.   I have responded to and addressed everything you have said.  You haven't provided any evidence.

 

I cited military experts who pinned the blame on middle east stability on the two wars. You should probably go back and read that. You want me to cite some more?

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-wars-in-afghanistan-iraq-to-cost-6-trillion/5350789

 

Six Trillion dollars is not miniscule. Is that "minuscule" compared to the amount of debt Obama incurred? whether something costs money or not is not partisan. It's math.

 

You're not exactly honest.    The $6 trillion figure is the cost over the next 40 years  and that number includes benefits to veterans.

 

The actual cost r up to to this point is about $2 trillion.  Compare that number with the  $6 trillion Obama added to the deficit in four years, and the $ 6Trillion that Obamacare is gong to cost the US over the next ten years.    That's 12 trillion in 10 years total vs. $6 Trillion over 40 years.  That's just over$600 billion a year. vs.  just over $1 trillion a year with Obama's spending.  And since this administration is allergic to budgets, and responsible economics ('cause that's just how liberals are), we can expect at least another $2 trillion is new debt by 2016.

 

Obama is far more spendy than Bush was.

[Burning_Ember]

 

 

 

Trillions of dollars isn't miniscule.

 

 

I didn't say trillions dollars is miniscule.  I said the cost of those wars are miniscule compared to the amount of debt Obama has racked up.

 

This has been fun shiloh, but you aren't really staying on topic, nor do you address evidence when it's brought up. See you later.

 

I am not off topic.  I was responding directly to your comment above where you said:  "Usama Bin Laden WANTED America to invade after 9/11. If you go over his tapes, he celebrated the fact that America was spending trillions of dollars in war in the middle east. He wanted America to fight in the middle east because it's much easier to organize and recruit fighters for conflict in Afghanistan/Iraq. That is their home turf. They understand better how to exploit local geography, terrain, guerrilla tactics, culture, and politics than America does in that region. Sending soldiers to fight in the middle east is quite literally exactly what Al-Queda (and now ISIS wants for many different reasons. From their perspective;"

 

My response was that Obama's spending outstrips the cost of those wars.   I have responded to and addressed everything you have said.  You haven't provided any evidence.

 

I cited military experts who pinned the blame on middle east stability on the two wars. You should probably go back and read that. You want me to cite some more?

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-wars-in-afghanistan-iraq-to-cost-6-trillion/5350789

 

Six Trillion dollars is not miniscule. Is that "minuscule" compared to the amount of debt Obama incurred? whether something costs money or not is not partisan. It's math.

 

You're not exactly honest.    The $6 trillion figure is the cost over the next 40 years  and that number includes benefits to veterans.

 

The actual cost r up to to this point is about $2 trillion.  Compare that number with the  $6 trillion Obama added to the deficit in four years, and the $ 6Trillion that Obamacare is gong to cost the US over the next ten years.    That's 12 trillion in 10 years total vs. $6 Trillion over 40 years.  That's just over$600 billion a year. vs.  just over $1 trillion a year with Obama's spending.  And since this administration is allergic to budgets, and responsible economics ('cause that's just how liberals are), we can expect at least another $2 trillion is new debt by 2016.

 

Obama is far more spendy than Bush was.

 

So is two trillion dollars still minuscule?

 

That's the cost of the war, over time, yeah. It's the cost that keeps on going. The Bush administration said it would be $100 Billion dollars over two years for the cost. That's a far cry from your figure of $2 Trillion dollars and counting.

 

We'll see how the budget looks in 2016. Expenditures versus receipts as a percentage of GDP are projected to close the gap eventually providing a second ground war isn't launched that could cost as much as the first one.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

 

Trillions of dollars isn't miniscule.

 

 

I didn't say trillions dollars is miniscule.  I said the cost of those wars are miniscule compared to the amount of debt Obama has racked up.

 

This has been fun shiloh, but you aren't really staying on topic, nor do you address evidence when it's brought up. See you later.

 

I am not off topic.  I was responding directly to your comment above where you said:  "Usama Bin Laden WANTED America to invade after 9/11. If you go over his tapes, he celebrated the fact that America was spending trillions of dollars in war in the middle east. He wanted America to fight in the middle east because it's much easier to organize and recruit fighters for conflict in Afghanistan/Iraq. That is their home turf. They understand better how to exploit local geography, terrain, guerrilla tactics, culture, and politics than America does in that region. Sending soldiers to fight in the middle east is quite literally exactly what Al-Queda (and now ISIS wants for many different reasons. From their perspective;"

 

My response was that Obama's spending outstrips the cost of those wars.   I have responded to and addressed everything you have said.  You haven't provided any evidence.

 

I cited military experts who pinned the blame on middle east stability on the two wars. You should probably go back and read that. You want me to cite some more?

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-wars-in-afghanistan-iraq-to-cost-6-trillion/5350789

 

Six Trillion dollars is not miniscule. Is that "minuscule" compared to the amount of debt Obama incurred? whether something costs money or not is not partisan. It's math.

 

You're not exactly honest.    The $6 trillion figure is the cost over the next 40 years  and that number includes benefits to veterans.

 

The actual cost r up to to this point is about $2 trillion.  Compare that number with the  $6 trillion Obama added to the deficit in four years, and the $ 6Trillion that Obamacare is gong to cost the US over the next ten years.    That's 12 trillion in 10 years total vs. $6 Trillion over 40 years.  That's just over$600 billion a year. vs.  just over $1 trillion a year with Obama's spending.  And since this administration is allergic to budgets, and responsible economics ('cause that's just how liberals are), we can expect at least another $2 trillion is new debt by 2016.

 

Obama is far more spendy than Bush was.

 

So is two trillion dollars still minuscule?

 

Again, I was using the word, "miniscule" as a relative term.  I didn't say $2 Trillion is miniscule.  I used that word to compare the cost of the wars in comparison to Obama's spending.   Obama has added more to the debt than any president in History.   He outstrips all eight of the George Bush years.  He has spent way more in 6 years than Bush did in eight years and that is beyond dispute.  His liberal polices, his lack of fiscal discipline have cost us more than George Bush.    It took us from George Washington to George W. Bush  and over 200 years to rack up $10 trillion dollars in debt.   Obama racked $7 trillion in just six years.   He has racked up more debt than any president in history.

 

That's the cost of the war, over time, yeah. It's the cost that keeps on going. The Bush administration said it would be $100 Billion dollars over two years for the cost. That's a far cry from your figure of $2 Trillion dollars and counting.

 

 

That's beside the point.  I am not defending the Bush administration.  I didn't agree with them on a lot of things.

 

 

We'll see how the budget looks in 2016.

 

What budget??  This administration is allergic to budgets.  They just want to spend with abandon.

[Burning_Ember]

 

 

 

 

 

Trillions of dollars isn't miniscule.

 

 

I didn't say trillions dollars is miniscule.  I said the cost of those wars are miniscule compared to the amount of debt Obama has racked up.

 

This has been fun shiloh, but you aren't really staying on topic, nor do you address evidence when it's brought up. See you later.

 

I am not off topic.  I was responding directly to your comment above where you said:  "Usama Bin Laden WANTED America to invade after 9/11. If you go over his tapes, he celebrated the fact that America was spending trillions of dollars in war in the middle east. He wanted America to fight in the middle east because it's much easier to organize and recruit fighters for conflict in Afghanistan/Iraq. That is their home turf. They understand better how to exploit local geography, terrain, guerrilla tactics, culture, and politics than America does in that region. Sending soldiers to fight in the middle east is quite literally exactly what Al-Queda (and now ISIS wants for many different reasons. From their perspective;"

 

My response was that Obama's spending outstrips the cost of those wars.   I have responded to and addressed everything you have said.  You haven't provided any evidence.

 

I cited military experts who pinned the blame on middle east stability on the two wars. You should probably go back and read that. You want me to cite some more?

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-wars-in-afghanistan-iraq-to-cost-6-trillion/5350789

 

Six Trillion dollars is not miniscule. Is that "minuscule" compared to the amount of debt Obama incurred? whether something costs money or not is not partisan. It's math.

 

You're not exactly honest.    The $6 trillion figure is the cost over the next 40 years  and that number includes benefits to veterans.

 

The actual cost r up to to this point is about $2 trillion.  Compare that number with the  $6 trillion Obama added to the deficit in four years, and the $ 6Trillion that Obamacare is gong to cost the US over the next ten years.    That's 12 trillion in 10 years total vs. $6 Trillion over 40 years.  That's just over$600 billion a year. vs.  just over $1 trillion a year with Obama's spending.  And since this administration is allergic to budgets, and responsible economics ('cause that's just how liberals are), we can expect at least another $2 trillion is new debt by 2016.

 

Obama is far more spendy than Bush was.

 

So is two trillion dollars still minuscule?

 

Again, I was using the word, "miniscule" as a relative term.  I didn't say $2 Trillion is miniscule.  I used that word to compare the cost of the wars in comparison to Obama's spending.   Obama has added more to the debt than any president in History.   He outstrips all eight of the George Bush years.  He has spent way more in 6 years than Bush did in eight years and that is beyond dispute.  His liberal polices, his lack of fiscal discipline have cost us more than George Bush.    It took us from George Washington to George W. Bush  and over 200 years to rack up $10 trillion dollars in debt.   Obama racked $7 trillion in just six years.   He has racked up more debt than any president in history.

 

That's the cost of the war, over time, yeah. It's the cost that keeps on going. The Bush administration said it would be $100 Billion dollars over two years for the cost. That's a far cry from your figure of $2 Trillion dollars and counting.

 

 

That's beside the point.  I am not defending the Bush administration.  I didn't agree with them on a lot of things.

 

 

We'll see how the budget looks in 2016.

 

What budget??  This administration is allergic to budgets.  They just want to spend with abandon.

 

You were talking about the debt. The wars are the single biggest expense.

 

While you're blaming Obama the debt, you might want to take into account the deregulation of the financial industry which just about destroyed America's economy, the tax cuts which reduced income tax revenues, Medicare part D which was more or less a handout to drug companies, student loan debt, medical debt, which reduces ones purchasing power/contribution to the economy, (whereas that receives subsidies in Canada thereby making it a much smaller problem) increased military spending, especially under Bush... 

 

These problems are far more complicated than some kind of partisan blame game, so I don't treat it like that.

[Guest shiloh357]

You were talking about the debt. The wars are the single biggest expense.

So what?  That doesn't change the fact that when you add up all eight years of the Bush administration and all of their spending, Obama has spent more than Bush and more than any president in history.

 

 

 

While you're blaming Obama the debt, you might want to take into account the deregulation of the financial industry which just about destroyed America's economy, the tax cuts which reduced income tax revenues, Medicare part D which was more or less a handout to drug companies, student loan debt, medical debt, which reduces ones purchasing power/contribution to the economy, (whereas that receives subsidies in Canada thereby making it a much smaller problem) increased military spending, especially under Bush... 

 

Sorry BE, but you can't blame $7 Trillion on deregulation.   The fact is that Obama has racked up $7 Trillion in debt in six years and deregulation can't account for most of that.   BE, it has been six years, now.

 

You know I was a registrar's assistant  for a community college years ago.   The assistant that had my job before me had a "plan" to revise the filing system in that office and she really messed up the filing system.  It was a train wreck and no one could find anything in it.  Part of my job was to put the filing system back the way it was and make it usable.  So I had to fix it.  I was expected to produce results in as little as two weeks.   After two weeks, they didn't give me the luxury of blaming the girl ahead of me.   I was on the job and the filing system, for better or worse, was MY responsibility and I was accountable if people couldn't find the file they needed.  They came to me.  They didn't let me blame  her.

 

The same applies here.  It has been six years and this economy is Obama's responsibility.  We  are way past blaming the previous administration.  Time to grow up and be adults about this. It's time to take responsibility.  Obama's policies haven't made anything better.  They have only made the existing problems worse and that isn't Bush's fault.

 

 

These problems are far more complicated than some kind of partisan blame game, so I don't treat it like that.

 

 

No, it really isn't more complicated...   The Obama Administration has always been about blaming Bush  and even now, in order to cover up for their glaring incompetence, Liberals will still try to pin the blame on someone else.   Liberals have no problem with the partisan "blame game" when it works in their favor.

 

Obama took credit for ending the war in Iraq, until it was shown that his refusal to have a SoF agreement was the reason for uprising of ISIS, suddenly it was all Bush's fault and he distanced himself from taking credit for the war's end.  

 

The bottom line is that you cannot get around the fact that Obama, in six years, has wracked up what amounts to the equivalent of almost 3/4 of the amount of debt it took the US over 200 years to accrue. .

[Burning_Ember]

 

You were talking about the debt. The wars are the single biggest expense.

So what?  That doesn't change the fact that when you add up all eight years of the Bush administration and all of their spending, Obama has spent more than Bush and more than any president in history.

 

 

 

While you're blaming Obama the debt, you might want to take into account the deregulation of the financial industry which just about destroyed America's economy, the tax cuts which reduced income tax revenues, Medicare part D which was more or less a handout to drug companies, student loan debt, medical debt, which reduces ones purchasing power/contribution to the economy, (whereas that receives subsidies in Canada thereby making it a much smaller problem) increased military spending, especially under Bush... 

 

Sorry BE, but you can't blame $7 Trillion on deregulation.   The fact is that Obama has racked up $7 Trillion in debt in six years and deregulation can't account for most of that.   BE, it has been six years, now.

 

You know I was a registrar's assistant  for a community college years ago.   The assistant that had my job before me had a "plan" to revise the filing system in that office and she really messed up the filing system.  It was a train wreck and no one could find anything in it.  Part of my job was to put the filing system back the way it was and make it usable.  So I had to fix it.  I was expected to produce results in as little as two weeks.   After two weeks, they didn't give me the luxury of blaming the girl ahead of me.   I was on the job and the filing system, for better or worse, was MY responsibility and I was accountable if people couldn't find the file they needed.  They came to me.  They didn't let me blame  her.

 

The same applies here.  It has been six years and this economy is Obama's responsibility.  We  are way past blaming the previous administration.  Time to grow up and be adults about this. It's time to take responsibility.  Obama's policies haven't made anything better.  They have only made the existing problems worse and that isn't Bush's fault.

 

 

These problems are far more complicated than some kind of partisan blame game, so I don't treat it like that.

 

 

No, it really isn't more complicated...   The Obama Administration has always been about blaming Bush  and even now, in order to cover up for their glaring incompetence, Liberals will still try to pin the blame on someone else.   Liberals have no problem with the partisan "blame game" when it works in their favor.

 

Obama took credit for ending the war in Iraq, until it was shown that his refusal to have a SoF agreement was the reason for uprising of ISIS, suddenly it was all Bush's fault and he distanced himself from taking credit for the war's end.  

 

The bottom line is that you cannot get around the fact that Obama, in six years, has wracked up what amounts to the equivalent of almost 3/4 of the amount of debt it took the US over 200 years to accrue. .

 

If you read the next part of my post, I never stated that the wars are solely responsible for the debt. The economy is a very complicated thing. So are tax revenues and expenditures.

 

At what point did I say $7 Trillion was due to regulation? I didn't. I'd like to ask that you not misrepresent my argument.

 

A file clerk at a community college is in no way comparable to what the President does. If you're drawing on that argument and unable to properly respond to a logical argument, your argument has little weight.

 

Since you haven't really bothered to respond to my previous statements, I'm going to put them in the form of a question.

 

What effect did financial deregulation have on the economy and tax revenues?

 

What effect on stability in the middle east did the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have?

 

What effect does student loan debt, credit card debt, and medical debt have on consumer spending and the economy?

 

And of course, why does ISIL exist? Why have they gained power so quickly?

 

I'll give you a hint for that last one, blaming Obama for ISIL would be a valid argument if he propped them up and supplied them with money and weapons, but he didn't.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

You were talking about the debt. The wars are the single biggest expense.

So what?  That doesn't change the fact that when you add up all eight years of the Bush administration and all of their spending, Obama has spent more than Bush and more than any president in history.

 

 

 

While you're blaming Obama the debt, you might want to take into account the deregulation of the financial industry which just about destroyed America's economy, the tax cuts which reduced income tax revenues, Medicare part D which was more or less a handout to drug companies, student loan debt, medical debt, which reduces ones purchasing power/contribution to the economy, (whereas that receives subsidies in Canada thereby making it a much smaller problem) increased military spending, especially under Bush... 

 

Sorry BE, but you can't blame $7 Trillion on deregulation.   The fact is that Obama has racked up $7 Trillion in debt in six years and deregulation can't account for most of that.   BE, it has been six years, now.

 

You know I was a registrar's assistant  for a community college years ago.   The assistant that had my job before me had a "plan" to revise the filing system in that office and she really messed up the filing system.  It was a train wreck and no one could find anything in it.  Part of my job was to put the filing system back the way it was and make it usable.  So I had to fix it.  I was expected to produce results in as little as two weeks.   After two weeks, they didn't give me the luxury of blaming the girl ahead of me.   I was on the job and the filing system, for better or worse, was MY responsibility and I was accountable if people couldn't find the file they needed.  They came to me.  They didn't let me blame  her.

 

The same applies here.  It has been six years and this economy is Obama's responsibility.  We  are way past blaming the previous administration.  Time to grow up and be adults about this. It's time to take responsibility.  Obama's policies haven't made anything better.  They have only made the existing problems worse and that isn't Bush's fault.

 

 

These problems are far more complicated than some kind of partisan blame game, so I don't treat it like that.

 

 

No, it really isn't more complicated...   The Obama Administration has always been about blaming Bush  and even now, in order to cover up for their glaring incompetence, Liberals will still try to pin the blame on someone else.   Liberals have no problem with the partisan "blame game" when it works in their favor.

 

Obama took credit for ending the war in Iraq, until it was shown that his refusal to have a SoF agreement was the reason for uprising of ISIS, suddenly it was all Bush's fault and he distanced himself from taking credit for the war's end.  

 

The bottom line is that you cannot get around the fact that Obama, in six years, has wracked up what amounts to the equivalent of almost 3/4 of the amount of debt it took the US over 200 years to accrue. .

 

If you read the next part of my post, I never stated that the wars are solely responsible for the debt. The economy is a very complicated thing. So are tax revenues and expenditures.

I don't see that I said you blamed the wars as being solely responsible for the debt. 

 

 

At what point did I say $7 Trillion was due to regulation? I didn't. I'd like to ask that you not misrepresent my argument.

 

To clarify, my point is that complaining about de-regulation is really a pointless academic argument.  The fact is that Obama, by HIS policies over the last six years added $7 Trillion to the national debt.  You can say what you want, but Obama has nearly doubled our debt by himself and through his liberal policies.

 

 

A file clerk at a community college is in no way comparable to what the President does. If you're drawing on that argument and unable to properly respond to a logical argument, your argument has little weight.

 

I wasn't comparing the jobs.   I was illustrating moral principle.   The point  I was making is that there comes  a point when president can no longer look at the economic problems and blame Bush.  Obama has been president for six years and he has a record.  He has his own spending record and it is atrocious.   His polices not Bush's policies added $7 trillion to the debt.  That is indisputable fact.   So that's the point.  After six years, and having his own established record, he can no longer claim that the economy's problems go back to Bush. 

 

 

 

Since you haven't really bothered to respond to my previous statements, I'm going to put them in the form of a question.

 

What effect did financial deregulation have on the economy and tax revenues?

 

What effect on stability in the middle east did the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have?

 

What effect does student loan debt, credit card debt, and medical debt have on consumer spending and the economy?

 

 

You are trying to shift the discussion to more pointless academic topics.  You can't deal with the reality that under Obama's policies we have incurred $7 Trillion in debt.  That's the relevant issue.

 

 

And of course, why does ISIL exist? Why have they gained power so quickly? 

I'll give you a hint for that last one, blaming Obama for ISIL would be a valid argument if he propped them up and supplied them with money and weapons, but he didn't.

 

 

 

That' s where you're wrong.  Obama is to blame for ISIS  (ISIL is the wrong term) because he refused to enforce a SoF agreement.  He left the vacuum of power that allowed them to rise up.  Secondly, the Obama administration left behind tons and tons and tons of our weaponry that ISIS is now using and which we are now having to destroy because it is has fallen into the hands of terrorists.   Yes, the administration is to blame for ISIS, whether you can accept that reality or not.

 

 

 

[coheir]

 

 

 

You were talking about the debt. The wars are the single biggest expense.

So what?  That doesn't change the fact that when you add up all eight years of the Bush administration and all of their spending, Obama has spent more than Bush and more than any president in history.

 

 

 

While you're blaming Obama the debt, you might want to take into account the deregulation of the financial industry which just about destroyed America's economy, the tax cuts which reduced income tax revenues, Medicare part D which was more or less a handout to drug companies, student loan debt, medical debt, which reduces ones purchasing power/contribution to the economy, (whereas that receives subsidies in Canada thereby making it a much smaller problem) increased military spending, especially under Bush... 

 

Sorry BE, but you can't blame $7 Trillion on deregulation.   The fact is that Obama has racked up $7 Trillion in debt in six years and deregulation can't account for most of that.   BE, it has been six years, now.

 

You know I was a registrar's assistant  for a community college years ago.   The assistant that had my job before me had a "plan" to revise the filing system in that office and she really messed up the filing system.  It was a train wreck and no one could find anything in it.  Part of my job was to put the filing system back the way it was and make it usable.  So I had to fix it.  I was expected to produce results in as little as two weeks.   After two weeks, they didn't give me the luxury of blaming the girl ahead of me.   I was on the job and the filing system, for better or worse, was MY responsibility and I was accountable if people couldn't find the file they needed.  They came to me.  They didn't let me blame  her.

 

The same applies here.  It has been six years and this economy is Obama's responsibility.  We  are way past blaming the previous administration.  Time to grow up and be adults about this. It's time to take responsibility.  Obama's policies haven't made anything better.  They have only made the existing problems worse and that isn't Bush's fault.

 

 

These problems are far more complicated than some kind of partisan blame game, so I don't treat it like that.

 

 

No, it really isn't more complicated...   The Obama Administration has always been about blaming Bush  and even now, in order to cover up for their glaring incompetence, Liberals will still try to pin the blame on someone else.   Liberals have no problem with the partisan "blame game" when it works in their favor.

 

Obama took credit for ending the war in Iraq, until it was shown that his refusal to have a SoF agreement was the reason for uprising of ISIS, suddenly it was all Bush's fault and he distanced himself from taking credit for the war's end.  

 

The bottom line is that you cannot get around the fact that Obama, in six years, has wracked up what amounts to the equivalent of almost 3/4 of the amount of debt it took the US over 200 years to accrue. .

 

If you read the next part of my post, I never stated that the wars are solely responsible for the debt. The economy is a very complicated thing. So are tax revenues and expenditures.

I don't see that I said you blamed the wars as being solely responsible for the debt. 

 

 

At what point did I say $7 Trillion was due to regulation? I didn't. I'd like to ask that you not misrepresent my argument.

 

To clarify, my point is that complaining about de-regulation is really a pointless academic argument.  The fact is that Obama, by HIS policies over the last six years added $7 Trillion to the national debt.  You can say what you want, but Obama has nearly doubled our debt by himself and through his liberal policies.

 

 

A file clerk at a community college is in no way comparable to what the President does. If you're drawing on that argument and unable to properly respond to a logical argument, your argument has little weight.

 

I wasn't comparing the jobs.   I was illustrating moral principle.   The point  I was making is that there comes  a point when president can no longer look at the economic problems and blame Bush.  Obama has been president for six years and he has a record.  He has his own spending record and it is atrocious.   His polices not Bush's policies added $7 trillion to the debt.  That is indisputable fact.   So that's the point.  After six years, and having his own established record, he can no longer claim that the economy's problems go back to Bush. 

 

 

 

Since you haven't really bothered to respond to my previous statements, I'm going to put them in the form of a question.

 

What effect did financial deregulation have on the economy and tax revenues?

 

What effect on stability in the middle east did the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have?

 

What effect does student loan debt, credit card debt, and medical debt have on consumer spending and the economy?

 

 

You are trying to shift the discussion to more pointless academic topics.  You can't deal with the reality that under Obama's policies we have incurred $7 Trillion in debt.  That's the relevant issue.

 

 

And of course, why does ISIL exist? Why have they gained power so quickly? 

I'll give you a hint for that last one, blaming Obama for ISIL would be a valid argument if he propped them up and supplied them with money and weapons, but he didn't.

 

 

 

That' s where you're wrong.  Obama is to blame for ISIS  (ISIL is the wrong term) because he refused to enforce a SoF agreement.  He left the vacuum of power that allowed them to rise up.  Secondly, the Obama administration left behind tons and tons and tons of our weaponry that ISIS is now using and which we are now having to destroy because it is has fallen into the hands of terrorists.   Yes, the administration is to blame for ISIS, whether you can accept that reality or not.

 

Most likely we have not even paid for it yet.