i know jim......how are you?,
im not being overly serious, but it is asomewhat serious and important current event which potentially affects all of us .............ill go back to the bar now and get crocked so you can like me again
"Obama is to blame for the economy."
- Thread starter JanieDough
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
i know jim......how are you?,
im not being overly serious, but it is asomewhat serious and important current event which potentially affects all of us .............ill go back to the bar now and get crocked so you can like me again
-
134Replies
-
2KViews
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
Dakota Jim
Banned
i know jim......how are you?,
im not being overly serious, but it is asomewhat serious and important current event which potentially affects all of us .............ill go back to the bar now and get crocked so you can like me again
I like ya either way....CU
Accountable
Well-Known Member
Aaaaahhhh feel the love!
I blame bush. I love bush. (small b)
I blame bush. I love bush. (small b)
Dakota Jim
Banned
One other comment... we haven't spent "trillions" on Iraq, we haven't even spent that much money on Iraq and Afghanistan put together. All told, we've spent about $675 billion in Iraq and $225 billion in Afghanistan. Now, let's throw out Afghanistan here, because I don't think anyone is going to argue all that much that we shouldn't have done anything there. We're left with $675 billion spent in Iraq since 2003... Obama's stimulus plan was $789 billion. So, we have a president who has spent $789 billion in deficit spending for a "stimulus" that most economists now are saying hasn't had any real effect; and yet you still hear the president and democrats talking about the need for another stimulus next year. Even if another stimulus package isn't passed (and we can only hope and pray it won't be), the $789 billion price tag that this one has isn't even completely accurate. When you factor in extending the increases in funding (and you can only assume that will be the case) you're looking at a true cost of $2.527 trillion, with an additional $744 billion cost debt servicing, which leaves us with a total cost of right around $3.27 trillion, or about 360% more than has been spent in Afghanistan and Iraq to date.
So like I said in my earlier post... I don't blame Obama for the economy, hell I don't even completely blame Bush either; because there were economic policies and decisions made dating back to the Clinton administration that helped this perfect storm of events occur and put us in the mess we're in right now. However, I will blame Obama for the economy continuing to falter from this point forth... because he claimed that his stimulus plan would have the economy turned around by now, that unemployment would go down, and a whole host of other promises. In actuality, the economy may be starting to flatten out, but unemployment is higher than his scare tactics said it would be if nothing was done...
It looks like unemployment may have peaked as of June, but that's still no excuse for Obama claiming that if we didn't pass the stimulus that unemployment would get out of control, and then the stimulus is passed, and unemployment goes even beyond what his administration projected it would be without the stimulus.
I will blame Obama for what has transpired in his presidency... and what has transpired thus far is record deficit spending, unnecessary stimulus and bailouts, disposing of CEOs of companies and appointing people to replace them, scare tactics every bit as bad or worse than what the Bush administration did leading up to Iraq, and a whole host of other things.
Now let's consider that Obama would have us spend at least an additional $1 trillion on enacting universal health care, that now brings the Obama administration's pricetag in seven months to $4.27 trillion in additional spending, and that number hasn't even factored in things like debt servicing for the UHC plan.
My point here is that we shouldn't be talking about things like Bush and how much money was spent in Iraq, when the money spent or proposed to be spent by the Obama administration amounts out to be about 630% more than has been spent in Iraq since 2003, a period of six years; while Obama has spent this much or in the case of UHC proposes to spend in seven months since taking office. He's proving himself to be the most fiscally irresponsible president in most people's lifetimes.
So like I said in my earlier post... I don't blame Obama for the economy, hell I don't even completely blame Bush either; because there were economic policies and decisions made dating back to the Clinton administration that helped this perfect storm of events occur and put us in the mess we're in right now. However, I will blame Obama for the economy continuing to falter from this point forth... because he claimed that his stimulus plan would have the economy turned around by now, that unemployment would go down, and a whole host of other promises. In actuality, the economy may be starting to flatten out, but unemployment is higher than his scare tactics said it would be if nothing was done...
It looks like unemployment may have peaked as of June, but that's still no excuse for Obama claiming that if we didn't pass the stimulus that unemployment would get out of control, and then the stimulus is passed, and unemployment goes even beyond what his administration projected it would be without the stimulus.
I will blame Obama for what has transpired in his presidency... and what has transpired thus far is record deficit spending, unnecessary stimulus and bailouts, disposing of CEOs of companies and appointing people to replace them, scare tactics every bit as bad or worse than what the Bush administration did leading up to Iraq, and a whole host of other things.
Now let's consider that Obama would have us spend at least an additional $1 trillion on enacting universal health care, that now brings the Obama administration's pricetag in seven months to $4.27 trillion in additional spending, and that number hasn't even factored in things like debt servicing for the UHC plan.
My point here is that we shouldn't be talking about things like Bush and how much money was spent in Iraq, when the money spent or proposed to be spent by the Obama administration amounts out to be about 630% more than has been spent in Iraq since 2003, a period of six years; while Obama has spent this much or in the case of UHC proposes to spend in seven months since taking office. He's proving himself to be the most fiscally irresponsible president in most people's lifetimes.
Dakota Jim
Banned
What the fuck is a Democrate, you idiot?
Just out of curiosity... what messes are you referring to? The housing market bubble popping and the associated mortgage industry crash cannot be attributed to Bush; as the policies that led to this occurring originated during Clinton's presidency. GM, Ford, and Chrysler going bankrupt and getting bailout money cannot be attributed to Bush either... those companies have been in trouble for a long time due in large part to the power that the unions wield, and the fact that for a long time, cars that came out of Detroit were inferior to those that came from Japan, Korea, and Europe. Yet they charged just as much money for their inferior product, and in some cases even more.
The main thing that can be attributed to Bush is Iraq... but he had help getting there just the same. Congress violated the constitution in delegating it's war powers to the president. That being said, Bush used the same type of scare tactics that we've seen so brilliantly put into place by Obama when it came to the stimulus and now UHC. But as I demonstrated above, when you look at the money Obama has already spend or proposes spending, that figure dwarfs the total amount spent in Iraq since 2003.
Alien Allen
Froggy the Prick
Retro to be honest the money you attribute to Obama spending is over the next 10 years.
It still is absurd and I agree with your points but it is not like those trillions are being spent now. It is over time.
Nice to have another Libertarian around and now if enough other people would wake up. Damn it pisses me off that Ron Paul was not younger and had charisma. I think the time was ripe for somebody like that to get elected. We need better people than the crap that the republicans and democrats shovel our way.
It still is absurd and I agree with your points but it is not like those trillions are being spent now. It is over time.
Nice to have another Libertarian around and now if enough other people would wake up. Damn it pisses me off that Ron Paul was not younger and had charisma. I think the time was ripe for somebody like that to get elected. We need better people than the crap that the republicans and democrats shovel our way.
Yes, it is technically over 10 years (though a good chunk has been spent already), but we were already including the money spent in Iraq over the last six years as part of the premise for the thread, so I figured it was appropriate.
Ron Paul would've been amazing for the country... I'm re-reading The Revolution: A Manifesto and wishing he would've run for president far earlier. He's one of the few Republicans in the country that I respect... even though he's definitely more of a Libertarian than a Republican.
Only $77.1 billion has been spent to date. You can see where the funds are going at recovery.gov
And it has been estimated that the true cost of the war in Iraq tops $3 trillion
Dakota Jim
Banned
I voted and touted President Obama and as many Democrats (note: no e on the end). I will be 73 in 0ct. You are trumped, chump.
Dakota Jim
Banned
Sorry dude but the facts don't line up with your statement. When Clinton left office we were in our best financial condition in many moons.
$77.1 billion has been spent to date, that's fine and dandy, but $789 billion was budgeted for and will be spent, if prior government history is to be taken into consideration, which then accounts for the $3.27 trillion figure.
I've only seen *one* source that claims that war in Iraq has cost over $3 trillion, all the other figures are around 1/3 of that or less.
Because of the shell game that was being used to claim that a budget surplus existed when it didn't... we were taking funds from Social Security in order to pay for projects and using that to claim the budget was in the black when it was actually red.
Alien Allen
Froggy the Prick
some of the wheels were set in motion during Clinton and earlier.
Sorry to burst your bubble there old time democrat
JanieDough
V.I.P User
so I should totally get rep points for starting all these threads that make you people come out the wood work.
Dakota Jim
Banned
Robbing the social security fund is not new. When it was funded it was a TRUST fun with all receipts collected to go into that fund and used only for social security. Many years ago it was converted to a general fund budget item so the receipts could be converted. Since then it's been surviving each month or that months receipts for that months payouts. Also, it is now used for disability payments, which weren't intended for that source. Republicans have tried to choke out that program and more lately (since Johnson/Kennedy) medicare.
We'll never get out of this world alive...many try but none succeed.....
Dakota Jim
Banned
some of the wheels were set in motion during Clinton and earlier.
Sorry to burst your bubble there old time democrat
You haven't burst any bubbles, opinions are like assholes we all have 'em. Electing Bush twice proves a lack of basic political history knowledge.
78,875Threads
2,185,392Messages
4,959Members