6 Trillion in 8 years BAD, 6 trillion in 4 GOOD.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by RetiredGySgt, Apr 30, 2012.

  1. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,568
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,985
    So let me get this right..... Bush was bad for spending 6 trillion we did not have in 8 years. Obama not only was good spending 6 trillion we did not have in 4 BUT it was needed and should continue. I got that right?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. SniperFire
    Offline

    SniperFire Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    13,627
    Thanks Received:
    1,219
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Inside Your Head
    Ratings:
    +1,223
    We put Liberals in charge of the money beginning in '06.


    Major fuck up.
     
  3. The T
    Offline

    The T George S. Patton Party Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    48,072
    Thanks Received:
    5,473
    Trophy Points:
    1,773
    Location:
    What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
    Ratings:
    +5,502
    And Bush couldn't seem to find his VETO pen either...but yes.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2012
  4. OtaniKitano
    Offline

    OtaniKitano Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Messages:
    445
    Thanks Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Princeton, New Jersey
    Ratings:
    +118
    Is this a comment or your self-description?


    I admire the short-sightedness of the far right wing. American history starts whenever you want it to and not according to any chronological table.

    Anybody who seriously doesn't think Bush and Cheney didn't have a 10-year plan for Afghanistan or Iraq is, well....a far right wing nut.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2012
  5. Conservative
    Offline

    Conservative Type 40

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    17,082
    Thanks Received:
    2,026
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Ratings:
    +2,030
    immaterial to the OP.

    BUSH and Obama did the same thing, but Obama did it in half the time, and the left cheers him on while they vilified Bush for doing it.
     
  6. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,323
    I realize this is the core of the current GOP narrative but it's based on a false equivalence. With the exception of the final trillion dollar deficit in FY09, the Bush deficits are actually attributable primarily to policy changes made under his tenure.

    In Obama's case, that's not so. Apart from the stimulus, discretionary spending has slowed under Obama (or as the CBO put it,"Excluding the effects of ARRA, all defense and non-defense discretionary outlays will grow by about 4 percent in 2011, CBO anticipates, well below average growth rates for the past decade." [emphasis mine]).

    When the economy went into freefall, two things happened: 1) the safety net swelled to catch those losing their jobs, slipping into poverty, etc, which is exactly what it's designed to do, and 2) tax revenues plunged. Higher automatic spending + the lowest tax revenues as a percentage of GDP in several decades = higher deficits. That happens independent of policy changes.

    If you compare actual policy changes made by the two administrations, Obama's spending turns out to be rather modest in comparison. Even if you imagine that in a hypothetical Obama second term he would initiate new spending equivalent to that initiated in his first term (which is doubtful), his spending would still come in well below that of his predecessor.

    [​IMG]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2012
  7. Uncensored2008
    Offline

    Uncensored2008 Libertarian Radical Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    57,190
    Thanks Received:
    7,365
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Ratings:
    +20,687
    Once again proving: There is no hypocrisy like demopocrisy.
     
  8. SniperFire
    Offline

    SniperFire Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    13,627
    Thanks Received:
    1,219
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Inside Your Head
    Ratings:
    +1,223
    Do the math.
     
  9. SniperFire
    Offline

    SniperFire Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    13,627
    Thanks Received:
    1,219
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Inside Your Head
    Ratings:
    +1,223
    Your rhetorical excuses notwithstanding, Owebama failed.

    Obama pledges to cut nation's deficit in half - Feb. 23, 2009



    Next contestant.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. Neotrotsky
    Offline

    Neotrotsky Council to Supreme Soviet

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    10,402
    Thanks Received:
    1,255
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    People's Republic
    Ratings:
    +2,350


    NY Times - All the news that’s fit to print even if we have to make it up and put in pretty charts!

    Oh god too funny the left is still pushing this...
    this is from around July of last year


    A few more points about the NYT chart come to mind. The war costs used by the Times appears to contain mainly costs that would have been incurred by the Department of Defense whether or not we went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. It also fails to note the bipartisan nature of the war in Afghanistan — and somehow fails to include the costs of both wars under Obama for the first two years. Similarly, the chart correctly notes the first tranche of TARP under Bush, but skips the second tranche under Obama. Also, the category of “2008 Stimulus and Other Changes” seems pretty suspect, since the 2008 stimulus was scored at $150 billion, or less than one-fifth of the $773 billion the Times claims.


    Hey there is few problems with your chart
    But if you like charts



    There are plenty of issues with this chart, but let’s start with the notion that the “Bush tax cuts” cost the static-analysis price listed here. Absent those tax cuts, we would not have had the recovery from 2003-7, which generated a rather hefty increase in federal revenues; we’ll return to that in a moment. The actual revenue listed in this chart was what static analysis of the recovery would have brought into federal coffers, which is one of the main problems with static analysis. It also conflates tax cuts with federal spending, which only makes sense if one starts from the premise that the people owe their government all of their income less any that the government arbitrarily allows them to keep.

    The chart then tries to claim that Obama’s spending increases over the next 8 years (projected) will amount to just $1.44 trillion — less than the annual deficit these days. Oddly, it doesn’t mention that the last Republican annual budget passed in Congress (FY2007) only had a $160 billion deficit, which tends to interfere with the narrative Fallows and the Times wants to build here.

    shows inflation-adjusted spending and revenue over the last 50 years:

    [​IMG]

    Now look at what happens after Democrats take control of Congress. For the FY2008 budget, federal spending increased at a rate higher than that of the GOP budgets from FY2002-2007. For FY2009, Democrats ended up playing keep-away from George Bush and passed continuing resolutions until Barack Obama took office and signed the omibus bill that increased spending at a mindblowing rate.


    No one except concerned trolls and the Left believe
    Papa Obama is spending less money than Bush

    People don't buy it and they know

    Obama isn't working
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2012

Share This Page