This is actually untrue. The decrease in deficits was by a large margin due to increased economic growth and resulting tax revenue. Not because of the sequester.
Burisma wasn’t being actively investigated. That is a fact. Shokin was a corrupt prosecutor criticized for not prosecuting a single case. He was soliciting bribes.
By firing him, more attention was put on Burisma. Reality is counter to your narrative.
Horse hockey, the sequester forced huge cuts that Obama swore would be the end of us.
1 Like
Are you lost?
Ah yes…let me clarify. I forgot I actually did use the name “Obama” in the post.
Did I credit Obama for lower deficits in that post?
What function was his name in my post serving?
More importantly…let me know how many back and forths will we have on this post?
1 Like
I’m going to post actual data to prove you are wrong, and you’re either going to deflect or ghost the post. You know how I know? Past history. So, here we go:
So, looks like you need more math.
The sequester, which started in CY2013, only cut about $42 billion in actual outlays in 2013 and following years [1] and we still increased spending a total of $52 billion from FY2013 to FY2014. The deficit went from $680 billion in FY2013 to $485 billion in FY2014 for a difference of $196 billion. Wait a second, 196 is larger than the 42 that was a result of the sequester. How did the deficit drop an additional $150 billion? Because revenues rose $247 billion from FY2013 to FY2014, showing that REVENUES had a greater impact to deficit reduction rather than spending cuts just like REVENUES are having a bigger impact in our deficit increase now. This is something that Republicans can’t get through their heads because their are cultists at the alter of supply-side economics.
3 Likes
How can you claim that Biden carrying out a policy that had broad support does not matter? US Policy aligned with EU and IMF wishes and Joe Biden carried it out. Do. you prefer when rogue actors carry out private policies that need to be hidden on code word servers?
At to blackmail, to quote Trump’s Acting Chief of Staff, “It was a quid pro quo. Get over it.” Only in this case, the quid pro quo furthered US policy.
There isn’t a shred of evidence that Biden was acting to protect his son. The CED claim that he was doing otherwise is a lie. I stated that previously and I stand by the assertion.
1 Like
Remember the Mueller hoax?
Opposite of that.
That’s because those sickos in the House are scared to death to let the President of the United States defend him self.
Are they Commie boot lickers or what?
Suspects don’t defend them selves in front of Grand Juries. He’ll have time at the trial.
I remember the Mueller Report, which I hope you have taken the time to read. The Mueller Report detailed Russian interference in the 2016 election, the Trump campaigns welcoming and use of the Russian assistance and it documented a dozen instances of Obstruction of Justice by the Trump Administration. Mueller’s work has put seven (if I remember the number correctly) of Trump’s associate in jail for various corruption charges.
The Mueller Hoax, if I recall correctly, was an effort by Always Trumpers to claim that the Mueller Report exonerated the President. That has been thoroughly debunked and really is not very interesting at this point.
No one has explained why the existence of official channels of investigation preclude and make unethical the use of private channels of investigation. I’m still waiting on that explanation.
What would make pressuring an investigative agency into publicly announcing they are doing what they have promised several times to do, but failed to do in the past? WHY would it be an abuse of power to pressure someone who promised an investigation into suspicious behaviour by a political rival to keep their promise?
It was not in Biden’s self interest to fire the prosecutor that was NOT investigating Burisma
3 Likes
There are 46 Republican members of the House that are there to defend the President. They have chosen to discredit the witnesses instead of provide a defense.
1 Like
If there isn’t anything wrong with asking a foreign government to publicly announce the investigation then why hasn’t this administration admitted that this was what they were doing?
Either, because to claim to have done something legal and ethical that one did not actually do, like serving in Vietnam, is lying. And lying is unethical. Or, because it’s an irrelevant Democrat talking point that is better starved of oxygen.
If they did nothing wrong and they had every right to request a public announcement, they can simply say that. But they haven’t, in fact, they haven’t even admitted they asked for a public announcement… yet.
In a normal world this would be the end of it. In one sentence this should end all the threads about Joe Biden.
Somehow in an alternative world, Biden intervened to help his son by getting the prosecutor fired- WHO WASNT EVEN INVESTIGATING Hunter Biden.
1 Like
Yup- it defies all logic.
Demanding a public announcement is good and right and patriotic! (But we don’t want to openly say we are doing it.).
Ummmmmmmmm…
Because it’s a non-issue. It would be legal and ethical either way. So, why not let the Dems whip themselves into an insane lather over it?
