Is this correct?
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
A portion of the 2009 deficit is attributable to Bush. Liberals will try to tall you all of it is, but they ignore the (just under) $1 Trillion "stimulus" plan that was passed in Obama's year, under his urging, which counts in the 2009 deficit spending. Some will try to tell you TARP counts, but that counted in 2008 and was supposedly paid back, but there is no accounting for where the money returned went.
The first stimulus hasn't even ended yet, but we've got the "Son of Stimulus" on its way to a campaign stop near you.
The first stimulus hasn't even ended yet, but we've got the "Son of Stimulus" on its way to a campaign stop near you.
Schadenfreude
patriot and widower
you overlook the damage done by two unpaid for wars and the unpaid for bush tax cuts...then there is the sudden drop in revenue due to the depression/recession
also, the unpaid for prescription coverage added to medicare (i personally cannot complain about that coverage as my brother saves big bucks as a result of it)
I don't overlook any of that. You assume. I spent 8 years speaking of undeclared wars and pill bills, reckless spending and stupid foreign policy, nationbuilding wars from a man who promised against them.
However, this chart is speaking of Obama's term and whether the chart is correct. It is, but a portion of the deficits can be attributed to Bush for the FY 2009...
Schadenfreude
patriot and widower
i disagree, more of the previous administration's fiscal folly should be carried over into obama's debt picture
now if the two wars could be brought to a sudden end and the bush tax cuts repealed - then i would agree more - i would be be for that scenario
That's fine, just blame him for the same amount he would have continued to spend... That means that Obama still spends double what you can "blame" on Bush and our deficit triples. Ignoring what the man spends is insane, especially when it is to blame Bush forever into perpetuity. The man ran and took the job knowing what he faced, he placed plans into motion, and we are now visiting the results of that plan. 9.1% "official" unemployment, more like 18% real unemployment, more people on food stamps than ever before with an Administration that tries to tell me that it is a "good thing" because it "stimulates"...
Of course, his fiscal policy is even worse than that, it was so very bad that even Democrats in the Senate wouldn't vote "yes" on his proposed Budget. The reality would be worse if he was able to spend what he proposed.
Schadenfreude
patriot and widower
i disagree and support both of his recent initiatives
i guess we cannot agree on this, bummer
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
lmao...
lmao...
Of Bush and Earthquakes... A justification for the Obama Presidency. <- Title of my next book. I am sure you are eagerly awaiting its publication... Problem is, I'm not famous and nobody cares. LOL
lmao...
Isn't that "running from the issues", according to your rigid guidelines?
My, oh my...
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
are you ever honest? do you ever actually discuss thread topics? lately all i've seen from you are nothing but ad homs.
Do you have any idea how ironic this post is after what you posted above? Do you have no self-awareness?
Why not address the idea that Bush's wars & unpaid tax cuts actually might have contributed to our current situation? Goodness, what a wild idea! That one admin's fiscal irresponsibilty could actually have an effect a few years later. Crazy!
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
how did they? is it really your claim that obama's deficits are bush's fault? the wars are not what caused the economy to downturn. to blame bush for obama's deficit spending is pure partisan bullshit.
How did they? Are you serious?
8 years of fiscal irresponsibility, saying deficit spending doesn't matter, crazy spending bills, expensive wars & tax cuts...you think the effect of those issues stopped in January of 2009?
Yeah - you're really objective, Yurt. Outstanding analysis on your part.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
how do you figure? and if they are a "continuation" then they are in fact obama's policies now.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
so all that, which your analysis is wrong as usual, forced obama to spend huge deficits.
:lol: and you think you're objective. tff
I figure using math. If you want to argue that they are Obama's policies, that's fine. It's stupid, but whatever.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
what? if the next president continues a policy of the former president, then yes, they are now in fact his policies. it is stupid and dishonest to claim otherwise.
It's hilarious that you claim to thirst for "real debate." You are still dodging the issue (something you always claim). Try this simple question, again: is it your contention that the effects of Bush's policies - again, the spending, the tax cuts, the wars - ended in January of 2009?
It's not a hard question. You won't answer it, though.