Back to the thread at hand, I am happy with people earning as much as they can and my Govt spending as little as they can to meet their constitutional mandates ONLY! I guess that makes me a strict constitutionist.
Me too!
You guys are just a couple of crazy right wing extremists! LIKE ME! lol
All you people are loons. Now pardon me as I go to bed with my bible and guns like all us right-wingers do.
I believe we may have reached an unprecedented concensus here, our own little piece of history. An aside note, my wife, from the city, asked me "why do you keep all those pistols loaded? Isn't that dangerous?", my reply: "they make piss-poor clubs, much more effective with the bullets in"
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Back to the thread at hand, I am happy with people earning as much as they can and my Govt spending as little as they can to meet their constitutional mandates ONLY! I guess that makes me a strict constitutionist.
Me too!
You guys are just a couple of crazy right wing extremists! LIKE ME! lol
All you people are loons. Now pardon me as I go to bed with my bible and guns like all us right-wingers do.
I believe we may have reached an unprecedented concensus here, our own little piece of history. An aside note, my wife, from the city, asked me "why do you keep all those pistols loaded? Isn't that dangerous?", my reply: "they make piss-poor clubs, much more effective with the bullets in"
Back to the thread at hand, I am happy with people earning as much as they can and my Govt spending as little as they can to meet their constitutional mandates ONLY! I guess that makes me a strict constitutionist.
Me too!
You guys are just a couple of crazy right wing extremists! LIKE ME! lol
All you people are loons. Now pardon me as I go to bed with my bible and guns like all us right-wingers do.
I believe we may have reached an unprecedented concensus here, our own little piece of history.
Ok, so I just got pissed off all over again from reading about what Princess Pelosi said...
"What I think the people of the United States deserve is a middle class tax cut. So at the end of the day we will have a vote to extend the Obama Middle Class Tax Cuts."
First .... We are back at this use of the word "deserve" crap. How do you like the idea of this multi-millionaire (to the tune of around $40 million or so) telling YOU what you deserve? You get up, chow down, dress up and head out to bust your ass for eight to ten hours or however long you work and Two weeks from now you get a pay check .. and there's Nancy Pelosi telling you how much of this check you "deserve" to keep? Aren't you loving that? This is freaking ridiculous, we have to get these people out of power.
Then we have the "Obama Middle Class Tax Cuts" thing. That's the new language right out of ObamaLand. Pelosi is following her instructions well. If the Bush tax cuts are extended the last thing The Community Organizer wants is for the "Bush" name to remain attached to them. Hence the "Obama Middle Class Tax Cuts" thing. Of course this means that if the Bush tax cuts aren't extended for the evil rich that will have to be called the "Obama Tax Increase."
Your anger will destroy you young Jedi....and as you mentioned, we had Bushs Tax Cuts for years----so lets not get too crazy here. Dont forget about the Haliburton Tax cuts, or the countless others we have had. At some point you dont look for news to be informed...you just look to get angry and find stories that tell you more of what you already believe (true or not).
Ok, so I just got pissed off all over again from reading about what Princess Pelosi said...
"What I think the people of the United States deserve is a middle class tax cut. So at the end of the day we will have a vote to extend the Obama Middle Class Tax Cuts."
First .... We are back at this use of the word "deserve" crap. How do you like the idea of this multi-millionaire (to the tune of around $40 million or so) telling YOU what you deserve? You get up, chow down, dress up and head out to bust your ass for eight to ten hours or however long you work and Two weeks from now you get a pay check .. and there's Nancy Pelosi telling you how much of this check you "deserve" to keep? Aren't you loving that? This is freaking ridiculous, we have to get these people out of power.
Then we have the "Obama Middle Class Tax Cuts" thing. That's the new language right out of ObamaLand. Pelosi is following her instructions well. If the Bush tax cuts are extended the last thing The Community Organizer wants is for the "Bush" name to remain attached to them. Hence the "Obama Middle Class Tax Cuts" thing. Of course this means that if the Bush tax cuts aren't extended for the evil rich that will have to be called the "Obama Tax Increase."
Krieg the wind is blowing in our direction right now and hopefully it blows these trash politicians right out of office. I am with you, it is OUR money, not hers or the Govt's, or anybody else's and until we get some people in office who will recognize it I say we keep throwing them out.
What I don't get is why you guy's always want to put a name to these issues. I mean they are all politicians and politicians have been **** you, me, and everyone in between for ever. So why do some people feel it is better to blame these things on one person?
Right, left, rich, poor, they are politicians, and that means they will continue to do it. I guess yesterday was just a blip, as a couple of you guy's just couldn't help yourselves today eh?
I'm out, this post just rounded the waste of time corner.
What I don't get is why you guy's always want to put a name to these issues. I mean they are all politicians and politicians have been **** you, me, and everyone in between for ever..
What do you mean "blaming" one person? I was referring to what one person said. And if you haven't noticed, people are sick and tired of bigger govt, more spending, higher taxes. Republicans are just now starting to figure out they are not safe either this election cycle. They (most of them, not all) probably thought they were going to waltz into power while just standing on the sidelines. They are going to have to get off their ass and take a stand on the issues. With the primary results in Delaware, really woke some Republicans up, they aren't safe either.
Also...what do you care about American politics? Just curious...
Back to the thread at hand, I am happy with people earning as much as they can and my Govt spending as little as they can to meet their constitutional mandates ONLY! I guess that makes me a strict constitutionist.
Me too!
You guys are just a couple of crazy right wing extremists! LIKE ME! lol
All you people are loons. Now pardon me as I go to bed with my bible and guns like all us right-wingers do.
I believe we may have reached an unprecedented concensus here, our own little piece of history.
What I don't get is why you guy's always want to put a name to these issues. I mean they are all politicians and politicians have been **** you, me, and everyone in between for ever..
What do you mean "blaming" one person? I was referring to what one person said. And if you haven't noticed, people are sick and tired of bigger govt, more spending, higher taxes. Republicans are just now starting to figure out they are not safe either this election cycle. They (most of them, not all) probably thought they were going to waltz into power while just standing on the sidelines. They are going to have to get off their ass and take a stand on the issues. With the primary results in Delaware, really woke some Republicans up, they aren't safe either.
Also...what do you care about American politics? Just curious...
Kreig that comment was made for the benefit of people from both sides. It was not an anti right wing thing. What I meant was that no one person is responsible for the way things are but everyone wants to put the blame on whoever is the current president. Politicians from every level and every State are doing the same types of things which cost the people money and cause inefficiencies.
To answer your question about American Politics... I find lot's of things interesting, not just things inside Canada. I like to try to take a world view. Therefore it is important to me to try to keep abreast of things around the world not just in Canada or the U.S.
Also this thread did not start out as a political comment remember? It got hijacked like most of them do by some comments which had little to do with the thread., and were more political comment.
What I don't get is why you guy's always want to put a name to these issues. I mean they are all politicians and politicians have been **** you, me, and everyone in between for ever..
What do you mean "blaming" one person? I was referring to what one person said. And if you haven't noticed, people are sick and tired of bigger govt, more spending, higher taxes. Republicans are just now starting to figure out they are not safe either this election cycle. They (most of them, not all) probably thought they were going to waltz into power while just standing on the sidelines. They are going to have to get off their ass and take a stand on the issues. With the primary results in Delaware, really woke some Republicans up, they aren't safe either.
Also...what do you care about American politics? Just curious...
Kreig that comment was made for the benefit of people from both sides. It was not an anti right wing thing. What I meant was that no one person is responsible for the way things are but everyone wants to put the blame on whoever is the current president. Politicians from every level and every State are doing the same types of things which cost the people money and cause inefficiencies.
To answer your question about American Politics... I find lot's of things interesting, not just things inside Canada. I like to try to take a world view. Therefore it is important to me to try to keep abreast of things around the world not just in Canada or the U.S.
Also this thread did not start out as a political comment remember? It got hijacked like most of them do by some comments which had little to do with the thread., and were more political comment.
Krieg,
Actually Bush is who expanded govt and did one of the largest restructuring in History. The homeland security has more power than most other (conus) agencies and yet again it itself hinders the FBI from doing their job as it add one more layer of agency BS. Also he lied the country into a WAR which was never paid for, pushed the United States into Afghan, pushed tax cuts through which weren't paid for, gave bilions to the largest corporations at the end of his term, gave bilions in tax breaks for oil and gas companies, pushed and extended private contractors to do the job of our very own military and it costs more since they are paid on average 3x more, I could go on. Since Obama has taken office he hasn't raised the debt nearly as much as Bush did. I don't see where you get this "bigger govt and bigger spending" BS? I mean if your saying that passing unemployment insurance, job bills, a LOAN for the AMERICAN CAR INDUSTRY (MINUS FORD), Health Insurance Reform (flawed as it is), and other policies meant to help the other 98/97 percent of us is BAD but helping out the super rich and powerful over the other 98 percent of us is good then I guess you have your party. The Dems are pissing me off but the republicans pledge to repeal everything, privatize social security/medicare, keep the tax cuts, and continue the policies that caused this economy.
Also Squirrel, if for one second the Righties who voted McCain think he wouldnt have enacted the same or very similar baiilout measure (which may likely dont)----they are lying ot themselves. All, or nearly all, respected economists feel the bailout had to be done and so did much other spending to avoid a full scale replay of the 1920's and 30's. However I undestand politics enough to know that since their guy lost....they have the benefit of criticizing everything as ignorance ( as well as what if's) allow a person to speak without error.
What I don't get is why you guy's always want to put a name to these issues. I mean they are all politicians and politicians have been **** you, me, and everyone in between for ever..
What do you mean "blaming" one person? I was referring to what one person said. And if you haven't noticed, people are sick and tired of bigger govt, more spending, higher taxes. Republicans are just now starting to figure out they are not safe either this election cycle. They (most of them, not all) probably thought they were going to waltz into power while just standing on the sidelines. They are going to have to get off their ass and take a stand on the issues. With the primary results in Delaware, really woke some Republicans up, they aren't safe either.
Also...what do you care about American politics? Just curious...
Kreig that comment was made for the benefit of people from both sides. It was not an anti right wing thing. What I meant was that no one person is responsible for the way things are but everyone wants to put the blame on whoever is the current president. Politicians from every level and every State are doing the same types of things which cost the people money and cause inefficiencies.
To answer your question about American Politics... I find lot's of things interesting, not just things inside Canada. I like to try to take a world view. Therefore it is important to me to try to keep abreast of things around the world not just in Canada or the U.S.
Also this thread did not start out as a political comment remember? It got hijacked like most of them do by some comments which had little to do with the thread., and were more political comment.
What I don't get is why you guy's always want to put a name to these issues. I mean they are all politicians and politicians have been **** you, me, and everyone in between for ever..
What do you mean "blaming" one person? I was referring to what one person said. And if you haven't noticed, people are sick and tired of bigger govt, more spending, higher taxes. Republicans are just now starting to figure out they are not safe either this election cycle. They (most of them, not all) probably thought they were going to waltz into power while just standing on the sidelines. They are going to have to get off their ass and take a stand on the issues. With the primary results in Delaware, really woke some Republicans up, they aren't safe either.
Also...what do you care about American politics? Just curious...
Kreig that comment was made for the benefit of people from both sides. It was not an anti right wing thing. What I meant was that no one person is responsible for the way things are but everyone wants to put the blame on whoever is the current president. Politicians from every level and every State are doing the same types of things which cost the people money and cause inefficiencies.
To answer your question about American Politics... I find lot's of things interesting, not just things inside Canada. I like to try to take a world view. Therefore it is important to me to try to keep abreast of things around the world not just in Canada or the U.S.
Also this thread did not start out as a political comment remember? It got hijacked like most of them do by some comments which had little to do with the thread., and were more political comment.
Since Obama has taken office he hasn't raised the debt nearly as much as Bush did.
This is totally and utterly not true. Obama has raised our debt. Here's why:
The Office of Management and Budget presents this wake up call for the Obama administration. This is the first year that America will run a trillion-dollar budget deficit. Over the next decade, Obama's budget plans to borrow another $9 trillion ... more than doubling our national debt. This year, Washington will spend $30,958 per household. The breakdown goes something like this: about $17,000 from taxes and $13,000 from borrowing. That is an increase of 22% in federal spending this year and a record 26% of the GDP. So you are saying, "Ah well this is just an extraordinary year and Obama inherited Bush's mess and blah blah blah." Well Obama's budget permanently keeps spending between $5,000 and $8,000 per household higher than it was under George Bush.
In other words ... there is absolutely no way that we can continue the current level of government spending and expect this nation to survive.
What Barack Obama is currently doing in Washington will be paid for for generations. The Heritage Foundation has done some research into Obama's spending habits. Here are just a few of the highlights .. things that your children can thank Barack Obama for someday, and things that you can thank those drivers with the Obama bumper stickers for today:
- The 22 percent spending increase projected for 2009 represents the largest government expansion since the 1952 height of the Korean War (adjusted for inflation). Federal spending is up 57 percent since 2001.
- While the costs of the financial bailouts and economic stimulus bills are staggering, they are only a fraction of the coming costs from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Over the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that each year Medicaid will expand by 7 percent, Medicare by 6 percent, and Social Security by 5 percent. These programs face a 75-year shortfall of $43 trillion--60 times greater than the gross cost of the $700 billion TARP financial bailout.
- President Obama claims that "we have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade." This is not true. The President first creates a fantasy baseline that assumes the Iraq surge continues forever (which was never U.S. policy) and then "saves" $1.5 trillion against that baseline by ending the surge as scheduled. It is like a family "saving" $10,000 by first assuming an expensive vacation and then not taking it. Another $1 trillion in "savings" is actually tax increases (in other words, savings for government, not taxpayers).
- Federal spending per household (adjusted for inflation) remained constant at $21,000 throughout the 1980s and 1990s, before President Bush hiked it to $25,000. In 2009, Washington will spend $30,958 per household--the highest level in American history--and under President Obama's budget, the figure will rise above $33,000 by 2019.
- While President Obama claims to have inherited the 2009 budget deficit, it is important to note that the estimated 2009 budget deficit has increased by $400 billion since his inauguration, and the whole point of the "stimulus" was to increase deficit spending to nearly $2 trillion based on the unproven notion that would it alleviate the recession. This suggests that even if the President had not inherited a big deficit, he would have created one as a matter of anti-recessionary policy.
- The public national debt--$5.8 trillion as of 2008--is projected to double by 2012 and nearly triple by 2019. Thus, America would accumulate more government debt under President Obama than under every President in American history from George Washington to George W. Bush combined.
- The White House brags that it will cut the deficit in half by 2013. The President does not mention that the deficit has nearly quadrupled this year. Merely cutting it half from that bloated level would still leave budget deficits twice as high as under President Bush...
Bottom line is this, Bush and the Republicans were bad...so the people threw them out...but the Democrats are turning out to be much, much worse...and our children and grandchildren are going to the ones left with the bill.
Ok, so I just got pissed off all over again from reading about what Princess Pelosi said...
"What I think the people of the United States deserve is a middle class tax cut. So at the end of the day we will have a vote to extend the Obama Middle Class Tax Cuts."
First .... We are back at this use of the word "deserve" crap. How do you like the idea of this multi-millionaire (to the tune of around $40 million or so) telling YOU what you deserve? You get up, chow down, dress up and head out to bust your ass for eight to ten hours or however long you work and Two weeks from now you get a pay check .. and there's Nancy Pelosi telling you how much of this check you "deserve" to keep? Aren't you loving that? This is freaking ridiculous, we have to get these people out of power.
Then we have the "Obama Middle Class Tax Cuts" thing. That's the new language right out of ObamaLand. Pelosi is following her instructions well. If the Bush tax cuts are extended the last thing The Community Organizer wants is for the "Bush" name to remain attached to them. Hence the "Obama Middle Class Tax Cuts" thing. Of course this means that if the Bush tax cuts aren't extended for the evil rich that will have to be called the "Obama Tax Increase."
I'm confused, you don't want the tax cut if Bush's name isn't on it? I don't have time to catch up with what came after this post, perhaps I'll find clarity there when I get to it?
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Since Obama has taken office he hasn't raised the debt nearly as much as Bush did.
how can you say that seriously? or without a single link to back that up?
In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan. At the end of fiscal year 1989, which ended eight months after President Reagan left office, the total federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
hen President Barack Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, the total federal debt held by the public stood at 6.3073 trillion, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department. As of Aug. 20, 2010, after the first nineteen months of President Obamas 48-month term, the total federal debt held by the public had grown to a total of $8.8333 trillion, an increase of $2.5260 trillion.
In just the last four months (May through August 2010), according to the CBO, the Obama administration has run cumulative deficits of $464 billion, more than the $458 billion deficit the Bush administration ran through the entirety of fiscal 2008.
The first two fiscal years in which Obama has served will see the two biggest federal deficits as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product since the end of World War II.
CBO currently estimates that the deficit for 2010 will be about $70 billion below last years total but will still exceed $1.3 trillion, said the CBOs monthly budget review for September, which was released yesterday. Relative to the size of the economy, this years deficit is expected to be the second-largest shortfall in the past 65 years: At 9.1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), that deficit will be exceeded only by last years deficit of 9.9 percent of GDP.
that being said... bush was still a big government, over-spending politician that was more concerned with making himself and his party look good and get re-elected than the actual welfare of the people.
... just what most hate in a government. of course it backfired on him
Ok, so I just got pissed off all over again from reading about what Princess Pelosi said...
"What I think the people of the United States deserve is a middle class tax cut. So at the end of the day we will have a vote to extend the Obama Middle Class Tax Cuts."
First .... We are back at this use of the word "deserve" crap. How do you like the idea of this multi-millionaire (to the tune of around $40 million or so) telling YOU what you deserve? You get up, chow down, dress up and head out to bust your ass for eight to ten hours or however long you work and Two weeks from now you get a pay check .. and there's Nancy Pelosi telling you how much of this check you "deserve" to keep? Aren't you loving that? This is freaking ridiculous, we have to get these people out of power.
Then we have the "Obama Middle Class Tax Cuts" thing. That's the new language right out of ObamaLand. Pelosi is following her instructions well. If the Bush tax cuts are extended the last thing The Community Organizer wants is for the "Bush" name to remain attached to them. Hence the "Obama Middle Class Tax Cuts" thing. Of course this means that if the Bush tax cuts aren't extended for the evil rich that will have to be called the "Obama Tax Increase."
I'm confused, you don't want the tax cut if Bush's name isn't on it? I don't have time to catch up with what came after this post, perhaps I'll find clarity there when I get to it?
basically, Pelosi is saying if she/Obama/Reid extend the Bush tax cuts, they won't be called that...they will be "passing Obama's Middle Class Tax Cuts".
Since Obama has taken office he hasn't raised the debt nearly as much as Bush did.
how can you say that seriously? or without a single link to back that up?
In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan. At the end of fiscal year 1989, which ended eight months after President Reagan left office, the total federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
hen President Barack Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, the total federal debt held by the public stood at 6.3073 trillion, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department. As of Aug. 20, 2010, after the first nineteen months of President Obamas 48-month term, the total federal debt held by the public had grown to a total of $8.8333 trillion, an increase of $2.5260 trillion.
In just the last four months (May through August 2010), according to the CBO, the Obama administration has run cumulative deficits of $464 billion, more than the $458 billion deficit the Bush administration ran through the entirety of fiscal 2008.
The first two fiscal years in which Obama has served will see the two biggest federal deficits as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product since the end of World War II.
CBO currently estimates that the deficit for 2010 will be about $70 billion below last years total but will still exceed $1.3 trillion, said the CBOs monthly budget review for September, which was released yesterday. Relative to the size of the economy, this years deficit is expected to be the second-largest shortfall in the past 65 years: At 9.1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), that deficit will be exceeded only by last years deficit of 9.9 percent of GDP.
that being said... bush was still a big government, over-spending politician that was more concerned with making himself and his party look good and get re-elected than the actual welfare of the people.
... just what most hate in a government. of course it backfired on him
I'm not going to go dig up a bunch of links as I've already done this like a year ago when we all had this debate but you see when the previous admin never put any of the war funding/tax cuts and other expenses on the books they don't show up. But when Obama actually put them on the books yes, it reflected that. Let us not forget that with the bills already passed for stimulus, yes it has risen but the govt had to pump money however we would probably agree on they didn't do a great job however the bank bailouts were constructed under the bush admin and the stimulus package was already in the works before Obama took over. Blaming Obama for the rise in debt is far from any truth. If you want to blame that on anyone blame it on Bush and the Republicans, as they usually are the ones who take surplus's and make deficits. It's an on-going trend....
but yes, as the books show it Obama has raised the debt dramatically but you have to know what happened for it to do so. .. One could say that since just the tax cuts that the republicans passed through reconciliation, just the 250,000 dollar and up tax cut is probably going to actually expire that will save roughly around 700 billion over 10 years (according to the CBO) but the republicans are all about them so yes they have no problem borrowing for them but not for unemployment benefits or small business's. Yup, the dems have their quams but at least they don't squeal about debt then do the very things to make it grow.
I'm not going to go dig up a bunch of links as I've already done this like a year ago when we all had this debate but you see when the previous admin never put any of the war funding/tax cuts and other expenses on the books they don't show up. But when Obama actually put them on the books yes, it reflected that. Let us not forget that with the bills already passed for stimulus, yes it has risen but the govt had to pump money however we would probably agree on they didn't do a great job however the bank bailouts were constructed under the bush admin and the stimulus package was already in the works before Obama took over. Blaming Obama for the rise in debt is far from any truth. If you want to blame that on anyone blame it on Bush and the Republicans, as they usually are the ones who take surplus's and make deficits. It's an on-going trend....
but yes, as the books show it Obama has raised the debt dramatically but you have to know what happened for it to do so. .. One could say that since just the tax cuts that the republicans passed through reconciliation, just the 250,000 dollar and up tax cut is probably going to actually expire that will save roughly around 700 billion over 10 years (according to the CBO) but the republicans are all about them so yes they have no problem borrowing for them but not for unemployment benefits or small business's. Yup, the dems have their quams but at least they don't squeal about debt then do the very things to make it grow.
again you blame bush. two years in and you blame bush. Can obama ever stand on his own? the debate isnt about why he spent the money, its if he did spend the money. what you are saying here is "he didnt spend the money but all that money he spent is bush's fault." that makes no sense. this is a weak argument. you have nothing to back it up. bush may have had one stimulus package, but Obama passed one on his watch too
convenient that you dont "feel" like digging up links to prove your point. so i did a bit of digging and i cant find ANYTHING to support that claim. (save for one undocumented, unsupported blog post) pleas link me.
and, we did not discuss this "last year" because last year, almost none of the links or statistics i am using even existed at that point. a year ago we were discussing if he was going to be doing this. ... and he did. .
I'm not going to go dig up a bunch of links as I've already done this like a year ago when we all had this debate but you see when the previous admin never put any of the war funding/tax cuts and other expenses on the books they don't show up. But when Obama actually put them on the books yes, it reflected that. Let us not forget that with the bills already passed for stimulus, yes it has risen but the govt had to pump money however we would probably agree on they didn't do a great job however the bank bailouts were constructed under the bush admin and the stimulus package was already in the works before Obama took over. Blaming Obama for the rise in debt is far from any truth. If you want to blame that on anyone blame it on Bush and the Republicans, as they usually are the ones who take surplus's and make deficits. It's an on-going trend....
but yes, as the books show it Obama has raised the debt dramatically but you have to know what happened for it to do so. .. One could say that since just the tax cuts that the republicans passed through reconciliation, just the 250,000 dollar and up tax cut is probably going to actually expire that will save roughly around 700 billion over 10 years (according to the CBO) but the republicans are all about them so yes they have no problem borrowing for them but not for unemployment benefits or small business's. Yup, the dems have their quams but at least they don't squeal about debt then do the very things to make it grow.
again you blame bush. two years in and you blame bush. Can obama ever stand on his own? the debate isnt about why he spent the money, its if he did spend the money. what you are saying here is "he didnt spend the money but all that money he spent is bush's fault." that makes no sense. this is a weak argument. you have nothing to back it up. bush may have had one stimulus package, but Obama passed one on his watch too
convenient that you dont "feel" like digging up links to prove your point. so i did a bit of digging and i cant find ANYTHING to support that claim. (save for one undocumented, unsupported blog post) pleas link me.
and, we did not discuss this "last year" because last year, almost none of the links or statistics i am using even existed at that point. a year ago we were discussing if he was going to be doing this. ... and he did. .
Also if you want to criticize the wars for raising the debt, you have to keep in mind that the stimulus bill that President Obama passed in his first few months in office cost more than all 8 years of the Iraq war. I know you're argument is that Obama spend this money for the "right" reasons, but that however is purely opinion. The facts are he spent more and is on schedule to send us farther in debt than any President in history by the projections from both the White House and the CBO.
dude, I've torn apart your so links in the past, as you are prone to post half the truth of many issues (such as medicare) and when I ever call you out on it you don't say anything about it. I'm not saying your links here are bad. Like I said, yes as the books show, Obama has put a huge amount of debt on the record, but when wars, tax cuts, complete govt reconstruction, massive payout to private military contractors, and other deeds are not put on the books and when a new president comes in and does actually account for them, he's to blame? okay.. I never said all was bush's fault, I said that Obama has pushed through some expensive bills and such however if the republican party and I'll blame Clinton as well hadn't have F'd with the entirety of our economic system then there wouldn't be a huge deficit. Also BUSH HAD A SURPLUS WHEN HE CAME INTO OFFICE!!!! Did he leave it that way? Hell no. When he left the country was almost in a depression however he and his other buddies were able to give almost a trillion dollars to the biggest corporations! Though the dems should have filler busted the bill, they did not, only made them re-write it to more than one page. But the deed was pushed and signed by him. That wasn't paid for, just like so much of what his admin did. Blame Bush? Yes, for a lot. Like I blame Clinton for F'ing over the middle class and manufacturing jobs. And the main stream media doesn't report ***. Only when a couple of hundred tea baggers show up do they but when a 200 plus thousand march on washington for gay rights no one is around. The media is so biased it pathetic. But they'll cover Tiger Woods **** a porstar or whether Obama is a Kenyan or a muslim. It's pure theater. The old way of media such as Walter Cronkite, or Dan Rather actually reporting on news.
btw your link - from the washington examiner is so full of BS. The first few things it mentions is that Obama is pushing/pushed a complete take-over of health care, which is not true. The damn bill is all about giving private insurers more incentives, with taking a few things away. It also fails to mention the medicare bill that bush passed was never paid for - once again. The bush education plan, leave no child behind.. yeah was never appropriate funds and thus caused worse education and made teachers lose jobs. See the thing is, over the last few decades our govt has moved so far to helping and giving huge corporations the goods while leaving all the services we as citizens take for granted to fall apart. from roads, bridges, education, health care, police, fire, environmental protection... So when a president who sees this and wants to fix it, yeah it costs money. And money well spent.
dude, I've torn apart your so links in the past, as you are prone to post half the truth of many issues (such as medicare) and when I ever call you out on it you don't say anything about it. I'm not saying your links here are bad. Like I said, yes as the books show, Obama has put a huge amount of debt on the record, but when wars, tax cuts, complete govt reconstruction, massive payout to private military contractors, and other deeds are not put on the books and when a new president comes in and does actually account for them, he's to blame? okay.. I never said all was bush's fault, I said that Obama has pushed through some expensive bills and such however if the republican party and I'll blame Clinton as well hadn't have F'd with the entirety of our economic system then there wouldn't be a huge deficit. Also BUSH HAD A SURPLUS WHEN HE CAME INTO OFFICE!!!! Did he leave it that way? Hell no. When he left the country was almost in a depression however he and his other buddies were able to give almost a trillion dollars to the biggest corporations! Though the dems should have filler busted the bill, they did not, only made them re-write it to more than one page. But the deed was pushed and signed by him. That wasn't paid for, just like so much of what his admin did. Blame Bush? Yes, for a lot. Like I blame Clinton for F'ing over the middle class and manufacturing jobs. And the main stream media doesn't report ***. Only when a couple of hundred tea baggers show up do they but when a 200 plus thousand march on washington for gay rights no one is around. The media is so biased it pathetic. But they'll cover Tiger Woods **** a porstar or whether Obama is a Kenyan or a muslim. It's pure theater. The old way of media such as Walter Cronkite, or Dan Rather actually reporting on news.
btw your link - from the washington examiner is so full of BS. The first few things it mentions is that Obama is pushing/pushed a complete take-over of health care, which is not true. The damn bill is all about giving private insurers more incentives, with taking a few things away. It also fails to mention the medicare bill that bush passed was never paid for - once again. The bush education plan, leave no child behind.. yeah was never appropriate funds and thus caused worse education and made teachers lose jobs. See the thing is, over the last few decades our govt has moved so far to helping and giving huge corporations the goods while leaving all the services we as citizens take for granted to fall apart. from roads, bridges, education, health care, police, fire, environmental protection... So when a president who sees this and wants to fix it, yeah it costs money. And money well spent.
How can you give the dems only partial blame for any of the bailouts and stimulus? Almost every single democrat in office voted for both pieces of legislation. The only real opposition to these bills was from the Republicans. Maybe you forget, but during the last part of Bush's stint as President the Democrats controlled congress. Nothing passed without the Dems signing off on it. To put most of the blame on him is really lame... Also nobody ever remembers that the Republicans controlled congress when Clinton had a surplus... Hmmm... Who controls spending in our government again?
dude, I've torn apart your so links in the past, as you are prone to post half the truth of many issues (such as medicare) and when I ever call you out on it you don't say anything about it. I'm not saying your links here are bad. Like I said, yes as the books show, Obama has put a huge amount of debt on the record, but when wars, tax cuts, complete govt reconstruction, massive payout to private military contractors, and other deeds are not put on the books and when a new president comes in and does actually account for them, he's to blame? okay.. I never said all was bush's fault, I said that Obama has pushed through some expensive bills and such however if the republican party and I'll blame Clinton as well hadn't have F'd with the entirety of our economic system then there wouldn't be a huge deficit. Also BUSH HAD A SURPLUS WHEN HE CAME INTO OFFICE!!!! Did he leave it that way? Hell no. When he left the country was almost in a depression however he and his other buddies were able to give almost a trillion dollars to the biggest corporations! Though the dems should have filler busted the bill, they did not, only made them re-write it to more than one page. But the deed was pushed and signed by him. That wasn't paid for, just like so much of what his admin did. Blame Bush? Yes, for a lot. Like I blame Clinton for F'ing over the middle class and manufacturing jobs. And the main stream media doesn't report ***. Only when a couple of hundred tea baggers show up do they but when a 200 plus thousand march on washington for gay rights no one is around. The media is so biased it pathetic. But they'll cover Tiger Woods **** a porstar or whether Obama is a Kenyan or a muslim. It's pure theater. The old way of media such as Walter Cronkite, or Dan Rather actually reporting on news.
btw your link - from the washington examiner is so full of BS. The first few things it mentions is that Obama is pushing/pushed a complete take-over of health care, which is not true. The damn bill is all about giving private insurers more incentives, with taking a few things away. It also fails to mention the medicare bill that bush passed was never paid for - once again. The bush education plan, leave no child behind.. yeah was never appropriate funds and thus caused worse education and made teachers lose jobs. See the thing is, over the last few decades our govt has moved so far to helping and giving huge corporations the goods while leaving all the services we as citizens take for granted to fall apart. from roads, bridges, education, health care, police, fire, environmental protection... So when a president who sees this and wants to fix it, yeah it costs money. And money well spent.
How can you give the dems only partial blame for any of the bailouts and stimulus? Almost every single democrat in office voted for both pieces of legislation. The only real opposition to these bills was from the Republicans. Maybe you forget, but during the last part of Bush's stint as President the Democrats controlled congress. Nothing passed without the Dems signing off on it. To put most of the blame on him is really lame... Also nobody ever remembers that the Republicans controlled congress when Clinton had a surplus... Hmmm... Who controls spending in our government again?
lol, yeah republicans only controlled for a short time, but they had nothing to do with deficit. It was clinton's white house that had come up with paygo which paid for things instead of borrowing. Though he did enough damage with nafta and such. Republicans will spend less and or balance the budget when hell freezes over. Even now they say they want to but most if not all proposals they offer (and they are few) will do the exact opposite. You are right though, why dems voted for some of these bills is amazing. And not every democrat voted for the bush bailout, but yes enough of them did. I think that people once again voted before understanding what it was they were voting for. I do remember republicans and Roe and others saying if these huge banks and wall street fail then our economy would fall into a depression. Only partly true as there wasn't as much damage done as they had been lying about. Rumor is only one or two institutions went under but that's neither here nor there. I do blame democrats, I don't want you thinking I don't They both suck. I don't think all of Obama's ideas are the "right" thing, I just know that what is coming out of this white house is helping/helped more small business's, unemployed, uninsured, our infrastructure, green jobs, manufacturing, our automobile companies, environment is much safer than in the hands of the republicans. I can't remember when a democrat ignored intelligence reports which caused the worst terrorist attack on our soil, the biggest heist of our taxes, an illegal war which was sold and manufactured? But oh hell when a so-called xmas bomber is in an airport god forbid let's all stop all news and cover it to death and even though it was stopped let's say because of a democrat "obama" is president we are less safe! give me a break. Nothing makes our country less safe than invading a country with no evidence, and rage war against a few thousands people less than the numbers in the MOB with our MILITary in the Middle east. sure... But to be fair I have a big problem with how weak obama has been by conceding legislation which makes it much weaker than it should have been. Like the cash for clunkers, my god, the only American was taken out due to the whining of republicans and a few democrats. I mean let's just hand out money to foreign companies, but a few weeks later China passes buy China only! wow. I do give kudos to the republicans for being lock step even when they are denying people unemployment, healthcare, wages people can live on, environmental legislation that will keep us safe, manufacturing to bring jobs and bring money into the treasury, good education, social safety nets for retirees, and any defense against large corporations who prey on the masses. Nope, tax cuts, tax loopholes, contracts with private companies, backing private health insurer's-big oil companies-wall street-mega banks is what the republicans advocate- yes some dems sadly.
Who decides what is "reasonable" for someone to be compensated? IMO, only that person and whomever is compensating them.
I'd imagine a lot of people who get worked up over what "unimportant" professions are paid would get up in arms if someone decided they are paid too much.
As far as attacking the president, c;mon, lets be objective about it. In the past decade politics have become much more contentious, but have done so on both sides. You never saw a "Not My President" shirt on someone during President Bush's terms?
To keep calling the Iraq war illegal is also a lie that continues to be spewed on here... Does anyone think if the Iraq war was actually illegal, the democrat controlled congress would have let that slide as bad as they hated President Bush? You don't even hear that term in the left leaning main stream media. That one is reserved for the far left elites like Huffpo... You lose all credibility with me when you make false statements over and over.
Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution reads: "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills." A president has no power to raise or lower taxes. He can propose tax measures or veto them but since Congress can ignore presidential proposals and override a presidential veto, it has the ultimate taxing power. The same principle applies to spending. A president cannot spend a dime that Congress does not first appropriate. As such, presidents cannot be held responsible for budget deficits or surpluses. That means that credit for a budget surplus or blame for budget deficits rests on the congressional majority at the time.
You never saw a "Not My President" shirt on someone during President Bush's terms?
You also saw, "BUCK FUSH!" shirts. "I didn't vote for the monkey from Texas." shirts. "There's a village in Texas missing their idiot." shirts...... etc, etc......
I love this stuff. It's what makes America great. Being critical of your leaders, even if it involves 9th grade humor, is part of what makes us a free country. Here's my new favorite:
Guns don't kill people, Daddies with pretty daughters do…..
Comments
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
"Long ashes my friends."
"What I think the people of the United States deserve is a middle class tax cut. So at the end of the day we will have a vote to extend the Obama Middle Class Tax Cuts."
First .... We are back at this use of the word "deserve" crap. How do you like the idea of this multi-millionaire (to the tune of around $40 million or so) telling YOU what you deserve? You get up, chow down, dress up and head out to bust your ass for eight to ten hours or however long you work and Two weeks from now you get a pay check .. and there's Nancy Pelosi telling you how much of this check you "deserve" to keep? Aren't you loving that? This is freaking ridiculous, we have to get these people out of power.
Then we have the "Obama Middle Class Tax Cuts" thing. That's the new language right out of ObamaLand. Pelosi is following her instructions well. If the Bush tax cuts are extended the last thing The Community Organizer wants is for the "Bush" name to remain attached to them. Hence the "Obama Middle Class Tax Cuts" thing. Of course this means that if the Bush tax cuts aren't extended for the evil rich that will have to be called the "Obama Tax Increase."
"Long ashes my friends."
A little Friday humor folks, not trying to fight before someone misinterprets.
Right, left, rich, poor, they are politicians, and that means they will continue to do it. I guess yesterday was just a blip, as a couple of you guy's just couldn't help yourselves today eh?
I'm out, this post just rounded the waste of time corner.
What do you mean "blaming" one person? I was referring to what one person said. And if you haven't noticed, people are sick and tired of bigger govt, more spending, higher taxes. Republicans are just now starting to figure out they are not safe either this election cycle. They (most of them, not all) probably thought they were going to waltz into power while just standing on the sidelines. They are going to have to get off their ass and take a stand on the issues. With the primary results in Delaware, really woke some Republicans up, they aren't safe either.
Also...what do you care about American politics? Just curious...
"Long ashes my friends."
To answer your question about American Politics... I find lot's of things interesting, not just things inside Canada. I like to try to take a world view. Therefore it is important to me to try to keep abreast of things around the world not just in Canada or the U.S.
Also this thread did not start out as a political comment remember? It got hijacked like most of them do by some comments which had little to do with the thread., and were more political comment.
Since Obama has taken office he hasn't raised the debt nearly as much as Bush did. I don't see where you get this "bigger govt and bigger spending" BS? I mean if your saying that passing unemployment insurance, job bills, a LOAN for the AMERICAN CAR INDUSTRY (MINUS FORD), Health Insurance Reform (flawed as it is), and other policies meant to help the other 98/97 percent of us is BAD but helping out the super rich and powerful over the other 98 percent of us is good then I guess you have your party. The Dems are pissing me off but the republicans pledge to repeal everything, privatize social security/medicare, keep the tax cuts, and continue the policies that caused this economy.
"Long ashes my friends."
The Office of Management and Budget presents this wake up call for the Obama administration. This is the first year that America will run a trillion-dollar budget deficit. Over the next decade, Obama's budget plans to borrow another $9 trillion ... more than doubling our national debt. This year, Washington will spend $30,958 per household. The breakdown goes something like this: about $17,000 from taxes and $13,000 from borrowing. That is an increase of 22% in federal spending this year and a record 26% of the GDP. So you are saying, "Ah well this is just an extraordinary year and Obama inherited Bush's mess and blah blah blah." Well Obama's budget permanently keeps spending between $5,000 and $8,000 per household higher than it was under George Bush.
In other words ... there is absolutely no way that we can continue the current level of government spending and expect this nation to survive.
What Barack Obama is currently doing in Washington will be paid for for generations. The Heritage Foundation has done some research into Obama's spending habits. Here are just a few of the highlights .. things that your children can thank Barack Obama for someday, and things that you can thank those drivers with the Obama bumper stickers for today:
- The 22 percent spending increase projected for 2009 represents the largest government expansion since the 1952 height of the Korean War (adjusted for inflation). Federal spending is up 57 percent since 2001.
- While the costs of the financial bailouts and economic stimulus bills are staggering, they are only a fraction of the coming costs from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Over the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that each year Medicaid will expand by 7 percent, Medicare by 6 percent, and Social Security by 5 percent. These programs face a 75-year shortfall of $43 trillion--60 times greater than the gross cost of the $700 billion TARP financial bailout.
- President Obama claims that "we have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade." This is not true. The President first creates a fantasy baseline that assumes the Iraq surge continues forever (which was never U.S. policy) and then "saves" $1.5 trillion against that baseline by ending the surge as scheduled. It is like a family "saving" $10,000 by first assuming an expensive vacation and then not taking it. Another $1 trillion in "savings" is actually tax increases (in other words, savings for government, not taxpayers).
- Federal spending per household (adjusted for inflation) remained constant at $21,000 throughout the 1980s and 1990s, before President Bush hiked it to $25,000. In 2009, Washington will spend $30,958 per household--the highest level in American history--and under President Obama's budget, the figure will rise above $33,000 by 2019.
- While President Obama claims to have inherited the 2009 budget deficit, it is important to note that the estimated 2009 budget deficit has increased by $400 billion since his inauguration, and the whole point of the "stimulus" was to increase deficit spending to nearly $2 trillion based on the unproven notion that would it alleviate the recession. This suggests that even if the President had not inherited a big deficit, he would have created one as a matter of anti-recessionary policy.
- The public national debt--$5.8 trillion as of 2008--is projected to double by 2012 and nearly triple by 2019. Thus, America would accumulate more government debt under President Obama than under every President in American history from George Washington to George W. Bush combined.
- The White House brags that it will cut the deficit in half by 2013. The President does not mention that the deficit has nearly quadrupled this year. Merely cutting it half from that bloated level would still leave budget deficits twice as high as under President Bush...
Bottom line is this, Bush and the Republicans were bad...so the people threw them out...but the Democrats are turning out to be much, much worse...and our children and grandchildren are going to the ones left with the bill.
"Long ashes my friends."
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
or without a single link to back that up?
In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan. At the end of fiscal year 1989, which ended eight months after President Reagan left office, the total federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
hen President Barack Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, the total federal debt held by the public stood at 6.3073 trillion, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department. As of Aug. 20, 2010, after the first nineteen months of President Obamas 48-month term, the total federal debt held by the public had grown to a total of $8.8333 trillion, an increase of $2.5260 trillion.
In just the last four months (May through August 2010), according to the CBO, the Obama administration has run cumulative deficits of $464 billion, more than the $458 billion deficit the Bush administration ran through the entirety of fiscal 2008.
The first two fiscal years in which Obama has served will see the two biggest federal deficits as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product since the end of World War II.
CBO currently estimates that the deficit for 2010 will be about $70 billion below last years total but will still exceed $1.3 trillion, said the CBOs monthly budget review for September, which was released yesterday. Relative to the size of the economy, this years deficit is expected to be the second-largest shortfall in the past 65 years: At 9.1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), that deficit will be exceeded only by last years deficit of 9.9 percent of GDP.
Debt under Obama increases $5 billion per day -- 3 times the Bush rate (third paragraph)
National Debt Up $2 Trillion on Obama's Watch
and compared to bush:
Obama trims budget, but less than Bush
that being said...
bush was still a big government, over-spending politician that was more concerned with making himself and his party look good and get re-elected than the actual welfare of the people.
... just what most hate in a government.
of course it backfired on him
"Long ashes my friends."
but yes, as the books show it Obama has raised the debt dramatically but you have to know what happened for it to do so. .. One could say that since just the tax cuts that the republicans passed through reconciliation, just the 250,000 dollar and up tax cut is probably going to actually expire that will save roughly around 700 billion over 10 years (according to the CBO) but the republicans are all about them so yes they have no problem borrowing for them but not for unemployment benefits or small business's. Yup, the dems have their quams but at least they don't squeal about debt then do the very things to make it grow.
what you are saying here is "he didnt spend the money but all that money he spent is bush's fault."
that makes no sense.
this is a weak argument. you have nothing to back it up. bush may have had one stimulus package, but Obama passed one on his watch too
convenient that you dont "feel" like digging up links to prove your point. so i did a bit of digging and i cant find ANYTHING to support that claim. (save for one undocumented, unsupported blog post)
pleas link me.
and, we did not discuss this "last year" because last year, almost none of the links or statistics i am using even existed at that point. a year ago we were discussing if he was going to be doing this. ... and he did. .
Just a link or two more:
the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008. The current administration would kill to have such small numbers.
Bush began a string of expensive financial bailouts, which Obama is vastly expanding. if you didnt like Bush's spending why is it OK when Obama doubles down on it?
from CBS news: President George W. Bush still holds the record for the most debt run up on his watch: $4.9 trillion. But it took him over four years to rack up the first two trillion dollars in debt. It has taken Mr. Obama 421 days.
youd think the main stream media that was no fan of Bush would want to mention all the "off the books" stuff to get a clear picture of what was going on.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Little-known-fact-Obamas-failed-stimulus-program-cost-more-than-the-Iraq-war-101302919.html
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
Blame Bush? Yes, for a lot. Like I blame Clinton for F'ing over the middle class and manufacturing jobs. And the main stream media doesn't report ***. Only when a couple of hundred tea baggers show up do they but when a 200 plus thousand march on washington for gay rights no one is around. The media is so biased it pathetic. But they'll cover Tiger Woods **** a porstar or whether Obama is a Kenyan or a muslim. It's pure theater. The old way of media such as Walter Cronkite, or Dan Rather actually reporting on news.
btw your link - from the washington examiner is so full of BS. The first few things it mentions is that Obama is pushing/pushed a complete take-over of health care, which is not true. The damn bill is all about giving private insurers more incentives, with taking a few things away. It also fails to mention the medicare bill that bush passed was never paid for - once again. The bush education plan, leave no child behind.. yeah was never appropriate funds and thus caused worse education and made teachers lose jobs. See the thing is, over the last few decades our govt has moved so far to helping and giving huge corporations the goods while leaving all the services we as citizens take for granted to fall apart. from roads, bridges, education, health care, police, fire, environmental protection... So when a president who sees this and wants to fix it, yeah it costs money. And money well spent.
But to be fair I have a big problem with how weak obama has been by conceding legislation which makes it much weaker than it should have been. Like the cash for clunkers, my god, the only American was taken out due to the whining of republicans and a few democrats. I mean let's just hand out money to foreign companies, but a few weeks later China passes buy China only! wow. I do give kudos to the republicans for being lock step even when they are denying people unemployment, healthcare, wages people can live on, environmental legislation that will keep us safe, manufacturing to bring jobs and bring money into the treasury, good education, social safety nets for retirees, and any defense against large corporations who prey on the masses. Nope, tax cuts, tax loopholes, contracts with private companies, backing private health insurer's-big oil companies-wall street-mega banks is what the republicans advocate- yes some dems sadly.
I'd imagine a lot of people who get worked up over what "unimportant" professions are paid would get up in arms if someone decided they are paid too much.
As far as attacking the president, c;mon, lets be objective about it. In the past decade politics have become much more contentious, but have done so on both sides. You never saw a "Not My President" shirt on someone during President Bush's terms?
I love this stuff. It's what makes America great. Being critical of your leaders, even if it involves 9th grade humor, is part of what makes us a free country. Here's my new favorite: