100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: How far from the issues have the Republicans strayed? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Wed 12/16/09 09:35 AM
|
|
Fanta, you keep pointing out that Bush made the deficit much larger during his time in office. Exponential, I believe is the word you used. But...Obama has ALSO increased the deficit exponentially, in less than one year in office, but yet, you choose not to point that out. You could also be accused of ignoring something that doesn't support your position. The fact is, until there is an actual recovery, the majority of people who have lost their jobs finding work, people being able to dig out of the financial holes they have found themselves in, Obama is no better than Bush was. Until there are results, REAL, tangible results, then Obama has done nothing but spend a crapload of money, and made the deficit bigger, just like Bush did. The FY (fiscal year) for the US gov runs from Oct 1 to Oct 1. Now when did Obama take office? January 20, 2009? Oct-1, Nov-2, Dec-3, most of Jan-4! 4 months is equal to 1/3 of a year. That means any deficit incurred in FY 2009 was a joint deficit! Obama was only President for 8 months of that year. Furthermore, The budget for the year was voted in by the Bush Admin. In Oct. Effectively, with only 11 total months in office. None of the deficit can be related to him. What can, can only be a partial credit and one must admit, a historically necessary deficit! Wow. That is the most impressive job of skirting an issue I have ever seen. Well done. Take a look at where the deficit was when he took office, and look at it now. Whether it's a " joint " deficit takes absolutely nothing away from the fact that Obama has added billions upon billions of dollars to it. Whether or not it was " historically necessary " will be determined if, and ONLY if, there is a real recovery in the economy. Bush was very much in office, and placed a formal request to congress burried in HIS bailout package, the 7th such request of his presidency, to raise the debt ceiling to a vertiginous 11,315 TRILLION dollars. T'was was very much the act of 'W' administration, whom wins the trophy for wreckless spending and 'HIGHEST RAISE OF THE NATIONAL DEBT UNDER ANY US PRESIDENCY IN HISTORY'. This excerpt dates back to September 29, 2008. '... The bailout plan now pending in Congress could add hundreds of billions of dollars to the national debt – though President Bush said this morning he expects that over time, “much if not all” of the bailout money “will be paid back.” But the government is taking no chances. Buried deep in the hundred pages of bailout legislation is a provision that would raise the statutory ceiling on the national debt to $11.315 trillion. It’ll be the 7th time the debt limit has been raised during this administration. In fact it was just two months ago, on July 30, that President Bush signed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, which contained a provision raising the debt ceiling to $10.615 trillion...' I know, I know, ... it's all Obama's fault!!! But for those whom are interested in a balanced view of a most complex situation, here is a great article scoping the breadth of the mess left by 'W' and the 'Catch 22' challenges facing the Obama administration. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can tell you just ignore these facts because it was just yesterday that I reminded you of them. It's either you ignore them or you have the worst memory I've ever seen. Lets insert a fact then. Bush was saddled with a Dem congress last 4. Pres can only sign or veto... Congress decides when to spend and how much... So then WHO spent our money?!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effectively, with only 11 total months in office. None of the deficit can be related to him. What can, can only be a partial credit and one must admit, a historically necessary deficit! Once again, you are only putting lipstick on a pig. The deficit is still a pig. And considering the lack of economic recovery at this particular point, a pig it shall remain. Might wanna try throwing a dress on it now. I will repeat my statement from last night that you conveniently chose to ignore... If....and ONLY if, there is a real, tangible economic recovery, will this increased deficit spending even begin to be considered " historically necessary ". This recession has already made history as THE worst in a generation. I don't think anyone disputes that, including you. I doubt John McCain would have been done much different had he won the election. And Ron Paul was never in the running from the beginning because the smart money knew he would repeat the mistakes of Herbert Hoover and let the train jump the tracks in some sort of Addams Family economic experiment to see where all the pieces would finally land. So really, your point is moot. -Kerry O. Right on Kerry-O |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fanta, you keep pointing out that Bush made the deficit much larger during his time in office. Exponential, I believe is the word you used. But...Obama has ALSO increased the deficit exponentially, in less than one year in office, but yet, you choose not to point that out. You could also be accused of ignoring something that doesn't support your position. The fact is, until there is an actual recovery, the majority of people who have lost their jobs finding work, people being able to dig out of the financial holes they have found themselves in, Obama is no better than Bush was. Until there are results, REAL, tangible results, then Obama has done nothing but spend a crapload of money, and made the deficit bigger, just like Bush did. The FY (fiscal year) for the US gov runs from Oct 1 to Oct 1. Now when did Obama take office? January 20, 2009? Oct-1, Nov-2, Dec-3, most of Jan-4! 4 months is equal to 1/3 of a year. That means any deficit incurred in FY 2009 was a joint deficit! Obama was only President for 8 months of that year. Furthermore, The budget for the year was voted in by the Bush Admin. In Oct. Effectively, with only 11 total months in office. None of the deficit can be related to him. What can, can only be a partial credit and one must admit, a historically necessary deficit! Wow. That is the most impressive job of skirting an issue I have ever seen. Well done. Take a look at where the deficit was when he took office, and look at it now. Whether it's a " joint " deficit takes absolutely nothing away from the fact that Obama has added billions upon billions of dollars to it. Whether or not it was " historically necessary " will be determined if, and ONLY if, there is a real recovery in the economy. Bush was very much in office, and placed a formal request to congress burried in HIS bailout package, the 7th such request of his presidency, to raise the debt ceiling to a vertiginous 11,315 TRILLION dollars. T'was was very much the act of 'W' administration, whom wins the trophy for wreckless spending and 'HIGHEST RAISE OF THE NATIONAL DEBT UNDER ANY US PRESIDENCY IN HISTORY'. This excerpt dates back to September 29, 2008. '... The bailout plan now pending in Congress could add hundreds of billions of dollars to the national debt – though President Bush said this morning he expects that over time, “much if not all” of the bailout money “will be paid back.” But the government is taking no chances. Buried deep in the hundred pages of bailout legislation is a provision that would raise the statutory ceiling on the national debt to $11.315 trillion. It’ll be the 7th time the debt limit has been raised during this administration. In fact it was just two months ago, on July 30, that President Bush signed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, which contained a provision raising the debt ceiling to $10.615 trillion...' I know, I know, ... it's all Obama's fault!!! But for those whom are interested in a balanced view of a most complex situation, here is a great article scoping the breadth of the mess left by 'W' and the 'Catch 22' challenges facing the Obama administration. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=1 The deficit increased under Bush from 5.7 T to 12.7 T. For FY (2009), Obama was President for only 8 months and yet to Republicans and haters it's all Obama's fault. Petty. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Fanta46
on
Wed 12/16/09 09:48 PM
|
|
I can tell you just ignore these facts because it was just yesterday that I reminded you of them. It's either you ignore them or you have the worst memory I've ever seen. Lets insert a fact then. Bush was saddled with a Dem congress last 4. Pres can only sign or veto... Congress decides when to spend and how much... So then WHO spent our money?!!! 2 years, and they didn't carry enough of a majority to make that relevant. Certainly not enough to override a Presidential Veto. In the first 6 years, Bush didn't use a single Presidential Veto. Not One! In his last 2 years he went crazy with them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i watched Religiousless last nite and i found it interesting that a Republican lawmaker stated on camera that you didn't have to be smart to become a Congressman. I see alot of back and forth banter on here and i say, let the R's use their freedom of speech, none of their diatribes have substance and they eat their sneakers everytime they try to make a point. I mean really, the whole Obama's a kenyan muslim commie is losing substance and...well downright silly. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I know your story and can't understand what you are thinking . neither party is on your side right left they are both your enamy . without saying to much about this I can say one thing that is a altreism no one in the government is on your side or mine for that matter . |
|
|
|
|
