An honest question for Republicans/Obama bashers...

uneverno

Active Member
To be fair, the president only approves the budget, he doesn't create it.
Neither the R's or the D's in Congress did anything but increase spending when they were the majority power. The only issue was where the money was to be allocated. It was gonna be spent either way.
Want an example of where the Fed is headed? Look at CA.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid
http:///forum/post/3025482
$127 billion dollar surplus to $482 billion dollar deficit.
If you can explain how that happened without government spending, then I will gladly take my questions and comments off the table.
Just because 43 spent money on a war, and not rebuilding some bridges, doesn't mean he wasn't spending money.
On top of that, the only people who benefited from that, were a bunch of Iraqi's who for the most part can't stand us anyways (Ask any vet, they'd be happy to tell you) and a lot of private contractors.
Again, maybe I don't see the "big picture", or maybe you just see something that isn't there...

Here is what you aren't factoring in and not seeing. Not as if I am going to change your mind because you have never oce saw a single point anyone has made from our side of the aisle as valid. But here it is. what you do with it is your business.
Clinton did NOT have a 9/11 style attack cripple the economy at the beginning of his watch. that was action number one.
Clinton did NOT have a natural disaster of the epic proportions of Katrina which the government helped rebuild.
Clinton DID NOT send 50 billion a year to africa to fight AIDS and the epidemic there.
Clinton DID NOT fight terrorism in any form or fund the military.,
So what I see is a former president that cut military funding, making us vulnerable to attacks in an effeort to create a leagcy for himself. What is his legacy? His legacy is he created a surplus for 1 year. big whoopteedo. It was his last year so it didn't matter the reprecussions to himself, he wasn't running for reelection, so sure secure his legacy.
I see a former president that talked about compassion and global humanity a lot but did nothing about it, where as bush actively funded a group of people not a part of this country to hopeful see that they live a better/safer life through the AIDS aid.
Now with that said, let's run some numbers between Bush 43 and Obama.
The cost of just the Iraq war has been a bit over 600 billion through the end of Bush's term.
The money bush allocated to go to new orleans and the gulf rebuilding was 116 billion dollars.
The cost of the afghanistan (including rebuild and such) is roughly 2 billion a month.
Take all these costs away, and Bush's budget deficit is nearly wiped out.
Disasters come and go, wars will end. This is a fact...these aren't permanent long term costs.
Now Obama in just 100 days has tripled bushes deficit in 100 days. Through government funded programs. Show me a government program that received large amounts of funding that has EVER gone away. My problem is not the initial spending on things such as these, but the FACT we will spend on them each year from here on out.
Factor in Bush cut taxes across the board. Obama will have NO CHOICE but to raise EVERYONE'S taxes, those of us that pay anyway. So what am I doing? holding my money for the tax man instead of buying something at the moment, because it will come. It has to. A lot of people I know are doing this...which doesn't help the economy now does it?
The other thing, this "rebate" we get on our checks of 13 dollars a week is just a "loan"...we still get taxed the same rate so if we owe money that 13 dollars in factored in. If we usually get back money, we get back less, because we got that 13 dollars a week ahead of time.....so he didn't do anyone any favors....he basically gave us money were going to get anyway or basically gave us a loan we have to pay back in the form of taxes at the end of the year.
So do you see the difference yet? Didn't think so.
Darth (Had some time to kill) Tang
 

ruaround

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3025570
So do you see the difference yet? Didn't think so.
Darth (Had some time to kill) Tang
of course he wont... he wasnt even able to read the political topics thread STICKIED at the top of the aquarium... do you honestly think he will be able to do anything other than stammer about a so called surplus??? i dont see how a surplus exists in debt... it must be that "everyone is a winner" mantality...
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by ruaround
http:///forum/post/3025575
of course he wont... he wasnt even able to read the political topics thread STICKIED at the top of the aquarium... do you honestly think he will be able to do anything other than stammer about a so called surplus??? i dont see how a surplus exists in debt... it must be that "everyone is a winner" mantality...
I wasn't even going to touch on this falsy, but since you brought it.
Clemson KID, if Clinton created a surplus, explain to me how the balance on the national debt INCREASED each year he was in office? If he created a surplus in the budget wouldn't the national debt have DECREASED? Just asking..........
Darth (2+2=3) Tang
 

ruaround

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3025582
I wasn't even going to touch on this falsy, but since you brought it.
Clemson KID, if Clinton created a surplus, explain to me how the balance on the national debt INCREASED each year he was in office? If he created a surplus in the budget wouldn't the national debt have DECREASED? Just asking..........
Darth (2+2=3) Tang
you forgot to mention the "Political discussions" thread sticked at the top of the Aquarium forum...
ru(pointing out the obvious)around
 

uneverno

Active Member
I'm sure Clemson is able to defend himself.
It was I who pointed out the numbers in post 6, however, and as such, feel a need to defend my statement.
I put the term "surplus" in quotes because I'm well aware that it wasn't an actual surplus, it was simply not an increase in the deficit. A fine point, to be sure, but important, nonetheless.
Darth - all of the points you make re: Clinton vs. Bush are entirely valid. None of those points negate the debt incurred by the Bush administration, nor we the taxpayers obligation to pay said debt back, however.
I have no problem with deficit spending, especially in times of war or economic turmoil. The problem I have is that our politicians are by and large incapable of realizing the difference between necessity and greed. "We the People's" ability to pay the debt back MUST be a consideration in setting the budget. This is something neither R nor D seems capable of taking into account.
Historically, empires are seldom conquered. They usually collapse under their own debt.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3025588
I
Darth - all of the points you make re: Clinton vs. Bush are entirely valid. None of those points negate the debt incurred by the Bush administration, nor we the taxpayers obligation to pay said debt back, however.
Historically, empires are seldom conquered. They usually collapse under their own debt.

True, I will concede that the debt incurred is not a good thing. But I feel I must reiterate that the difference between Bush and Obama is with the former, I see an end in sight to the acruing debt from his policies. Where as Obama's I see no end to the debt year after year increasing due to constant funding of the new programs and entities....
Tell that to Scotland.............
Darth (Braveheart) Tang
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by ruaround
http:///forum/post/3025587
you forgot to mention the "Political discussions" thread sticked at the top of the Aquarium forum...
ru(pointing out the obvious)around


You are killing me. I will refrain from posting any further in this thread to please you.
Darth (Pinocchio) Tang
 

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3025590
True, I will concede that the debt incurred is not a good thing. But I feel I must reiterate that the difference between Bush and Obama is with the former, I see an end in sight to the acruing debt from his policies. Where as Obama's I see no end to the debt year after year increasing due to constant funding of the new programs and entities....
Tell that to Scotland.............
Darth (Braveheart) Tang
Aye, I concur.
The only end to Bush's accrual of debt is that he's no longer in office. Obama's debt will continue 'til we vote him out or revolt. I don't think a President McCain's debt accrual would be substantially different than Obama's though - maybe a couple or even a couple hundred billion dollars, which at this point is chump change.
The rate at which it adds up may differ slightly between R and D but, the debt can only continue to mount for as long as we the people let it. In the end, the responsibility to stop it is ours.
I may be a tree-huggin' environmentalist liberal, but I'm not an idiot.
 

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid
http:///forum/post/3025482
$127 billion dollar surplus to $482 billion dollar deficit.
If you can explain how that happened without government spending, then I will gladly take my questions and comments off the table.
Just because 43 spent money on a war, and not rebuilding some bridges, doesn't mean he wasn't spending money.
On top of that, the only people who benefited from that, were a bunch of Iraqi's who for the most part can't stand us anyways (Ask any vet, they'd be happy to tell you) and a lot of private contractors.
Again, maybe I don't see the "big picture", or maybe you just see something that isn't there...
Soooo... Obama spending between 3 and 10 TRILLION dollars in less than 100 days is better for our economy?
We "only" spent 7 trillion+ in the war on poverty, and look how well that "downpayment" has done. "The Great Society" ain't so great is it?
Most of the vets I've talked to have a positive outlook on their time in Iraq. They were not interviewed on CNN, ABC, CBS, ABC or MSNBC.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3025442
That's the whole problem as I see it. R's? D's? equally culpable, equally criminal. When it comes to answering to the people (on the extremely rare occasion that actually takes place), then they both circle the wagons and throw "We the People" under the bus.
This whole market failure can be tied to democrats creating a government entity that removed risk when pricing morgages. It is called a moral hazard. And a government created corporation (with no intent of making money purchased high risk loans) the "evil" morgage companies operated as a normal company would, and priced the morgages at a cost that would attract consumers, account for their risk, and knowing they could pass off bad morgages to Fanny and Freddy.
Fanny and freddy took those loans then bundled them into securities to aquire more cash to purchase more loans. Then they cooked their books to make those securities seem much more stable. Then other companies purchased those securities, and other companies insured them. They used these as an alternative to cash since these were in the words of Barny Frank a "riskless investment." Basically they were holding these notes as a slightly less liquid cash.
This is enron on a national level.
And you can go back and look, and it wasn't republican with their fingers in this cookie jar...
So no you really can't blame republican's for what is happening here.
Originally Posted by uneverno

http:///forum/post/3025596
I may be a tree-huggin' environmentalist liberal, but I'm not an idiot.

By definition tree-huggin environmentalist liberal = idiot. If you weren't an idiot would couldn't possibly be a tree hugging environmentalist liberal.
 

ironeagle2006

Active Member
In the MOdern era if you want to see what HAPPENS when a Goverment tries to Spend it way out of a Recession. Look at Japan. Tehy call the 90's the LOST DECADE. They had zero Growth thru it because the Goverment refused to let Business do their things and grow they tried to SPEND their way back to prosperity and FAILED. No recession or Depression has been solved by the GOVERMENT thrown tax dollars at it then RAISING taxes DURING IT. Obama is getting ready to raise taxes DURINGthis one not just by letting the Bush Tax cut expire by also throwing a Carbon usage tax on everyone to the tune of 3100 per person in the USA and who knows how much per Business and he wonders why the Economy is going south still. This recession/depression has lasted 16 months now most last 6 months and most people I talk to are asying it could last 2-3 years more before it improves. BTW these people are the ones that HAUL the stuff that gets used in this nation the Truckers so they would know since they would see their freight volume increase before a recovery and they are not seeing one.
 
You speak as if the war was something with a well defined price tag that would cost 43 the same amount regardless of how he ran it.
Don't get me wrong, I think that after 9/11, he had no choice but to go after Al Queda, and it was the right thing to do.
But I also don't think that invading Iraq (insert generic opinion of all libs war opposition here) had to be done, and that counts for the majority of the "cost of war".
I am a firm believer that if you take out the top of the infrastructure, the rest of the pieces will crumble. For that, I blame not only 43, but also Clinton, who both had more than enough opportunities to get rid of the top levels of the Taliban.
If we have special forces who can take out Somolian pirates from 75 yards on choppy waters, I find it very hard to believe we can't find someone like Bin Laden in similar situations. Or if not our own special ops, take a fraction of that money, and pay someone off on the inside.
Is 10 million dollars paid off to someone in the Taliban for his death worth the price? I would think so...
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid
http:///forum/post/3025779
You speak as if the war was something with a well defined price tag that would cost 43 the same amount regardless of how he ran it.
Don't get me wrong, I think that after 9/11, he had no choice but to go after Al Queda, and it was the right thing to do.
But I also don't think that invading Iraq (insert generic opinion of all libs war opposition here) had to be done, and that counts for the majority of the "cost of war".
I am a firm believer that if you take out the top of the infrastructure, the rest of the pieces will crumble. For that, I blame not only 43, but also Clinton, who both had more than enough opportunities to get rid of the top levels of the Taliban.
If we have special forces who can take out Somolian pirates from 75 yards on choppy waters, I find it very hard to believe we can't find someone like Bin Laden in similar situations. Or if not our own special ops, take a fraction of that money, and pay someone off on the inside.
Is 10 million dollars paid off to someone in the Taliban for his death worth the price? I would think so...
What does this have to do with my rebuttal to your opening post? You wanted to discuss defecit/budget spending, not the reasons and validity for the wars.
Darth (No spin) Tang
 

ruaround

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3025786
What does this have to do with my rebuttal to your opening post? You wanted to discuss defecit/budget spending, not the reasons and validity for the wars.
Darth (No spin) Tang
i told you Darth!!! although the word "surplus" wasnt used...
ru(sees Darths nose growing)around
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by ruaround
http:///forum/post/3025792
i told you Darth!!! although the word "surplus" wasnt used...
ru(sees Darths nose growing)around
Just trying to get a job filling in for Bill Maher.
Darth (how do I get it to widen instead of lengthening) Tang
 

ruaround

Active Member

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3025927
Just trying to get a job filling in for Bill Maher.
Darth (how do I get it to widen instead of lengthening
) Tang
trim off the "surplus" and fasten it to what remains to give the illusion that its widening...
 

mantisman51

Active Member
I am an idependent. I voted for Bush the first time and none of the above the second time. I won't argue over what party is right and which party is wrong. Bush kept us safe, though was a total flop at explaining why he did what he did and wouldn't respond when attacked over the "torture" crap. He was a big business oriented president and when the Republicans controlled Congress they did deregulate much of the protections that stopped the derivitive mess that has completely destroyed the economy. His business policies were a disaster and his willing accomplices in Congress helped destroy the economy. However, it wasn't tax cuts that did it, tax cuts helped keep things afloat a little longer or else his banking policies would have caused the collapse sooner. Barak Obama has some excellent ideas: infrastructure expenditures top among them. Howver, he is EXACTLY what the Republicans said he is-a tax and spend liberal. If Bushes 500 billion $ debt was bad, how is Obamas 5 trillion $ debt good?
 
Top