- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,715
- Reaction score
- 751
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Despite his verbal stupidity, his hawkish war policies, or his hyper-Christianity, liberals should love this guy for getting the ball rolling for Obama. Hell, if he didn't...there would be no one to blame for TODAY's massively increased deficit spending. And of course, when you have someone you can always blame, you're able to divert attention elsewhere.
I was just reading up on some CBO stats and I was considering the differences between Bush and Obama's domestic shop-till-you-drop spending. I hear from so many different people on the left, whether they be respectable men like Obama or so-so men like Bill Maher, that republicans are hypocrites for criticizing Obama's hefty spending exercises while Bush "started the mess." If Bush started the process of bailing out banks, and Obama accelerated this process, is Bush wrong because he somehow didn't spend enough?
Bush, as president, dealt legislation that spent more on prescription drugs for seniors than any previous president. More direct spending on education (of course coupled with some heavy testing). More direct spending on welfare programs, despite what so many people argue. He also tilted the tax burden MORE towards the wealthy...and here's the CBO to prove it:
Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates:1979 to 2005
From 2000 through 2005, income Taxes paid by the wealthiest 20 percent increased from 81 percent of all income tax revenue to 86 percent despite no change in income distribution. This resulted from low-income tax cuts removing 10 million filers from the income tax rolls.
Despite his verbal stupidity, his hawkish war policies, or his hyper-Christianity, liberals should love this guy for getting the ball rolling for Obama. Hell, if he didn't...there would be no one to blame for TODAY's massively increased deficit spending. And of course, when you have someone you can always blame, you're able to divert attention elsewhere.
BTW, I am NO fan of Bush or the republican party.
Its possible. I didn't get started becoming angry at Bush until he started going overboard after 9/11.
So you're angry with Obama, now?
Because his spending far outdoes Bush's spending - he's like a spoiled compulsive comfort shopper with Daddy's credit card let loose on the American Mall.
"1500 dollars for a leather bustier - I didn't care, - it lifts and separates"
YouTube - CitiBank Identity Theft Commercial
The spending has never really bothered me from either president. I think its too high, but I don't think its the trap that many fear it to be.
I'll revisit this thread in 20 years to laugh at you when you're complaining about it all.
In 20 years, I will probably be living in another country if my current plans come to fruition. Once I finish paying off everything (4 years at current rates), the next step is to save up enough money to be independent and able to take risks that won't ruin me (about 12-15 years if I invest all of my wife's teaching salary), then I will probably move to Canada or Australia. Why stay on a sinking ship?
i'll be gone in about 16 months......but to the tropics.
In 20 years, I will probably be living in another country if my current plans come to fruition. Once I finish paying off everything (4 years at current rates), the next step is to save up enough money to be independent and able to take risks that won't ruin me (about 12-15 years if I invest all of my wife's teaching salary), then I will probably move to Canada or Australia. Why stay on a sinking ship?
But you said it didn't bother you.
I was speaking about other trends I see going on in the country that I believe are far more problematic, such as growing anti-intellectualism, narcisism, and few other things. My plan is to gain enough savings that I can bug out if necessary, but I may stay, depending on how things work out.
The debt is higher than I would like, but it doesn't bother me as much as some other issues I am far more interested in such as education and societal welfare. Personally, I think we shouldn't have more than 20% debt in GDP after spending on a recession and 0% in a normal economy.
I have lost faith in the long term viability of this country. We have a load of problems and nobody is being serious about actually fixing them. The US will probably survive, but in a much diminished capacity and I don't want to be here for the fall-out.
Oh trust me - that's not an "American Only" thing.
You'll just trade one thing for another if you nation-hop around.
You may be right.
Its possible. I didn't get started becoming angry at Bush until he started going overboard after 9/11.
I know. That's my point.
I sympathize with that, however I don't imagine democrat presidents are any wiser in foreign policy issues. Nor is any democrat president a dove president. Obama is accelerating the war in Afghanistan, and what are your thoughts?
Do you criticize that decison, or support it?
Obama promised the end of Gitmo in a year, and that has not exactly happened.
As samsmart pointed out, he also has not reversed the 9/14 executive order that gives the president nearly unlimited power to wage a covert and shady war on terror. How is Obama any better than Bush in that regard?
Of course, the deficit would not be as bad if Bush hadn't been as fiscally liberal, so it's more or less a moot point.
I support the war in Afghanistan, due to the country's culpability in 9/11, so I have no problem with it. On a practical level, I think their culture is yet too primitive to support any sort of modern and peaceful government though, so I am still equivocating on how much good we are actually doing.
My understanding is that Obama had every intention (and still does) of ending Gitmo, but it has proven to be more complicated than originally thought. I think he should just bite the bullet and send them to a federal prison some where. I have seen multiple stories of towns with empty prisons that would love the work due to unemployment.
That one is a real problem. Any war should be fought with a maximum of transparency that does not endanger the mission.
I was just reading up on some CBO stats and I was considering the differences between Bush and Obama's domestic shop-till-you-drop spending. I hear from so many different people on the left, whether they be respectable men like Obama or so-so men like Bill Maher, that republicans are hypocrites for criticizing Obama's hefty spending exercises while Bush "started the mess." If Bush started the process of bailing out banks, and Obama accelerated this process, is Bush wrong because he somehow didn't spend enough?
Bush, as president, dealt legislation that spent more on prescription drugs for seniors than any previous president. More direct spending on education (of course coupled with some heavy testing). More direct spending on welfare programs, despite what so many people argue. He also tilted the tax burden MORE towards the wealthy...and here's the CBO to prove it:
Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates:1979 to 2005
From 2000 through 2005, income Taxes paid by the wealthiest 20 percent increased from 81 percent of all income tax revenue to 86 percent despite no change in income distribution. This resulted from low-income tax cuts removing 10 million filers from the income tax rolls.
Despite his verbal stupidity, his hawkish war policies, or his hyper-Christianity, liberals should love this guy for getting the ball rolling for Obama. Hell, if he didn't...there would be no one to blame for TODAY's massively increased deficit spending. And of course, when you have someone you can always blame, you're able to divert attention elsewhere.
BTW, I am NO fan of Bush or the republican party.
How about Bush's environmental policies, like redefining the language of the clean air act and the clear water act. How about when Bush vetoed embryonic stem cell research? Or his attempt to fundamentally change social security? Or his response (or lack thereof) to hurricane Katrina? Or the fact that his lawyers bocked the possibility of a statewide recount in Florida after the election? And no child left behind? And the patriot act? Or the fact that he appointed two conservative supreme court judges? Oh, and wiretapping without warrants through the NSA.
Yeah, I don't think there's much about that presidency that liberals "would" love.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?