Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A vote for Romney is a vote for the tea party, the racists, the war-mongers, wall street, the know-nothings, and the evangelicals. Good guy, bad party. Not from me!
What led to the housing bubble didn't suddenly start after he won the election (and he did win it, he did not steal it). But he should have done something to stop it - I agree with you on that. Our debt was nowhere near zero when Clinton left. Where are you getting this information? It was $5.7 trillion. Now, we did have a few years with no deficits. But deficits =/= debt
I'm not against all wars. Sometimes, they are a necessary evil. I was against that war. That being said, the war certainly did not cost millions of lives in a foreign country. And it certainly did not bring our financial disaster. It didn't help, but the wars (Afghanistan + Iraq) in their entirety have cost only about $1 trillion over more than 10 years. Spending as a whole in 2011 alone was $3.6 trillion.
Sorry it was deficit, not debt.
Now it's my question, where did you get 1 trillion number?
Reuter reported last year that The final bill will run at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project "Costs of War" by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies. (www.costsofwar.org)
In the 10 years since U.S. troops went into Afghanistan to root out the al Qaeda leaders behind the September 11, 2001, attacks, spending on the conflicts totaled $2.3 trillion to $2.7 trillion.
Those numbers will continue to soar when considering often overlooked costs such as long-term obligations to wounded veterans and projected war spending from 2012 through 2020. The estimates do not include at least $1 trillion more in interest payments coming due and many billions more in expenses that cannot be counted, according to the study.
Bush did not just start the aggression war, then more strangely, he made huge tax cut during war time and made our country number 1 debtor in world, all those amounts a financial disaster.
If you are a real capitalist, you should honor Obama that he saved this system from total collapse. 2008 crisis was so deep that the nation was at the cliff of total chaos.
Last edited by seagull84; 06-17-2012 at 06:09 PM..
Now it's my question, where did you get 1 trillion number?
Reuter reported last year that The final bill will run at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project "Costs of War" by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies. (www.costsofwar.org)
In the 10 years since U.S. troops went into Afghanistan to root out the al Qaeda leaders behind the September 11, 2001, attacks, spending on the conflicts totaled $2.3 trillion to $2.7 trillion.
Those numbers will continue to soar when considering often overlooked costs such as long-term obligations to wounded veterans and projected war spending from 2012 through 2020. The estimates do not include at least $1 trillion more in interest payments coming due and many billions more in expenses that cannot be counted, according to the study.
But, you're right, these estimates do not include everything
Quote:
Originally Posted by seagull84
Bush did not just start the aggression war, then more strangely, he made huge tax cut during war time and made our country number 1 debtor in world, all those amounts a financial disaster.
The Bush tax cuts were passed before 9/11 and before the wars ever started. The tax cuts were necessary to stimulate the economy because of the early 2000's recession. Revenue actually increased after the tax cuts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seagull84
If you are a real capitalist, you should honor Obama that he saved this system from total collapse. 2008 crisis was so deep that the nation was at the cliff of total chaos.
Well, Bush - not Obama - enacted TARP (the bank bailouts, if you think those saved the system from total collapse).
Obama did not save the nation from chaos. He passed the stimulus and, when it and his other policies actually started to have a greater impact, GDP growth slowed.
Now, participation in the labor force is at its lowest since 1981. And Obama amassed more debt in his first 3 years and 2 months in office than W did in 8.
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 06-17-2012 at 06:58 PM..
When you enter such economy area, you need to have all history context for any valid deduction. Your tax cut and tax cut aren't magic as you preach to. Why you didn't count all of Bush's years? Why don't you count 2011 economy expansion? As I can say since ROP got upper hand in 2010 midterm, they did all to hinder the economy growth on purpose, so since late 2010 we saw slower recover. Anyway we both are entitled to our individual opinion. I am sorry you even cant see the extremist movement from GOP. This discussion is too far from OP post, bye. We may continue discussion in other place, but not here.
Your tax cut and tax cut aren't magic as you preach to.
I never said they were.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seagull84
Why you didn't count all of Bush's years?
This isn't about the Bush years, and I've acknowledged I don't think he was that good of a president.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seagull84
Why don't you count 2011 economy expansion?
The expansion in 2011 was very slow. GDP growth below 2% and just barely enough jobs to keep up with population growth, not enough to even begin to make up for the more than 8 million jobs lost during 2008/2009/2010.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seagull84
As I can say since ROP got upper hand in 2010 midterm, they did all to hinder the economy growth on purpose, so since late 2010 we saw slower recover.
No.
And - BTW - notice what I posted about slower GDP growth starting in early 2010.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seagull84
Anyway we both are entitled to our individual opinion.
We are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seagull84
I am sorry you even cant see the extremist movement from GOP.
I can, and I have called out extremist Republicans many times on this forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seagull84
This discussion is too far from OP post, bye. We may continue discussion in other place, but not here.
In other words...you can't refute what I've said.
But, you're right, this probably wasn't the best thread for this discussion.
While I think we may agree more than I thought, let us talk some other time. Good night to you too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
I never said they were.
This isn't about the Bush years, and I've acknowledged I don't think he was that good of a president.
The expansion in 2011 was very slow. GDP growth below 2% and just barely enough jobs to keep up with population growth, not enough to even begin to make up for the more than 8 million jobs lost during 2008/2009/2010.
No.
And - BTW - notice what I posted about slower GDP growth starting in early 2010.
We are.
I can, and I have called out extremist Republicans many times on this forum.
In other words...you can't refute what I've said.
But, you're right, this probably wasn't the best thread for this discussion.
Romney. I gave Obama a chance when he was elected in 2008 although I was too young to vote then. (I became old enough 12/25/2010). I knew he would probably be a pretty low quality president, but not the worst, but he could surprise me. Well surprise me he did. Not in a good way, but in a bad way; he's been far worse than I thought he would ever be.
As an independent observer of US politics more than 20 years, care to show me your major reasons, or better yet, the links you think mostly influence your change? I will not response you tonight if I ever response you at all. This is really out of my curiosity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wawa1992
Romney. I gave Obama a chance when he was elected in 2008 although I was too young to vote then. (I became old enough 12/25/2010). I knew he would probably be a pretty low quality president, but not the worst, but he could surprise me. Well surprise me he did. Not in a good way, but in a bad way; he's been far worse than I thought he would ever be.
i will never vote for a forced birther. Romney is a forced birther.
Being pro-choice is not a reason to rule out a pro-life candidate.
Being pro-life IS a reason to rule out a pro-choice candidate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
