What has Obama done that has improved economic conditions, making things better

[Conservative]

I have been posting on DP since December and have asked in various threads exactly what it is that Obama has done that has made this country stronger economically and safer on the international stage. That answer has been difficult to get because it always ends up diverting to Bush and reverts to a comparison between Bush and Clinton, NOT Obama

It is time for the Obama supporters to face the tough questions thus the topic of this thread.

No matter how many times an Obama supporter blames Bush the reality is we have basic civics which most seem to not understand. Basic civics teaches us all that we have three equal branches of the govt. and two of them are involved in all the legislation. The fact is the legislative branch and executive branch are equally responsible for all the spending and the recession that NBR says began in December 2007. Democrats controlled all legislation from January 2007 and continue to control that legislation today. Problem is they control that legislation today along with the Executive Branch thus have no one to blame for the results today but themselves.

Barack Obama was part of that Congress, he voted for all the spending that liberals are blaming Bush for, and he ran on a hope and change message. Problem is I believe a majority of the American people had a different vision of hope and change than Obama.

Obama's vision of change was the European socialist model where the govt, not the private sector controls everything. There is a portion of America that believes the same thing. Problem is the Campaigner in Chief never told the American people what his vision was and the results today aren't what the people in this country envisioned.

Obama tells the people one thing and does something entirely different. He lied about inheriting a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit and in fact added most of that deficit himself with spending 350 billion of the TARP money, taking over GM/Chrysler, and signing a 862 billion dollar stimulus plan.

He lied about the benefits of that stimulus plan claiming that it would prevent unemployment from exceeding 8% or approximately 11 million unemployed Americans. Since that stimulus plan 4 million more are unemployed and over a million more have dropped out of the labor market, discouraged workers. The labor force has dropped and the unemployment today is worse than it was prior to the stimulus bill, a bill that is now over 1 trillion in cost.

He has participated in a massive expansion in the size of govt. leading to the statement now that there is no such thing as unemployment in the Federal govt. He has passed National Healthcare which does nothing to improve the quality or quantity of healthcare for the people but instead will mandate coverage for all Americans which will be paid for by a tax that he claimed he would never impose on people making less than 250,000 per year. It puts added burden on private business which will refuse to hire people due to that added cost.

His lack of executive experience is quite telling. Management 101 teaches that you can never delegate responsibility and that is all he does. He has created dozens of Czars and when they fail it is their fault not his. Every other day he blames Bush and that only fuels the anti Bush crowd but diverts from the reality of what he is doing. He was hired to "clean up" the mess the media and those with Bush Derangement Syndrome claim he was left but all he has done is make it worse and do his best to dismantle the best economic model in the nation by promoting class envy and wealth redistribution. The buck stops with you, President Obama, you helped create the mess we are in and you are doing very llittle to get us out of it. Your policies are creating unsustainable debt and massive intervention of govt. into the private sector.

Now I could go on but the questions for Obama supporters deserves answers. I look forward to having Obama supporters telling me where I am wrong.

 

[Conservative]

Not surprising, 25 views and no responses. that says a lot about the liberal ideology and the way they handle rebukes of their agenda.

 

[Crunch]

Not surprising, 25 views and no responses. that says a lot about the liberal ideology and the way they handle rebukes of their agenda.

In answer to your question...... he has shown the true liberal agenda and assured that it won't be tried again in this generation. :mrgreen:

 

[Donc]

Ok, I’ll try to answer this for you conservative. The answer is not that difficult when taken in the context that he (Obama ), was put in office to clean up an almost untenable economy, left by the incompetence of the bush administration.(hence the reason for… using your term …“ diverting to Bush/Clinton” ).

Hhmm…dontcha think that it’s kinda hard to discuss an “effect” without pointing to the “cause” of something? I think that as much as you would like to forget about the bush administrations mishandling of the economy, the two administrations will forever be entwined, much like FDR and Hoover.

You ask,

“What it is that Obama has done that has made this country stronger economically”?

The loss of jobs has come to a halt and is going up,( though at a snails pace) where previously we were loosing 700k+ jobs per month. We are slowly digging our way out of the giant economic sinkhole, that had the its seed planted during the Reagan administration, that came to fruitation, during the bush administration. Which, by the way, is the usual scenario after eight years of republican tanking the economy.Its normally left to the dems to clean up the economic mess left by the repugs. This time they took us almost over the edge, now they are standing around pointing fingers are sticking their fingers in there ears saying its not our fault, much like your doing on DP.

Tell me conservative, does the RNC pay you by the word, or is it by the….eh..er “MISSTATEMENTS” like the following misstatement?

< He lied about inheriting a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit >

The trouble about that statement is you evidently you are telling a lie, are you’re repeating a lie that was passed on to you as the truth. Which is it? Check this out.

On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion. The 10-year projection was estimated to be about $3.1 trillion. So Obama's number was very close on the 2009 deficit -- he said $1.3 trillion -- but substantially different from the 10-year projection -- he said $8 trillion.>

PolitiFact | Obama inherited deficits from Bush administration

Your just full of .. “Misleading Statements” in this post aren’t you conservative? In addition to the above, you also posted some misleading s*** about the automobile bailouts.

First the bailout was $86 billion, not $350 billion as you stated. Second according to a Free Press article I read, $18.3 billion has already been paid back by the industry and that $74 billion of the $86 billion made available in 08 and 09 to save their a** will be paid back.

Do you live in some kind of winger compound in Texas, where they take turns brainwashing each other? When you post s*** like the above and expect someone with more than one or two functioning brain cells to buy it. :shock:

Here’s some more of you misleading crap for everyone to see.

<The fact is the legislative branch and executive branch are equally responsible for all the spending and the recession that NBR says began in December 2007. Democrats controlled all legislation from January 2007 and continue to control that legislation today. Problem is they control that legislation today along with the Executive Branch thus have no one to blame for the results today but themselves.>

Here are some facts to go with the above Civics lesson.

Seems that you are overlooking the fact that bush had a rubberstamp congress for the first six years of his term, when most of the tax cuts were implemented,. Both thru reconciliation.

Both unfunded. Now let here the bitching about the unfounded unemployment extensions.

As was the Medicare prescription drug bill.

Then comes 2006, when he had to find the veto stamp…12 times ,so he could veto legislation such as…HR 1591= which included U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007.


Now for the rest of the story.

Most of what he has accomplished on the domestic front so far has been…well, in gambling parlance” on the come”. Such as, he signed health care legislation into law on March 23, 2010 much to the chagrin of the republicans and some Dems.Which is according to omb.gov will save big bucks in the long run.

The argument has been from the winger noise machine that “the people of America dislike this law”. Could be. My thoughts on this is it should have been single payer/Medicare for all that want it, or it should have had at the very least had a public option.

If it had any of the above, more of the public would have been viewing this as a positive move. We shall see. This came out of the healthcare bill that was passed, which I view as a positive.” Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions.” Another biggie was when he signed SCHIP, a health insurance program for low-income children, which bus twice vetoed.

VA healthcare is something close to my heart. Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency was signed by the President on Oct. 22, 2009.What does this do for us you ask? The 2010 budget provides billions more in funding for the VA, and the 2011 budget proposal promises further increases.

Plus he put the VA on a two-year budget so they would get the dough on time. Besides the funding of the VA, Obama got the "centers of excellence for Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), PTSD, vision impairment, prosthetics, spinal cord injury ect. in place.

I find it ironic that a President that launched two wars didn’t have this in place. So sad.

Safer on the international stage”.

What to say? Shoe bombers? Underwear bombers?

Troops safer in Iraq?

In 2008, US deaths were =314. In 2009, US deaths were= 149. This year (2010). 43. It’s going in the right direction in Iraq at least.

Troops safer in Afghanistan? In 2008 US deaths were=155. In 2009 US deaths were=317. this year US deaths are=324. Sadly they are going the wrong direction in Afghanistan. More proof that invading Iraq was a bonehead move.

Hopefully what he signed on Jan. 22, 2009,will take out one of the biggest recruitment tool from international terrorist hands. Obama signs executive order on torture.

How about this? Seems to me this would make us a little safer.:2wave:

March 26, 2010, by Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed on a new START treaty with Russia; where they will reduce their number of deployed nuclear warheads to 1,550 warheads, 30 percent lower than the deployed strategic warhead limit of the Moscow Treaty.

 

[Boo Radley]

What would you have him do?

 

[Conservative]

=donc;1058876885]Ok, I’ll try to answer this for you conservative. The answer is not that difficult when taken in the context that he (Obama ), was put in office to clean up an almost untenable economy, left by the incompetence of the bush administration.(hence the reason for… using your term …“ diverting to Bush/Clinton” ).

That is exactly what you hired Obama to do but unlike you I knew exactly what he would do along with the Democrat Congress that he was part of that helped create the mess. The legislative branch is one ofthe three equal branches of govt. and writes the legislation and determines what legislation gets debated and voted upon. Please take a civics class.

Hhmm…dontcha think that it’s kinda hard to discuss an “effect” without pointing to the “cause” of something? I think that as much as you would like to forget about the bush administrations mishandling of the economy, the two administrations will forever be entwined, much like FDR and Hoover.

Interesting how much blame you place on a President while ignoring the Congress. Today we have that same Democrat Congress that got us into that mess along with a leftwing radical President and they are making the problem worse. by the way, stop reading leftwing websites as they make you look and sound foolish.

You ask,

The loss of jobs has come to a halt and is going up,( though at a snails pace) where previously we were loosing 700k+ jobs per month. We are slowly digging our way out of the giant economic sinkhole, that had the its seed planted during the Reagan administration, that came to fruitation, during the bush administration. Which, by the way, is the usual scenario after eight years of republican tanking the economy.Its normally left to the dems to clean up the economic mess left by the repugs. This time they took us almost over the edge, now they are standing around pointing fingers are sticking their fingers in there ears saying its not our fault, much like your doing on DP.

You claim the loss of jobs has come to a halt yet 16 million Americans are unemployed and we have been in that position for the last 8 months. You claimed we were losing 700K per month when the reality is we lost 4 million jobs in 2008 the first year of the recession. Prior to that we were growing jobs and prior to 2007 the Democrats didn't control Congress. What you also ignore is that Obama stated that we had to sign his stimulus plan to keep unemployment below 8%. That of course was another leftwing lie like you always buy. The job losses have stopped? why are first time unemployed still in the 465,000 range and why is it spending a trillion dollars to get these meager results acceptable to you? Please name for me any other President, Democrat or Republican that had 16 million unemployed?

You willlingly buy the rhetoric from Obama because you want to believe. That rhetoric is old and 43% of the people now continue to buy it.

Tell me conservative, does the RNC pay you by the word, or is it by the….eh..er “MISSTATEMENTS” like the following misstatement?

You don't get it and never will. I am NOT a Republican but I am a Conservative. There is nothing conservative about Obama or apparently you. I vote Republican because quite frankly they are the closest to my point of view but there are many in the Republican party that aren't conservative and I have no use for them either.

The trouble about that statement is you evidently you are telling a lie, are you’re repeating a lie that was passed on to you as the truth. Which is it? Check this out.

On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion. The 10-year projection was estimated to be about $3.1 trillion. So Obama's number was very close on the 2009 deficit -- he said $1.3 trillion -- but substantially different from the 10-year projection -- he said $8 trillion.>

Part of that projected deficit was 350 billion from TARP that Obama was left, then there was the stimulus plan which was posted at 862 billion dollars, then there was the GM/Chrylser bailout. None of those are Bush's and all added to the 2009 deficit. In addition Obama was in the Congress that authorized the Bush Budget and he voted for it. Only in your world does voting for something mean you aren't responsible for it.

Your just full of .. “Misleading Statements” in this post aren’t you conservative? In addition to the above, you also posted some misleading s*** about the automobile bailouts.

First the bailout was $86 billion, not $350 billion as you stated. Second according to a Free Press article I read, $18.3 billion has already been paid back by the industry and that $74 billion of the $86 billion made available in 08 and 09 to save their a** will be paid back.

As was most of the TARP money paid back but for some reason that never went to pay down the debt that Obama claims he inherited. Why is that? How much does GM still owe the taxpayers and be careful don't distort the number. Even with the payback the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was 1.47 trilloin and it will be higher this year. Name for me another President that had a trillion dollar deficit?

Do you live in some kind of winger compound in Texas, where they take turns brainwashing each other? When you post s*** like the above and expect someone with more than one or two functioning brain cells to buy it. :shock:

Is that what you say about anyone that disagrees with you and provides you with non partisan sources to back up the statements?

Here’s some more of you misleading crap for everyone to see.

Here are some facts to go with the above Civics lesson.

Seems that you are overlooking the fact that bush had a rubberstamp congress for the first six years of his term, when most of the tax cuts were implemented,. Both thru reconciliation.

Both unfunded. Now let here the bitching about the unfounded unemployment extensions.

As was the Medicare prescription drug bill.

Then comes 2006, when he had to find the veto stamp…12 times ,so he could veto legislation such as…HR 1591= which included U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007.

Interesting that you are another liberal who doesn't understand that it is the people's money before it is the government's thus it isn't an expense. People keeping their own money stimulate the economy and create personal wealth. You seem to have a problem with that.

I suggest you do a little more research on the Prescription drug program and see the private sector solution to the problem not a taxpayer solution. Apparently you don't know the difference. There is nothing unfunded about a tax cut because funding implies expense and tax cuts aren't an expense and as I showed in the U.S. Treasury tax rate cuts of Bush increased spending. My bet is you didn't go to the site to verify the numbers, liberals never do preferring instead your leftwing websites.

As for the other bills being as liberal as you are I would have thought you would have been for all those bills.

Now for the rest of the story.

Most of what he has accomplished on the domestic front so far has been…well, in gambling parlance” on the come”. Such as, he signed health care legislation into law on March 23, 2010 much to the chagrin of the republicans and some Dems.Which is according to omb.gov will save big bucks in the long run.

Your data is outdated as are the premises, the govt. does nothing well and CBP has now said that the healthcare bill will add billions to the debt, but you pick and choose what you want to believe. Thinking apparently isn't your strong suit, there is no way anyone can add that many more to the roles of healthcare and lower costs and improve quality. We already have a doctors' shortage now and many people with insurance are using the ER's instead of waiting for appointments. Why do you buy the rhetoric when the reality is the govt. has never cut anything. Name for me any Federally mandated social program that cost what it was supposed to cost, do what it was supposed to do, had a budget that was cut the following year, and solved a problem.

The argument has been from the winger noise machine that “the people of America dislike this law”. Could be. My thoughts on this is it should have been single payer/Medicare for all that want it, or it should have had at the very least had a public option.

You want the govt. to run the program in the face of all their failures? I continue to say liberals are insane, they do the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

If it had any of the above, more of the public would have been viewing this as a positive move. We shall see. This came out of the healthcare bill that was passed, which I view as a positive.” Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions.” Another biggie was when he signed SCHIP, a health insurance program for low-income children, which bus twice vetoed.

I find it interesting that even with all the failures of the Federal Govt. you continue to have your faith in a bureaucrat in D.C. administering local programs like SCHIP which should be a state program. State and local communities are closer to the problem than a federal bureaucrat yet for some reason you like to duplicate services.

VA healthcare is something close to my heart. Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency was signed by the President on Oct. 22, 2009.What does this do for us you ask? The 2010 budget provides billions more in funding for the VA, and the 2011 budget proposal promises further increases.

As it should, support for or Veterans is a responsibility of the Federal Govt. Bush doubled Clinton's VA budget and to this day Bush has the support of the military that Obama will never have. That VA budget however is a drop in the bucket. The Obama Budget continues to expand in other areas and is projected to exceed the 2009 deficit and match the 2010 deficit, both over a trillion dollars in debt.

I find it ironic that a President that launched two wars didn’t have this in place. So sad.

I find it ironic that someone who ran against the Iraq War kept the Bush Sec. of Defense and called upon the commander that won the war to save his ass in Afghanistan.

In 2008, US deaths were =314. In 2009, US deaths were= 149. This year (2010). 43. It’s going in the right direction in Iraq at least.

Troops safer in Afghanistan? In 2008 US deaths were=155. In 2009 US deaths were=317. this year US deaths are=324. Sadly they are going the wrong direction in Afghanistan. More proof that invading Iraq was a bonehead move.

Interesting that Obama kept the Bush plan in Iraq, a war that we are winning yet in Afghanistan it took him three months to respond to his hand chosen Commander's request for more troops then fired that commander. That is micromanaging a war.

I]March 26, 2010, by Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed on a new START treaty with Russia; where they will reduce their number of deployed nuclear warheads to 1,550 warheads, 30 percent lower than the deployed strategic warhead limit of the Moscow Treaty.[/I]

What did the United States give up in those negotiations? Russia has a truly inexperienced President today and one who is very naive on the world stage. Are we safer today than we were under Bush? History will determine the answer

Nice try at answering the post but not much truth in your post but a lot of ignorance regarding both the Bush agenda and what Obama is doing. Facts matter and you ignored actual positive facts under Bush while giving Obama a pass. When does this become the Obama economy? I cannot believe someone who thinks they are as smart as you continues to buy Obama rhetoric. He tells you it is going to take years to get out of the recession which is just another excuse to spend more money. Reagan got us out of a worse recession in less than 2 years. Obama doesn't have a chance of doing that because of the economic policies he has implemented.

Keep being that insane liberal, throwing money at the problem and expecting a different results. Still waiting for the last President to have a trillion dollar deficit and 16 million unemployed.

 

[Compatibilist]

To answer your topic question... nothing significant. Any economic positives since jan 2008 have nothing to do with the WH actions...

 

[ptif219]

He grew government and increased the debt. He told lies and showed in times of crisis he is incompetent

 

[Boo Radley]

He grew government and increased the debt. He told lies and showed in times of crisis he is incompetent

You will understand that there may be those who disagree with you, especially concerning the second point (as the debt was grown long before Obama became president).

 

[Boo Radley]

What would you have him do?

Conservative, a question is before you.

 

[ptif219]

You will understand that there may be those who disagree with you, especially concerning the second point (as the debt was grown long before Obama became president).

The debt under Obama grows much faster than it did under Bush. Look at Obama not history

Obama's trillions dwarf Bush's 'dangerous' spending | Washington Examiner

You won’t find too many defenders of George W. Bush’s record on spending these days, even among Republicans. But a check of historical tables compiled by the Office of Management and Budget shows that the spending that so distressed Pelosi and Reid seems downright modest today. After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008.

The current administration would kill to have such small numbers. President Barack Obama is unveiling his budget this week, and, in addition to the inherited Bush deficit, he’s adding his own spending at an astonishing pace, projecting annual deficits well beyond $1 trillion in the near future, and, in the rosiest possible scenario, a $533 billion deficit in fiscal year 2013, the last year of Obama’s first term.

And what about the national debt? It increased from $5 trillion to $10 trillion in the Bush years, leading to dramatically higher interest costs. “We pay in interest four times more than we spend on education and four times what it will cost to cover 10 million children with health insurance for five years,” Pelosi said in 2007. “That’s fiscal irresponsibility.”

Now, under Obama, the national debt — and the interest payments — will increase at a far faster rate than during the Bush years.

“We thought the Bush deficits were big at the time,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, told me this week as he prepared to attend Obama’s Fiscal Responsibility Summit. “But this is going to make the previous administration look like rank amateurs. We could be adding multiple trillions to the national debt in the first year.”

 

[Boo Radley]

The debt under Obama grows much faster than it did under Bush. Look at Obama not history

Obama's trillions dwarf Bush's 'dangerous' spending | Washington Examiner

You won’t find too many defenders of George W. Bush’s record on spending these days, even among Republicans. But a check of historical tables compiled by the Office of Management and Budget shows that the spending that so distressed Pelosi and Reid seems downright modest today. After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008.

The current administration would kill to have such small numbers. President Barack Obama is unveiling his budget this week, and, in addition to the inherited Bush deficit, he’s adding his own spending at an astonishing pace, projecting annual deficits well beyond $1 trillion in the near future, and, in the rosiest possible scenario, a $533 billion deficit in fiscal year 2013, the last year of Obama’s first term.

And what about the national debt? It increased from $5 trillion to $10 trillion in the Bush years, leading to dramatically higher interest costs. “We pay in interest four times more than we spend on education and four times what it will cost to cover 10 million children with health insurance for five years,” Pelosi said in 2007. “That’s fiscal irresponsibility.”

Now, under Obama, the national debt — and the interest payments — will increase at a far faster rate than during the Bush years.

“We thought the Bush deficits were big at the time,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, told me this week as he prepared to attend Obama’s Fiscal Responsibility Summit. “But this is going to make the previous administration look like rank amateurs. We could be adding multiple trillions to the national debt in the first year.”

Bush hid some of his growth in the war budget. You can't fight two wars, with no way to pay for them, and not grow the deficit a large amount. But, who grew it faster is a silly point to begin with. Bush grew it and gained nothing at all for anyone of consequence. He just threw money down a hole. And conservatives largely stayed with him. And he wasn't the first. This deficit didn't start with bush. It goes back quite a ways. Only a republican congress and democrat president made any head way on it. There might be a lesson in that.

 

[Conservative]

Conservative, a question is before you.

I would have him first of all extend the Bush tax cuts, then take the rest of the stimulus money that hasn't been spent and give it back to the taxapayers and private sector businesses in the form of tax credits off their revenue. I would postpone the taxes on healthcare and have Congress repeal the bill and replace it with a bill that will provide the private sector incentives to offer healthcare to their workers and would give a healthcare tax credit to all employees to purchase their own healthcare. That would be a great start. Then again another thing he could do is resign taking Biden, Pelosi, and Reid with him.

 

[ptif219]

Bush hid some of his growth in the war budget. You can't fight two wars, with no way to pay for them, and not grow the deficit a large amount. But, who grew it faster is a silly point to begin with. Bush grew it and gained nothing at all for anyone of consequence. He just threw money down a hole. And conservatives largely stayed with him. And he wasn't the first. This deficit didn't start with bush. It goes back quite a ways. Only a republican congress and democrat president made any head way on it. There might be a lesson in that.

Nice how you ignore the fact Obama is out of control spending at record levels. All Obama has done is grow government

 

[Boo Radley]

I would have him first of all extend the Bush tax cuts, then take the rest of the stimulus money that hasn't been spent and give it back to the taxapayers and private sector businesses in the form of tax credits off their revenue. I would postpone the taxes on healthcare and have Congress repeal the bill and replace it with a bill that will provide the private sector incentives to offer healthcare to their workers and would give a healthcare tax credit to all employees to purchase their own healthcare. That would be a great start. Then again another thing he could do is resign taking Biden, Pelosi, and Reid with him.

Well, you're consistent, I'll give you that, but jobs would have been lost. Stimulus for certain kept teachers employed. And what you really are promoting is that the president and congress do nothing. While there are palces I think that would be best, no president would have survived that.

 

[Boo Radley]

Nice how you ignore the fact Obama is out of control spending at record levels. All Obama has done is grow government

Not ignoring anything, just stating a few facts and noting how shocked I am that some now care about spending.

 

[Conservative]

Nice how you ignore the fact Obama is out of control spending at record levels. All Obama has done is grow government

That is exactly what people like Boo want to see. He doesn't have a clue how it gets paid for nor does he care. After all, caring, compassionate liberals are all about feel good rhetoric coming from a bloated Federal Govt. that wastes taxpayer dollars all in the name of compassion yet never really generating compassionate results.

 

[Conservative]

Not ignoring anything, just stating a few facts and noting how shocked I am that some now care about spending.

Some always cared about spending, Bush and Congress spent too much money and Obama has put that spending on steroids. What bothers me the most however is you lack the ability to do any research to find out where that money was spent just like you ignore where that money is being spent now under Obama. Because Obama tells you how evil rich people are and how his spending is necessary to bring us back from the brink of a depression you buy it because that is what you want to believe.

 

[Conservative]

Well, you're consistent, I'll give you that, but jobs would have been lost. Stimulus for certain kept teachers employed. And what you really are promoting is that the president and congress do nothing. While there are palces I think that would be best, no president would have survived that.

How do you know that the states and local communities wouldn't have found the money to keep teachers employed? Since when is funding teachers a Federal Responsibility? You seem to have a strong desire for a large bloated Federal govt. Ours today is over 3.8 trillion dollars. Not big enough for you?

Boo, why do you buy what anyone in the Obama Administration tells you? Seems to me you lack a basic understanding as to the role of the State, Local, and Federal Govt. There is no way that your taxdollars should fund teachers in my area and vice versa.

 

[MaggieD]

Thread: What has Obama done that has improved economic conditions, making things better

Kept coming back hoping to see a neat, bulleted list. Same old tune . . . Bush is to blame. CIH!!!!

 

[Boo Radley]

Some always cared about spending, Bush and Congress spent too much money and Obama has put that spending on steroids. What bothers me the most however is you lack the ability to do any research to find out where that money was spent just like you ignore where that money is being spent now under Obama. Because Obama tells you how evil rich people are and how his spending is necessary to bring us back from the brink of a depression you buy it because that is what you want to believe.

I'm sorry, but your side was deftly silent for eight years as bush and congress spent like drunken saliors. Bush hide someof it, the wars, making his numbers look better, but even they were high. I'm sorry, but there just wasn't a big push from you guys. And you had both congress and the presidency for most of it.

 

[Boo Radley]

How do you know that the states and local communities wouldn't have found the money to keep teachers employed? Since when is funding teachers a Federal Responsibility? You seem to have a strong desire for a large bloated Federal govt. Ours today is over 3.8 trillion dollars. Not big enough for you?

Boo, why do you buy what anyone in the Obama Administration tells you? Seems to me you lack a basic understanding as to the role of the State, Local, and Federal Govt. There is no way that your taxdollars should fund teachers in my area and vice versa.

Because I work in the system, and they're going as soon as the stimulus is gone. It's a fact.

 

[Conservative]

I'm sorry, but your side was deftly silent for eight years as bush and congress spent like drunken saliors. Bush hide someof it, the wars, making his numbers look better, but even they were high. I'm sorry, but there just wasn't a big push from you guys. And you had both congress and the presidency for most of it.

The debt is what it is so nothing was hidden. Because supplementals are signed doesn't mean they escape the debt. Please show anyone here the trillion dollar deficits that Bush had any time during his term? we are two years into the Obama term and already he has two trillion dollar deficits. If you are complaining about the Bush deficits why not Obama's?

 

[Conservative]

Because I work in the system, and they're going as soon as the stimulus is gone. It's a fact.

Since when is it Federal Responsibility to fund teachers salaries? That is a state and local issue, not a Federal Taxpayer issue and you know it if that is the system you work in. Can I expect the people in your community to send mine your tax dollars to fund teachers' here? Didn't think so. If you are in the education system and you believe it is federal responsibility to pay your salary, we are in worse shape than most realize. You probably belong to the union as well.

 

[Boo Radley]

The debt is what it is so nothing was hidden. Because supplementals are signed doesn't mean they escape the debt. Please show anyone here the trillion dollar deficits that Bush had any time during his term? we are two years into the Obama term and already he has two trillion dollar deficits. If you are complaining about the Bush deficits why not Obama's?

Actually:


As we have noted here before, the U.S. military has largely paid for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through emergency spending measures, in effect keeping wartime costs off the books. In addition to masking skyrocketing budget growth at the Department of Defense, this process has allowed the services to treat budget supplementals as a piggy bank for new procurement. Members of Congress may have grumbled about poor oversight, but they have largely acquiesced.

Obama’s message? Not anymore.

"That is why this budget looks ahead ten years and accounts for spending that was left out under the old rules – and for the first time, that includes the full cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," he said. "For seven years, we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price."



Read More Obama: No More War Spending Tricks | Danger Room | Wired.com

Sleight-of-hand accounting practices since 2001 put the US on this course. Between the supplemental "war" budget requests, the deficit spending of two "wars" (and you can't blame this increase on personnel costs - the one cost Rummy didn't back), the outrageous military R&D costs that have yielded little or nothing in return, the black ops programs, the cost of running an entire separate prison system to avoid US law, the expansion of the Medicare drug program, and the tax breaks have given the world a new meaning to the cry "CHAARGE!" Just like too many US civilians used their homes as charge cards, the current administration ran up a humongous tab that will take several future generations to pay. Attempts by the Blue Dogs to turn around this avalanche spending spree for "Daddy's War" and address the losses in veteran's healthcare, Medicare, and education were rebuffed at every turn by Shrub and his party.

Budget analyst: Recent funding approach masks true costs of war (12/15/08) -- GovExec.com

Online NewsHour: Analysis | Bush Unveils Budget Proposal | February 5, 2007 | PBS