|
Obama?
Sept 6, 2010 16:21:11 GMT -4
Post by hisea on Sept 6, 2010 16:21:11 GMT -4
A trillion wasn't enough! How about 50 billion more!
|
|
|
Obama?
Sept 9, 2010 5:39:05 GMT -4
Post by hisea on Sept 9, 2010 5:39:05 GMT -4
(CNSNews.com) - In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan. cnsnews.com/news/article/72404
|
|
|
Obama?
Sept 10, 2010 0:11:33 GMT -4
Post by grova on Sept 10, 2010 0:11:33 GMT -4
Deep Sea...please post the some figures for the last 8 years. Curious to see what Obama inherited. I mean other than a recession...bank melt down... 2 wars...1st stimulus package...record job loss..tax breaks (which added to the deficit) Bush's Medicare drug benefit program that, "initially was projected at $400 billion for the ten-year period between 2004 and 2013. One month after passage, the administration estimated that the net cost of the program over the period between 2006 (the first year the program started paying benefits) and 2015 would be $534 billion. As of February 2009, the projected net cost of the program over the 2006 to 2015 period was $549.2 billion. Here's our current tab just for the wars. www.costofwar.com/Not to mention the amount of money we spend yearly just on defense. Not war costs. Currently $684 Billion a year. www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending Where was your outrage then? Please...Please...look to some other sources for your news. I don't proclaim our current President to be a "savior" but seriously. The guy inherited a huge pile O' crape. The last two years the GOP has done nothing to help. Only complained / stalled/ shifted blame/ played politics all in the hope of winning back power. Nothing to help you. We hear about "Ground Zero Mosques" when during the same time they are voting down this... www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/nyregion/30zadroga.htmlThe bill would have provided $3.2 billion over the next eight years to monitor and treat injuries stemming from exposure to toxic dust and debris at ground zero. New York City would have paid 10 percent of those health costs. In the end, 243 Democrats and 12 Republicans supported the measure; 155 Republicans and 4 Democrats opposed it. Sorry to all for the ramble but come on...10 posts a day of BS is BS.
|
|
|
Obama?
Sept 10, 2010 0:40:19 GMT -4
Post by moosie on Sept 10, 2010 0:40:19 GMT -4
thank you, grova.
|
|
|
Obama?
Sept 10, 2010 4:36:35 GMT -4
Post by dej on Sept 10, 2010 4:36:35 GMT -4
Deep Sea...please post the some figures for the last 8 years. Curious to see what Obama inherited. I mean other than a recession...bank melt down... 2 wars...1st stimulus package...record job loss..tax breaks (which added to the deficit) Bush's Medicare drug benefit program that, "initially was projected at $400 billion for the ten-year period between 2004 and 2013. One month after passage, the administration estimated that the net cost of the program over the period between 2006 (the first year the program started paying benefits) and 2015 would be $534 billion. As of February 2009, the projected net cost of the program over the 2006 to 2015 period was $549.2 billion. Here's our current tab just for the wars. www.costofwar.com/Not to mention the amount of money we spend yearly just on defense. Not war costs. Currently $684 Billion a year. www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending I've some figures for you on what President Obama inherited. Republicans spent six years under President Bush helping dig the hole we are in, and whether you believe it or not, I was outraged then too, particularly with budgeting gimmick of supplemental spending bills for needed defense spending. I understood that during wartime, it's easy to come up against unexpected expenditures. Unfortunately many of these supplemental bills contained non-emergency spending that was also non-defense related. I know this may be hard to believe, but even Democrats tacked on some pork in exchange for their votes on these bills. While many like you only seem to focus Defense spending, it wasn't alone in adding to the deficit during those years. There were also steep hikes in other areas of discretionary spending. Education spending was increased by 37% during those years, as well as health spending. Spending in the area of international affairs increased by 47%, including more than doubling of the money previously spent to fight AIDS in Africa. (These numbers are based on historical tables from the OMB) But the Democrats often don't get enough credit for their role in creating that "inheritance". Many of the increases in discretionary spending for those years were needed to buy Democratic votes for the bills with Republican priorities. Then Democrats took control of Congress in 2008, for the last two years of the Bush presidency. The new incoming House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi on January 4, 2007 said "After years of historic deficits, this new Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.". That statement proved to be a lie within a few months. Those "historic deficits" are no longer historic in light of recent deficits and now our "mountains of debt" more closely resemble the Himalayas than the Appalachians. After six years of ranting about fiscal irresponsibility by Republicans, their first budget had a projected spending increase of 454 billion over 10 years, and raised taxes and fees by 98 billion for the same period, resulting in an additional 356 billion of deficit spending. This increase included a 9.4% increase in discretionary spending, 275 billion more than President Bush requested, along with another 179 billion in new entitlement spending. Now we see that was just a preview of coming attractions, as deficit spending under the Democrats has grown exponentially since then Where was your outrage then? Please...Please...look to some other sources for your news. I don't proclaim our current President to be a "savior" but seriously. The guy inherited a huge pile O' crape. The last two years the GOP has done nothing to help. Only complained / stalled/ shifted blame/ played politics all in the hope of winning back power. Nothing to help you. We hear about "Ground Zero Mosques" when during the same time they are voting down this... www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/nyregion/30zadroga.htmlThe bill would have provided $3.2 billion over the next eight years to monitor and treat injuries stemming from exposure to toxic dust and debris at ground zero. New York City would have paid 10 percent of those health costs. In the end, 243 Democrats and 12 Republicans supported the measure; 155 Republicans and 4 Democrats opposed it. Sorry to all for the ramble but come on...10 posts a day of BS is BS. Your last example wasn't really a great example of "Republicans doing nothing to help". It's actually a perfect example of how both parties have put politics and grandstanding ahead of legislating. The impetus for that bill actually started back in January due to discussion of cutting back or not funding some 9/11 health programs This decision was made by President Obama and his HHS Secretary Sebelius, not by Republicans. www.911families.org/News%20articles/Health/Concern%20Over%20Health%20Bill.htmlInitially the bill had bipartisan support, and came out of committee with strong support from both sides of the aisle. Then both parties decided, as long as it seemed like it was going to pass anyway, let's make a political football out of it and punt it around a little before it gets passed. It appeared that the Republicans were going to introduce some amendments during the floor debate. It's not likely any would have passed. The Democrats have a large enough majority to make any Republican amendments DOA, as they have done consistently the last couple years. But the Democrats apparently were afraid the Republicans might actually either come up with a good idea, or some type of amendment they might look bad voting down. So Democrats decided to gamble and introduce it under special rules which allowed minimal debate, no amendments, and required a 2/3 majority vote. They figured the bill was so popular that it would carry just enough Republican votes to squeak through, letting them claim they finally passed a significant bill with bipartisan support. This plan also had the added benefit of providing talking points to attack Republicans that didn't play ball. Unfortunately, they miscalculated, and it made them look like they couldn't get an easy bill through, even with an overwhelming majority. Now It looks like the bill will be passed after all, probably within the next month or so, under "normal" House rules, and most likely with more Republican votes. Then both sides will claim "Victory" in time for the midterm elections. The Democrats will boast about getting it passed despite "Republican obstruction", something they could have easily done the first time around. The Republicans will introduce some amendments that get voted down, Then the Republicans that vote for it this time will say they did so in a bipartisan spirit, and that they overcame "Democrat arrogance" to force the House to do the bill the right way.
|
|
|
Obama?
Sept 10, 2010 5:44:01 GMT -4
Post by hisea on Sept 10, 2010 5:44:01 GMT -4
A little cheese with your wine! ;D
|
|
|
Obama?
Sept 10, 2010 15:00:09 GMT -4
Post by highlander73 on Sept 10, 2010 15:00:09 GMT -4
During Bush's first 6 years, when Republicans had control of the White House and Congress, we find the following, in spite of the dramatic bad effects of 9/11;
The economic growth rate of Gross Domestic Product averaged 5.5% per year.
The Deficit averaged $231 Billion per year.
The average Unemployment Rate was 5.28%.
A net of 7.54 million jobs were added to the economy.
The National Debt averaged only 60.88% of GDP, better than Clinton's average of 63.76%.
The Public Debt increased only $1.44 Trillion in 6 years.
Since the Democrats took over Congress (including the legislative and spending agenda) in 2006 (4 years ago);
The economic growth rate of Gross Domestic Product averaged only 1.8% per year.
The Deficit has averaged $890 Billion per year.
The Unemployment Rate has averaged 7.5%, and is currently stuck at 9.6%.
A net of 5.74 million jobs have been LOST to the economy.
The National Debt has averaged 77.84% of GDP, and is now over 93% of GDP (Greece had a meltdown when theirs got over 100% of GDP).
The Public Debt increased by $4.46 Trillion in 4 years (Obama's projection for 2010).
FYI - the "financial meltdown" happened 2 years AFTER the Democrats took over all legislation and spending, including Congressional oversight of Wall Street. Thanks Barney Frank & Chris Dodd.
|
|
|
Obama?
Sept 15, 2010 21:25:13 GMT -4
Post by grova on Sept 15, 2010 21:25:13 GMT -4
The Bush tax cuts remain the single largest cause of America’s structural deficit—that is, the deficit not caused by the collapse in tax revenues when the economy goes into recession. The Bush administration inherited budget surpluses from the Clinton administration. What turned these into deficits, even before the recession? There were three fundamental new costs—the tax cuts, the prescription-drug bill, and post-9/11 security spending (including the Iraq and Afghanistan wars). Of these the tax cuts were by far the largest, adding up to $2.3 trillion over 10 years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly half the cost of all legislation enacted from 2001 to 2007 can be attributed to the tax cuts. www.newsweek.com/2010/08/01/raise-my-taxes-mr-president.html
|
|
|
Obama?
Sept 15, 2010 23:06:00 GMT -4
Post by misternuke on Sept 15, 2010 23:06:00 GMT -4
The Bush tax cuts remain the single largest cause of America’s structural deficit—that is, the deficit not caused by the collapse in tax revenues when the economy goes into recession. The Bush administration inherited budget surpluses from the Clinton administration. What turned these into deficits, even before the recession? There were three fundamental new costs—the tax cuts, the prescription-drug bill, and post-9/11 security spending (including the Iraq and Afghanistan wars). Of these the tax cuts were by far the largest, adding up to $2.3 trillion over 10 years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly half the cost of all legislation enacted from 2001 to 2007 can be attributed to the tax cuts. www.newsweek.com/2010/08/01/raise-my-taxes-mr-president.htmlI'm glad we can all agree that the prescription drug bill was a monumental mistake.... Too much spending has been the biggest problem on both sides of the aisle.
|
|
|
Obama?
Sept 15, 2010 23:43:35 GMT -4
Post by highlander73 on Sept 15, 2010 23:43:35 GMT -4
The Bush tax cuts remain the single largest cause of America’s structural deficit—that is, the deficit not caused by the collapse in tax revenues when the economy goes into recession. The Bush administration inherited budget surpluses from the Clinton administration. What turned these into deficits, even before the recession? There were three fundamental new costs—the tax cuts, the prescription-drug bill, and post-9/11 security spending (including the Iraq and Afghanistan wars). Of these the tax cuts were by far the largest, adding up to $2.3 trillion over 10 years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly half the cost of all legislation enacted from 2001 to 2007 can be attributed to the tax cuts. www.newsweek.com/2010/08/01/raise-my-taxes-mr-president.htmlI missed the part where you wrote how the Democratic Congress approved of these budgets/bills. I missed the part where you mentioned that not a single Dem has proposed rescinding the tax cuts for the under $200k crowd, further extending "the problem". (Of course, I expect you to continue to call them "the Bush tax cuts" for as long as they are in effect regardless of who approves to continue them). I missed the math as well - if the tax cuts didn't go on-line until FY02 (OCT 2001), how do we know what the cost is over a ten year period? Democrat crystal ball? Finally I missed the solution you posted - what do you suggest we do? More surplus/stimulus/social programs? I do find it amazing that Dems find it so startling that post-9/11 defense spending was high. Ya think? Perhaps we should have just ignored the Tower attack (as we did in 1993 bombing) and boink another intern like Clinton.
|
|
|
Obama?
Sept 16, 2010 7:50:57 GMT -4
Post by Frank on Sept 16, 2010 7:50:57 GMT -4
Did you miss the part about having one of the highest tax rates during the Clinton years? It's easy to have a surplus when you just take more money from the taxpayers. It means we were overtaxed. We shouldn't have a surplus at the end of the year . We should have lower taxes.
|
|
|
Obama?
Sept 16, 2010 8:12:53 GMT -4
Post by Frank on Sept 16, 2010 8:12:53 GMT -4
You gotta admit, this is funny!
|
|
|
Obama?
Sept 24, 2010 15:19:45 GMT -4
Post by hisea on Sept 24, 2010 15:19:45 GMT -4
|
|
|
Obama?
Sept 29, 2010 16:19:12 GMT -4
Post by hisea on Sept 29, 2010 16:19:12 GMT -4
|
|
|
Obama?
Sept 29, 2010 16:23:07 GMT -4
Post by RobMoore on Sept 29, 2010 16:23:07 GMT -4
Pot, meet kettle.
|
|
|
Obama?
Sept 30, 2010 23:02:12 GMT -4
Post by dennis77 on Sept 30, 2010 23:02:12 GMT -4
How is freedom of speech being impeded? Fox News is saying what they want to say, Obama's saying what he wants to say. Sounds like America to me.
|
|
|
Obama?
Oct 1, 2010 9:31:09 GMT -4
Post by RobMoore on Oct 1, 2010 9:31:09 GMT -4
When Obama says "what he wants to say", it is from a position of power. The power coming from his office is meant to be limited. That is the difference. He shouldn't be able to say whatever he wants.
|
|
|
Obama?
Oct 1, 2010 17:45:10 GMT -4
Post by pete1 on Oct 1, 2010 17:45:10 GMT -4
When Obama says "what he wants to say", it is from a position of power. The power coming from his office is meant to be limited. That is the difference. He shouldn't be able to say whatever he wants. Let them all say what they want. Talk always comes before the fight. Let us hope that the Country is the winner.
|
|
|
Obama?
Oct 7, 2010 13:30:40 GMT -4
Post by hisea on Oct 7, 2010 13:30:40 GMT -4
|
|
|
Obama?
Oct 7, 2010 15:34:36 GMT -4
Post by moosie on Oct 7, 2010 15:34:36 GMT -4
obamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobamaobamaobama obamaobama
|
|
|
Obama?
Oct 7, 2010 15:53:54 GMT -4
Post by grova on Oct 7, 2010 15:53:54 GMT -4
Let me guess...all this happened under Obama. Right?
|
|
|
Obama?
Oct 7, 2010 19:15:56 GMT -4
Post by moosie on Oct 7, 2010 19:15:56 GMT -4
Let me guess...all this happened under Obama. Right? silly person--don't you realize yet that everything bad that ever happened is obama's fault? have you not been listening? do you not support unsupported facts untruthy truths? where is your patriotism?
|
|
|
Obama?
Oct 7, 2010 19:33:10 GMT -4
Post by dej on Oct 7, 2010 19:33:10 GMT -4
silly person--don't you realize yet that everything bad that ever happened is obama's fault? have you not been listening? do you not support unsupported facts untruthy truths? where is your patriotism? I thought I was listening, but all I ever heard was that it was Bush's fault. I guess it's harder to be patriotic without Bush to demonstrate against. After all, liberals said that was the patriotic thing to do! I wouldn't dream of blaming Obama for anything! That would make me a racist
|
|
|
Obama?
Oct 8, 2010 0:07:21 GMT -4
Post by moosie on Oct 8, 2010 0:07:21 GMT -4
really? a racist?
|
|
|
Obama?
Oct 8, 2010 7:51:23 GMT -4
Post by Frank on Oct 8, 2010 7:51:23 GMT -4
|
|