Who did more damage (generation, illegal aliens, insurance, politician)

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by proudvoterofObama

Sorry, I didn't know we were being literal. I tend to over exaggerate. The correct amount is 1.4 trillion. Happy?

Actually the correct amount is $0, since the wars arent paid for.. You can claim $1T was spent, (not even $1.4T), but you cant claim it was lost because you need to have something first in order to "lose" it..

[proudvoterofObama]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Actually the correct amount is $0, since the wars arent paid for.. You can claim $1T was spent, (not even $1.4T), but you cant claim it was lost because you need to have something first in order to "lose" it..

Cost of the Bush era: $11.5 trillion - MSN Money

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by proudvoterofObama

Cost of the Bush era: $11.5 trillion - MSN Money

You go from discussing the cost of the war, to the complete cost of the 8 years, and your link actually has NUMEROUS flaws..
To begin, there was no $150B surplus, to continue, presidents dont spend, Congress does, It lists "wall street bailouts", and we all know most of those funds are getting paid back, (i.e. GM, TARP, etc) and the sums include guarantees, which cost Nothing. In addition, for the total to be $11.5T, Bush would have to be responsible for the TOTAL national debt.. Which of course he isnt, and it lists tax cuts, which INCREASED revenues, not decreased them..

Continue with the ignorance, you are providing tons of comedy, especially considering you are a "proudvoterofObama", wanna talk about Obamas cost? mmmmm

[stan4]

The welfare state and the new sense of entitlement on the basis of merely existing is what did the most damage to this country.

[carterstamp]

Originally Posted by jimw144

Who did more damage to the USA terrorist or the Republican administration from 2001-2009?

Wow, this is going to royally pi** some folks off.

[GeorgeLucasLongLostChin]

The most damage was down by americans who lost their collective s*** over a handful of terrorists and went into a reckless consumption binge, thinking that it would last forever.

You have the politicians you deserve. This whole blame game is tiring and goes to show how nowadays people have no accountability.

[mhouse2001]

Originally Posted by jimw144

I believe that Obama has responsibility for the US response to the spill. In that response I believe that the Coast Guard has been on site and overseeing the problem from day 1. I believe he has responsibility for the decisions made in the clean up. I do believe that in the beginning he allowed BP to much credit to be able to handle the spill.

I do not believe that he is responsible for the spill. That is where I blame Bush and Cheney and there feeling that industry is capable of policing itself. On this board on any given day you will see a right winger say that industry needs less regulation, I believe that to be wrong headed.

In the economy I do not believe that Obama put the economy in the toilet. I think that blame falls squarely on the shoulders of Bush and Cheney. I believe that the recovery spending was necessary and in most cases is working. I am encouraged by the banks and GM paying back the loans. I am disappointed by the lack of jobs. I believe more time is needed to tell what worked and what did not.

This poll was one of the easiest for me: the Cheney/Bush administration.

I agree with most of your response but Obama is doing nothing different from the prior eight years. In the end, the "stimulus" (boy is that misnamed!) will benefit all the too-big-too-fail corporations only and will leave the rest of us poorer than before. Of course, if Obama had employed austerity measures, he would have had to bury the White House in concrete and turn it into a bunker. He can't please everyone but the "stimulus" was the only option that would have kept things looking rosy for the masses. The exact opposite of the stimulus--cutting spending everywhere--is the ONLY solution. Bye bye war. Bye bye welfare. Hello forced creativity (meaning it will force us to be creative and use our American ingenuity again).

But back to the poll. It really is a comparison between a subset and a set. The 2001-2009 Bush administration was really a terrorist organization.

[stan4]

Originally Posted by proudvoterofObama

Cost of the Bush era: $11.5 trillion - MSN Money

Yeah, and so...?

That is not what tanked this economy.

It was all the people (banks and private citizens) who value a quick buck and having stuff they never earned over actual substance and hard work? And who taught them their values? The liberal media, the stupid rock stars and celebrities, and all those people who would stand up and say, "Hey, you should have these things whether or not you worked for them, because that is your magical, mythical right as a human being."

[proudvoterofObama]

Originally Posted by pghquest

You go from discussing the cost of the war, to the complete cost of the 8 years, and your link actually has NUMEROUS flaws..
To begin, there was no $150B surplus, to continue, presidents dont spend, Congress does, and for the total to be $11.5T, Bush would have to be responsible for the TOTAL national debt.. Which of course he isnt.. Continue with the ignorance, you are providing tons of comedy, especially considering you are a "proudvoterofObama", wanna talk about Obamas cost? mmmmm

Sure, shoot me with numbers. I am guessing you know since you have direct information regarding Congress spending.

[proudvoterofObama]

Originally Posted by stan4

Yeah, and so...?

That is not what tanked this economy.

It was all the people (banks and private citizens) who value a quick buck and having stuff they never earned over actual substance and hard work?

Can you give specifics?