ScienceRocks
Democrat all the way!
- Banned
- #461
This nation needs to be as favorable to solar as it is to oil.
Solar will kill oil in the next few centuries.
Solar will kill oil in the next few centuries.
Can we cut the bullshit about spending under Obama?
- Thread starter Billy000
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #462
Well considering it was Bush that created the crazy expensive tax cuts and dramatically increased government spending while Obama did nothing to increase the rate of spending after that, we can put most of the blame on Bush. Granted Obama extended the cuts, but that policy is all Bush in the first place.
MarcATL
Diamond Member
- Aug 12, 2009
- 47,696
- 26,293
- 2,605
This cannot be repeated enough.
Your numbers have already been debunked. Same thing happened with Reagan, who more than doubled Carter's debt. It's on the record. Reagan's own budget director laments the fact.
Here are the costs of Bush government versus the Obama government.
Obama is on pace to spend far less than Bush or Reagan.
This always happens. Republican President's double the spending of Democratic Presidents, but the GOP propaganda machine lies about it, and their voters always believe it. Reagan sold weapons to world's leading terrorist nation, and he didn't face an impeachment vote. Bush illegally spied on American citizens against the advice of his legal counsel, and he didn't have to testify in front of anyone. Clinton gets a blowjob and he is dragged in front of a grand jury; then Republican House, filled with pedophiles and wide-stancers, votes to impeach. It makes the old Soviet Union seem tame. The GOP has turned us into a corrupt banana republic. History will laugh at us.
*One man standing ovation*
Don't worry about the debt my man. It's much worse than government is saying. Bush hid the Iraq War off budget, in emergency spending measures so that the tax payer didn't get sticker shock. Then Obama put it back in so now we know where some of the bodies were buried. But the Bush desert is filled with holes, so there is more work to be done. The country got rolled in 2008. A lot of money went out the door at the End Of Bush ... we will never know how many billions were absconded with. Best not to think about it. Our job is to party like its 2014.
Last edited:
MarcATL
Diamond Member
- Aug 12, 2009
- 47,696
- 26,293
- 2,605
Rightwing Republican whackjob: Obama spends, and spends, and SPENDS!! He's a rat BASTARD!!
Regular citizen: Well what did he buy with all that spending?
Rightwing Republican whackjob: Well, he bought votes of course!
Regular citizen: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Regular citizen: Well what did he buy with all that spending?
Rightwing Republican whackjob: Well, he bought votes of course!
Regular citizen: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Joseph Geobbels - Hitler's propaganda minister.This cannot be repeated enough.
Your numbers have already been debunked. Same thing happened with Reagan, who more than doubled Carter's debt. It's on the record. Reagan's own budget director laments the fact.
Here are the costs of Bush government versus the Obama government.
Obama is on pace to spend far less than Bush or Reagan.
This always happens. Republican President's double the spending of Democratic Presidents, but the GOP propaganda machine lies about it, and their voters always believe it. Reagan sold weapons to world's leading terrorist nation, and he didn't face an impeachment vote. Bush illegally spied on American citizens against the advice of his legal counsel, and he didn't have to testify in front of anyone. Clinton gets a blowjob and he is dragged in front of a grand jury; then Republican House, filled with pedophiles and wide-stancers, votes to impeach. It makes the old Soviet Union seem tame. The GOP has turned us into a corrupt banana republic. History will laugh at us.
*One man standing ovation*
ScienceRocks
Democrat all the way!
- Banned
- #468
bush's nation building caused a large percentage of it.
Kosh
Quick Look Over There!
Again the far left is off base with Iraq.
There were only four supplemental budgets based to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The rest of that came from the standard military budget.
The far left will always inflate the numbers as they wanted then and still want Iraq to be a failure just so they can have their way.
This is yet another example of how the far the far left will wish millions to die just so they can get their way.
There were only four supplemental budgets based to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The rest of that came from the standard military budget.
The far left will always inflate the numbers as they wanted then and still want Iraq to be a failure just so they can have their way.
This is yet another example of how the far the far left will wish millions to die just so they can get their way.
Not sure I would trust government when it comes to money, but Republicans tend to believe Washington.
Here is one report that mentions the shenanigans...
The costs of the 2003-2010 Iraq War are often contested, as academics and critics have unearthed many hidden costs not represented in official estimates. The most recent major report on these costs come from Brown University in the form of the Costs of War project,which said the total for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is at least $3.2-4 trillion. The report disavowed previous estimates of the Iraq War's cost as being under $1 trillion, saying the Department of Defense's direct spending on Iraq totaled at least $757.8 billion, but also highlighting the complementary costs at home, such as interest paid on the funds borrowed to finance the wars and a potential nearly $1 trillion in extra spending to care for veterans returning from combat through 2050. An update in 2013 topped this at US$6 trillion.
Those figures are dramatically higher than typical estimates published just prior to the start of the Iraq War, many of which were based on a shorter term of involvement. For example, in a March 16, 2003 Meet the Press interview of Vice President Dick Cheney, held less than a week before the Iraq War began, host Tim Russert reported that "every analysis said this war itself would cost about $80 billion, recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10 billion per year. We should expect as American citizens that this would cost at least $100 billion for a two-year involvement." From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War
Last edited:
The first sentence that I bolded is an outright LIE.
Here is the rest of the story.
Before receiving a fast-tracked loan from the Obama administration in 2010, Solyndra had been singled out by both Republicans and Democrats as a promising venture potentially worthy of government investment. The company first applied for a Department of Energy grant under the George W. Bush administration.
But the Bush administration never approved Solyndra's loan, saying the application needed more work.
Last edited:
ilia25
I can do math
- Jan 12, 2012
- 1,859
- 100
- 48
You need to learn how to read. Nobody's suggested that the spending was reduced. It has been growing -- but it has been growing slower than before Obama.
If the tax cuts passed by Congress and signed by Bush "crazy expensive tax cuts and dramatically increased government spend" when Bush put them in place, why did Obama extend them?
There was a 'small' increase in spending the Congress gave Obama that came to almost a trillion dollars. Do you remember what it was called? Hint: stimulus.
Now you should find a doctored wiki article telling us how much blood and treasure Obama has spent by tripling the number of troops in Afghanistan and continuing that war for the last 5 years.
In the real world, unemployment benefits were being held hostage by the Rethugs in Congress. If the tax cuts were not extended, no extension of UE would have been passed.
But that was what was happening in the real wold. A world that you Republicans have only a passing knowledge of.
Go ahead and make up some more bullshit.
Here is the history of the Hoover dam project. You may notice that the governmet funding was guaranteed by six states to be paid back.
On December 21, 1928, the Boulder Canyon Project Act, presented to the
Congress in the fourth Swing-Johnson bill, became law.
Approved the Colorado River Compact and provided that in the event
only six States should ratify, the compact should become effective as a six-
State compact, provided that California should agree to limit her use of
water for the benefit of the other six States;
The act established a special fund — the "Colorado River Dam fund"-
for financing construction and authorized the transfer to it from the Treasury
of $165 million. A condition precedent to the construction of the dam was
that the Secretary of the Interior should provide for revenues adequate
to insure operation, maintenance, and amortization. These revenues were
to repay, within 50 years, all advances for construction of Hoover Dam
and power plant with interest, except for $25 million allocated to flood con-
trol, repayment of which — without interest — could be deferred until after
the interest-bearing portion of the debt was paid. Revenues were to come
mainly from the sale of electrical energy generated at the dam. Contracts
to cover the sale of energy were speedily negotiated.
Also, the Interstate highway system was sold by Ike as necesary for national defense and was paid for with additional taxes.
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956
It took several years of wrangling, but a new Federal-Aid Highway Act passed in June 1956. The law authorized the construction of a 41,000-mile network of interstate highways that would span the nation. It also allocated $26 billion to pay for them. Under the terms of the law, the federal government would pay 90 percent of the cost of expressway construction. The money came from an increased gasoline tax–now 3 cents a gallon instead of 2–that went into a non-divertible Highway Trust Fund.
Last edited:
BS, NO President in the real world raises taxes during a recession.
Man you need to make up your mind. Either Obama did the right thing by not calling for the elimination of the Bush tax cuts or he didn't. You seem to want to imply that there was no reason that the cuts were extended. I am telling you that UE benefits were tied into the extension of the tax cuts.
Look it up.
And do you support Obama for extending those cuts or not? Simple question.
The Democrats had a filibuster proof majority in Congress when the cuts were extended. The GOP had no control over what happened.
The Bush tax cuts were valuable and contributed to the well being of the country. They were good policy, and that is why Obama signed their extension, after running on repealing them.
The Bush tax cuts were valuable and contributed to the well being of the country. They were good policy, and that is why Obama signed their extension, after running on repealing them.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Houston woman sues Tesla after Cybertruck nearly drove off overpass
- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 1
-
Teacher makes multiple posts telling terrorists to murder Trump…she gets fired.- Started by ColonelAngus
- Replies: 1
-
-
Striking Iran natural gas facility was in coordination with U.S.- Started by Pastelli
- Replies: 0
