RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
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?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We put Liberals in charge of the money beginning in '06.
Major fuck up.
We put Liberals in charge of the money beginning in '06.
Major fuck up.
We put Liberals in charge of the money beginning in '06.
Major fuck up.
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.
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?
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.
American history starts whenever you want it to and not according to any chronological table.
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.
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?
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.
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?
We put Liberals in charge of the money beginning in '06.
Major fuck up.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
Interesting graph.
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?
You might want to check out Draper's new book. It might give you a different perspective on the Obama presidency and the support he's received from the Republican Party. Look at how they applauded him for taking out Bin Laden.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...secret-meeting-by-gop-to-take-down-obama.html
Oh, yea, you can probably pick it up at Amazon.
SO to repeat, 6 trillion in 8 years bad, 6 trillion in 4 good. Politicizing the war on terror 2001 to 2008 bad, 2009 to present good. No budget in 4 years good. Destroying coal electric plants good. Destroying oil companies good. Building wind farms that cause global warming good. Forcing the production of ethanol that costs more than gas and is worse on the environment good.
What have I missed? Ohh ya no ID for voting great for Democrats and not enforcing our immigration laws while shipping weapons to Mexico illegally all good under Obama.