four more years of bush / cheney?

Damocles said:
LOL. This ignores the baseline that was massively increased with the stimulus and the 400 Billion in March.

Seriously, it plays on the fact that nobody understands baseline budgeting. The reality: Bush overspent by 400 Billion, Obama set a new baseline with 1.2 Trillion deficit and predicts to continue that deficit level even after an assumption of tax increases and the assumption of wars ending for the next 20 years in his own projections.

That he's pretty satisfied with the new baseline and is "growing slowly" after that is actually quite funny and shouldn't be promoted by people who pay attention.
Click to expand...


You should click on the link and read it before commenting on it.
 
Bijou said:
The main problem with Bush was that Bush wasn't running the show and was clueless about what was happening around him. The PNAC war hawks and Cheney were calling the shots.
Click to expand...


So then he really isn't to blame for anything that happened during his 8 years ?.......you oughta tell Obama and his pinheads that story, see if they'll come up with
someone else to blame for their failure to lead the country......

But I wouldn't mind getting back to 4.5/5.2 % unemployment and the growing and stable economy we had until the Democrats took over the entire congress in 2006.....

The 'good old days, when you were still in pampers......
 
bravo said:
So then he really isn't to blame for anything that happened during his 8 years ?.......you oughta tell Obama and his pinheads that story, see if they'll come up with
someone else to blame for their failure to lead the country......

But I wouldn't mind getting back to 4.5/5.2 % unemployment and the growing and stable economy we had until the Democrats took over the entire congress in 2006.....

The 'good old days, when you were still in pampers......
Click to expand...

He's to blame for his negligence & lack of leadership, and for letting a group like PNAC call the shots for him.

You'd like to get back to the economic policies that caused the biggest crash in decades? Weird....
 
bravo said:
So then he really isn't to blame for anything that happened during his 8 years ?.......you oughta tell Obama and his pinheads that story, see if they'll come up with
someone else to blame for their failure to lead the country......

But I wouldn't mind getting back to 4.5/5.2 % unemployment and the growing and stable economy we had until the Democrats took over the entire congress in 2006.....

The 'good old days, when you were still in pampers......
Click to expand...

Certainly Bush is to blame. As president, the 'buck' stopped with him, remember?
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
You should click on the link and read it before commenting on it.
Click to expand...

I did. I was simply explaining how it simply doesn't put in spending that Obama dropped on us in 2009 and puts that on Bush. We spent 400 Billion asked for by Obama in March of 2009, we then spent 700 Billion (actually more) on Stimulus, and in October we spent 140 Billion all asked for and spent by Obama and which were used to set the new baseline used in the 2010 figures of a budget that Obama offered but nobody at all, not even one D, voted for. Same thing happened with the 2011 budget...

You may want to pretend that people who pay attention can't understand that spending asked for in 2009 may count against the 2009 budget offered by Bush, but the extra spending asked for by Obama would be outside the budget and should be counted as Obama spending, since he was the one that asked for it, but you would be pretending.
 
Damocles said:
I did. I was simply explaining how it simply doesn't put in spending that Obama dropped on us in 2009 and puts that on Bush. We spent 400 Billion asked for by Obama in March of 2009, we then spent 700 Billion (actually more) on Stimulus, and in October we spent 140 Billion all asked for and spent by Obama and which were used to set the new baseline used in the 2010 figures of a budget that Obama offered but nobody at all, not even one D, voted for. Same thing happened with the 2011 budget...

You may want to pretend that people who pay attention can't understand that spending asked for in 2009 may count against the 2009 budget offered by Bush, but the extra spending asked for by Obama would be outside the budget and should be counted as Obama spending, since he was the one that asked for it, but you would be pretending.
Click to expand...

Sorry...

some quick corrections. The first stimulus $825Billion they count on the 2009 budget and blame Bush for. The second $200 Billion for S chip TARP they counted against Bush... The $140 Billion in October is the only portion they count against Obama...

They then ignore that this new massive spending was almost all set in the new baseline of budgets that have never been passed in any Congress from Obama.
 
Onceler said:
I don't think we'll ever see anything like the Bush/Cheney admin again. Even with Romney, I would expect him to focus roughly 100% more on the economy & domestic issues. I think a large part of Bush's failure w/ the economy was the fact that he basically ignored domestic policy - negligence, borne of his obsession w/ Iraq.

And on the foreign policy front, let's definitely hope we never see anything like that again. I have enough faith in Romney that he won't be a complete idiot & pursue a careless, costly policy in the same vein as what we saw w/ the Bush admin.
Click to expand...


Hear that?.....Thats the sound of nobody caring what you think.

Bush/Cheney problems with the economy began in 2006 with the Democrat takeover of the entire Congress.....and by 2008, the shit finally hit the fan....
 
bravo said:
Hear that?.....Thats the sound of nobody caring what you think.

Bush/Cheney problems with the economy began in 2006 with the Democrat takeover of the entire Congress.....and by 2008, the shit finally hit the fan....
Click to expand...

LOL - the economy crashed a little over a year & a half after the Dems took over, because of the policies they implemented (which Bush would have signed, btw)?

Can you name the policies? Since you know a lot about economics, you surely know that 1.5 years is a VERY short timeframe for any policy to have such a dramatic effect. I'd be really interested to hear you flesh out your "theory."
 
Onceler said:
LOL - the economy crashed a little over a year & a half after the Dems took over, because of the policies they implemented (which Bush would have signed, btw)?

Can you name the policies? Since you know a lot about economics, you surely know that 1.5 years is a VERY short timeframe for any policy to have such a dramatic effect. I'd be really interested to hear you flesh out your "theory."
Click to expand...

LMFAO. The economy tanked because we are $14 trillion in debt, and liberals couldn't comprehend how to cut the budget. You STILL can't comprehend it, most of you idiots don't believe we have to cut spending, you want to do MORE! The "domino" that started it all, was the housing finance collapse, caused when Freddy and Fannie went belly-up because they couldn't float the loans to all the low-income home owners... which was the brainchild of Liberals, and idiotically endorsed by Bush. You can certainly argue it is Liberal's fault, you can even fault Bush and Republicans, but the two groups who have been screaming with their hair on fire about this from it's inception, are the Conservatives and the Tea Party. They had it right from the start, and have never wavered... and they are also right about how we fix it! CUT SPENDING!
 
Don Quixote said:
that is a republican lying talking point

iraq is over and afghanistan is winding down

domestic spending is down

try again
Click to expand...

really? patriot act extension? DHS expansion in to VIPR? Drones flying across our contiguous skies? increased drug raids? DEA assisting on raids in columbia? not Bush III??????
 
Damocles said:
I did. I was simply explaining how it simply doesn't put in spending that Obama dropped on us in 2009 and puts that on Bush. We spent 400 Billion asked for by Obama in March of 2009, we then spent 700 Billion (actually more) on Stimulus, and in October we spent 140 Billion all asked for and spent by Obama and which were used to set the new baseline used in the 2010 figures of a budget that Obama offered but nobody at all, not even one D, voted for. Same thing happened with the 2011 budget...
Click to expand...

Actually, no it doesn't. It attributes the stimulus spending and other major spending in 2009 passed by Obama to Obama:

Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.

If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.

After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.
Click to expand...

So, you're just plain wrong.



Damocles said:
You may want to pretend that people who pay attention can't understand that spending asked for in 2009 may count against the 2009 budget offered by Bush, but the extra spending asked for by Obama would be outside the budget and should be counted as Obama spending, since he was the one that asked for it, but you would be pretending.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm not pretending anything since the 2009 spending by Obama is attributed to Obama. Someone is pretending, but it ain't me.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Actually, no it doesn't. It attributes the stimulus spending and other major spending in 2009 passed by Obama to Obama:


So, you're just plain wrong.


Actually, I'm not pretending anything since the 2009 spending by Obama is attributed to Obama. Someone is pretending, but it ain't me.
Click to expand...

Please allow me to retort!

Technically speaking, there is no such thing as "Obama spending," since the president has yet to present a budget Congress can approve.
 
Is that a "Pulp Fiction" reference?

I've really been enjoying the random, sporadic cinematic references on the site.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Actually, no it doesn't. It attributes the stimulus spending and other major spending in 2009 passed by Obama to Obama:



So, you're just plain wrong.





Actually, I'm not pretending anything since the 2009 spending by Obama is attributed to Obama. Someone is pretending, but it ain't me.
Click to expand...
Again, it was not, and still pretends that the baseline was not raised. Even if the spending in FY 2009 attributed to Bush was attributed to Obama (it wasn't, not in the figures he uses only money spent in October or later counts against Obama in his figures) it still is the case that the baseline was reset at that incredibly high spending rate which is perpetuated for 20 years in the most recently proposed budget from Obama.

His spending has been atrocious, and we still haven't received value for it.

Are you better off than you were over 5 Trillion in debt ago?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top