Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by sargon20, Jul 27, 2011.
Obamas and Bushs effects on the deficit in one graph
I don't think this graph is accurate. obama needs to own up to his spending - He just keeps spending and spending and spending now a war in Lybia as well.
I think greed has been around longer than that.
it's time to change the channel
Where is that little bullshit flag?
Not at all surprised at who the OP is...
Change the record already.
The Bush tax cuts alone eclipse any total spending that Obama has done. And yes those tax cuts were spending because we didn't have the budget for them... so we actually had to borrow money because of it.
Obama has not spent anywhere near what Zippy W. spent but there is still time. I wouls really like to see an accounting of Katrina expenditures. I get the feeling someone got mega wealthy off that one.
let's not forget it was Bush who engaged us in two wars and did so "off-budget" - the republicans who controlled congress during 6.5 of his 8 year term were complicit by approving supplemental spending bills.
and please let's not forget the $700,000,000,000 Bush and Paulson handed over to Wall Street with NO STRINGS ATTACHED
and then there's the 6,000,000 jobs lost during Bush's term
Here's a little something to chew on: While the median annual salary for Americans hovers around $39,000 (and has dropped 4% over the past 30 years) the income of the top .1% increased 400% in 2010 alone.
the 25 top hedge fund managers earned a combined 22 BILLION dollars in 2010 and took most of the earnings as capital gains - paying ONLY 15% in taxes!
the top 1% control $9,000,000,000
Now many, including me, think people who work hard deserve to earn whatever they can. They absolutely deserve the spoils of hard work and smart decisions. However what we now have in our midst are not hard-working earners who produce product and jobs but gamers who use a lot of their gains to buy politicians and work to rewrite legislation to skew the odds in their favor
Why do liberals think that tax cuts can be applied as debt? What kind of mindset does it take to ASSUME that it's federal money already?
And Obamacare only costing $152 billion...sure.
That graph isn't accurate. Tax cuts were not "additional spending." If you look at government revenue over a given period of time, it was decreasing until the Bush tax cuts took effect. After the Bush tax cuts, revenue began to increase. Tax cuts stimulate economic growth which increases total revenue.
This couldn't be further from the truth.
Bush Tax Cut Myths | Tax Revenue Increases | Capital Gains Tax | The Heritage Foundation
Here you go. Sorry it's not from NYT or Huffington Post, but it should work. If you believe it.
Heritage Foundation de-bunked:
The Heritage Foundation's Brian Riedl accuses me of committing economic malpractice and cherry-picking data on a column that argued against permanently extending the Bush tax cuts. Okay, Ill engage on that.
PostPartisan - Did the Bush tax cuts reduce revenue? Of course.
Guess what...Bush and Obama are both the same...you've been brainwashed to think they are different.
Both spent ALOT more than what they should have
Both went/expanded into needless "wars"
Libya billed as a 'black hole' is rather missing the point mind you, it simply isn't. If you look at the encumbent costs from Iraq and Afghanistan they dwarf the figure of $30-100m per week Libya is costing the US, depending how much you bomb things of course (Harrison, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2011).
Currently there are a large amount of allied aircraft doing the actual bombing, so the munition costs - one of the more significant costs in this sort of operation - are spread more evenly than in previous conflicts, even if the logistical support isn't. Indeed Harrison states the operational cost will likely "easily top $1bn". Compared to the combined price of Iraq and Afghanistan (roughly $2.4tn), you can see it's really a drop in the ocean.
Looking at the recent debt reduction plans both by Boehner and Reid, Boehner got his math wrong by $350Bn (CBO) and there are questions regarding Reid's bill to the tune of $150-200Bn, that's enough money in an accounting mistake for 100+ Libya "wars". I'm sorry, but mentioning Libya in the same paragraph as sovereign debt is just misleading, even if we were bombing Libya for 10 years, it wouldn't cost the US more than 1% what Iraq and Afghanistan have cost to date.
Saying obama only did libya is ridiculious. He is the commander in chief...and he expanded afgan, bombed libya, expanded drone attacks significantly in pakistan.
Granted he may not have started this...but he hasn't done anything to stop any of it. How long can he and others push the blame on bush? Its his problem now and he needs to follow through on his promises!
Well, isn't the problem that if he pulls the military out and stops drone attacks, he's "soft on terrorism" and unpatriotic? Indeed if I remember correctly Obama opposed the escalation of troop involvement in Iraq in '08 which actually got some success in making the place safer - hence finishing this decade-long occupation sooner and reducing overall cost.
Regarding the Afghanistan troop push, from what I understand of it, a great deal occured when Pakistan decided it wasn't going to co-operate and instead give terrorists free passage into Afghanistan proper due to it being in their interest to destabalise the region and get rid of the US presence. I doubt it's a coincidence that as Iraq becomes "safer", Afghanistan became steadily worse. Drone attacks mind you.. seem comparatively 'cheap' and much safer in terms of lives. I'm not sure what the American consensus is (if there is one?) regarding drone use, but at least elsewhere most people approve of it, provided they don't bomb too many shepherds of course.
I absolutely agree with you that he needs to follow through on his promises. I'm no Obama-fan, I think most of what he originally promised hasn't been achieved, or if it has been, it's too watered down to have the impact he originally intended. Perhaps that's due to the way bills tend to have so many attachments in order to pacify opposition.
Overall though, politicians need to stop running their mouth to win votes when they're fully aware that the situation will demand another response entirely once they're in office. Anyone who actually expected him to pull out all of the troops within a year was pretty naive, in my view.
I never voted for bush or obama so its not my fault.
I voted for both one time each, if things keep going the way they are at the moment one will get two votes from me.