TARP cost more than the stimulus, IIRC... but let's stick to talking points...
You assholes' fantasy, and slander is that the US budget situation, spending/revenue, started from zero on 20 Jan 2009.
TARP cost more than the stimulus, IIRC... but let's stick to talking points...
Well, for one, he took the public portion of the debt, which actually had a surplus, and used it to cut taxes (6 months into office), turning it effectively into a deficit.
But let's not forget that the surplus was not just on Clinton, but also on a Republican Congress that did what it needed to do to get there.
I thought the dems liked lots of spending?
Same old misleading Yoni...blame the stimulus that has created millions of jobs..President Obama simply put Bush's wars ON BUDGET, along with Medicare Part D. THAT is why the spending was more.....
We currently owe 14 Trillion...
2 Trillion is from the Recession, etc.
4 Trillion is from Bush's policies, including his illegal wars
3 Trillion is from Bush's tax cuts
3.6 Trillion is from Social Security
1.4 Trillion is directly from Obama's policies...
Saying that President Obama spent more than Bush is a Republican lie that blames Obama for all of the debt. It's a smokescreen....
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...About-the-Debt
The cost of Policy changes...Bush versus Obama...
We been over this in a previous post, and I already showed the actual CBO numbers that showed Obama spending a higher annual rate than bush.
Anyone remember what thread that's in?
Bush launched 2 mammoth-sized Wars that an aggregate all-in price tag w/ interest of $1.5 trillion. One of these was completely avoidable, if not flat out fraudulent and the Country stayed in these wars way longer than was budgeted. Bush was the man solely behind that decision.
Bush also increased domestic spending with Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind. These extra expenditures were financed with tax-cuts. To deny Bush blew up deficits is asinine and completely dishonest.
All this said, Obama has actually been worse. The initial post is full of typical partisan SPIN. The initial graph uses 2009's $1 trillion deficit as the baseline for The Kenyan's spending. However, 2009 included TARP spending of several hundred billion! That should have been a one-time expenditure, not something to be used to justify future imprudent levels of spending.
This doesn't even mention that when deficits are at a $1 trillion level, the need to slash them is much greater than it was through at least the first 4-5 years of the Bush Presidency, when the deficits were much more modest and manageable. Obama passed on solid bi-partisan ideas like Simpson-Bowles that could have helped significantly. All he does is rant about raising taxes on the 1%, which hardly even brings in much money.
Also, this graph doesn't include Obamacare at all since that wouldn't kick in for a couple years. However, you'd see deficits grow even further when that happens and he will have beeen the culprit. So the reality is he's taken actions such as the $1 trillion stimulus and Obamacare which will have negative effects on deficits and debt.
Any conservative who thinks Bush's debt/deficit record was acceptable is a naive homer and ditto for any liberal who thinks "at least Obama wasn't as bad as Bush". Both have been just God-awful leaders. Probably the 2 worst Presidents of all time...
Very true... Both parties were far different back then.
A big part of the reason the Clinton Presidency had the lowest rate of growth in spending is that defense spending and welfare spending were both slashed. Tax rates were also increased to 39.6% at the top end.
Could you imagine the Democrats of today cutting any social spending? No, see Obamacare, unemployment benefits for 2 years, etc. They can't even sign off on raising the SS eligibility age for FUTURE retirees.
Or the Republicans of today signing off on cuts to any existing military spending, much less an acceptance that we are too tapped out and can't even rationally think about NEW Wars like Iran, North Korea, etc? Even mention this concept and you are some sort of unpatriotic "weak-kneed liberal".
The day the Democrats accept that you can't solve everyone's problems with social spending and the day the Republican's realize you can't spend without limit on the military and War is the day you truly solve the debt problem.
the wars weren't even started. 9-11 didn't even happen before the surplus vanished. Due to the shrinking of the economy. But why let the blame game go away.
It wasn't as if clinton wanted to slash social spending either (hillarycare).
You are focusing on a very trivial point.
It may be true that by the time 9-11 happened, the country had already slipped from a surplus to a very slight deficit. However, MASSIVE spending on 2 new wars, Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind blew up the deficit to the point that when Bush left office in 2009 the deficits had grown at historical levels. Even if you assume there was no true surplus, he took us from basically having $0 deficits to a $1 trillion defict!!!
The national debt nearly doubled during the 8 years Bush was in office. Big picture wise, his record on fiscal spending was absolutely brutal. It's only marginally better than Obama's. Worst and 2nd worst Presidents in history.
You do realize that Wars are discretionary expenditures right? You don't HAVE to start Wars and you certainly don't HAVE to occupy foreign countries and nation-build for 10 plus years. When you make those choices, it becomes part of your record and it affects how much interest future generations pay and how much debt they are responsbile for.
Why can't we just simply come to the obvious revelation that Obama is just like Bush? Obama has served Bush's 3rd term and will probably serve Bush's 4th term too.
We all have opinions on if the two wars we needed or not. How about we get past that for a moment. Can you agree that we should always be paying down the nation debt except in time of war or recession?
There is evidence the economy is better with the tax cuts than without them. Still, I can see how people disagree with that.
I thought it was so funny when democrats cried about passing part D. The democrats have promised seniors something like that for ages, and never delivered, then when a republican congress and president delivered, they cry foul.
I haven't though much about "no child left behind." I even forget the arguments pro and con for it. My feeling is the government is too involved in state and local issues anyway.
The forst TARP was passed with the agreement that all money spent went back to paying down the deficit and could not be spent on something else. TARP II under Obama, didn't have that.
Again, diring war and recession, I don't worry much about needed financing of such things.
That's right. You can tax the 1% out of existence, it still won't make a dent, and all you will do is have a short influx of revenue, then it will be gone forever.
A realistic consideration of ObamaCare will be so much more money spent, it's ridiculous.
My only complaint was TARP. I'm OK with helping seniors. I have always said I have no problems with social programs geared toward seniors and our handicapped. Even TARP, I lost my really pissed off at ude when I learned republicans refused to implement it until they got the guarantee that money paid back could not be used elsewhere.
The democrats are too ing dangerous for this nation. It's bad enough that we are still in economic hard times, and to pass something as expensive as ObamaCare...
That is insane!
He is far worse than Bush.
Do you think Bush would have agreed to pelt Libya with cruise missiles?
How much worse is Libya now anyway? I've been meaning to look that up, but haven't yet.
The problem isn't that they are discretionary spending, the problem is we have too much mandatory spending!
Bush would have sent troops in with the claim that oil revenues will fund the war, just as he did in Iraq. Iraq still is a hole last a checked.
I am an Iraq war vet, so I may have a valid opinion on this.
I think it's interesting so many conservatives are so full of themselves regarding war, yet fit the description of chicken hawk more so than military man.
The only Republican with a spine on this issue is Ron Paul and he's retiring.
Yoni and WC talk all about this military intervention crap with no valid reason, almost like they are non-stop war/battle gamers doing things on impulse. Judging from their extensive usage of this forum, it's likely true. I doubt they can handle the sight of blood, just like any other yuppie war-hawk.
Blah blah, the "chickenhawk" card. You have never played in the NBA, so please refrain from any NBA-related takes. Mmmkay?
I'll play the idiot card this time.
There is a difference between being a chickenhawk and giving takes on war policy without participating.
"Obama 10-13'? They left out 2009 and all of the stimulus spending from their calculations.
I was in the Army During Desert Storm, and have seen aspect of it that few have. I have my own beliefs that are based on Saddam's refusal to comply with the UN resolutions that he agreed to so that we stopped short of Baghdad then.
It was never about oil.
How did we do? How much oil did we get?
Not enough to benefit the consumer. Halliburton fared pretty well though.
Sure.... it had nothing to do with oil. Even though Saddam literally invaded Kuwait for that purpose and the economic tension as a result was from oil prices.
This deal has been played out long enough. If it wasn't the oil, it was the WMDs, if not that it was on humanitarian grounds nevermind far brutal dictators elsewhere. It's an ever changing story.
Planned Parenthood never was about abortion either
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)