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.
Our dear "Captain", whom I suspect is actually a small private, is apparently delusional, as well as a budding comedian.
According to Forbes magazine, which is assuredly conservative, Obama has actually added less to the debt than any POTUS since Eisenhower.
As the article states, Ronnie Reagan--who was actually a much more prodigious spender than the current POTUS--would most likely tip his hat to Obama in regard to his thrifty ways.
yeah, those silly statistics are so inconvenient for us republicans.
or maybe the "stimulus" that Obama passed in 2009 is the key number and those numbers posted in the article by retriever ignore that spending increase (courtesy of Obama) and so they start out at a much higher baseline. also understand that most people's notion of a "stimulus" is that its a temporary increase in spending that isn't supposed to continue forever. so the fact that Obama increased the baseline of spending and it never really came back down, that's a problem.
Last edited by CaptainNJ; 10-17-2013 at 01:14 PM..
What our dear Captain and his Teabag minions are apparently unable to comprehend (or--to be more kind--they refuse to acknowledge) is the reality that every incoming POTUS has legacy expenditures to contend with. He may not like these legacy expenditures, but they are reality and they don't go away.
GWB took office with a budget surplus and then moved to give that surplus away in the form of tax cuts for people who didn't need them. This caused a tax shortfall.
GWB invaded Iraq, costing us uncountable dollars, and yet, he did nothing to pay for this war. He simply borrowed the money from China with no tax increase or cuts in spending. Now we are stuck with paying the interest on all this war financing.
GWB enacted Medicare Part D without funding it. He did not ask for money to pay for it, and did not raise taxes, nor cut spending to pay for it. The law that created Medicare Part D also prohibits Medicare from negotiating prices on drugs with the pharma industry. Now, millions of Baby Boomers are reaching 65, and we have insufficient funding in place to pay their drug bills.
Additionally, the TARP program to shore up weak banks was already in place when Obama took office, and this cost almost one trillion dollars.
The bottom line is that Obama has actually been extremely tight with new spending, and, even if he had not enacted any stimulus programs, the legacy expenditures that he inherited would have exploded the deficit anyway. But, for those who either have no memories, or who choose to ignore the past, what I recounted above is a very convenient set of facts to ignore, in order to spread misinformation about somebody who has been more careful with his spending than any of his predecessors for at least 50 years.
No, but I was surprised that it was as close as it was. Thought it would be more like 70 - 30.
Nah, Im seeing a LOT more conservative thinking going on even in the inner cities where the "Obama Phone", "Free Healthcare", skirting the system, and "Giving it to the Man, mannnn" is all anyone cares about.
We need more people in the middle of the playing field. Thats where the game is played. Too many are only looking to score goals and dont care how we get there. This is a team activity that both sides seem to have forgotten.
NJ electorate again chooses to maintain status quo and all is well in NJ.
It is insane to think CB will veer from the play book that has made Newark and other crime ridden cities a Nj legacy.
The choice was predictable as is the outcome and conclusion of his tenure.
Nj is a lost cause politically.
Stunning that Nj will stand by a political party that sets its legislators apart with exemptions from laws it imposes on citizens. What would you call an attitude that thinks this is a good thing?
What our dear Captain and his Teabag minions are apparently unable to comprehend (or--to be more kind--they refuse to acknowledge) is the reality that every incoming POTUS has legacy expenditures to contend with. He may not like these legacy expenditures, but they are reality and they don't go away.
this is just deception out of desperation to avoid dealing with reality. Obama drastically raised spending in his first year in order to "stimulate" the economy and that spending never went back down. he turned stimulus spending into the new budget baseline. like I posted (and you conveniently ignore) the democrats passed the American recovery and investment act of 2009 with almost no republicans whatsoever and Obama signed it. that's his bill, 2009 is his spending, not bush's.
but seriously, how obsessed are libs with George w bush? the guy hasn't been president for almost 5 years now. the fact remains that we need to deal with the budget deficit at some point instead of kicking the can down the road every time the discussion comes up.
Last edited by CaptainNJ; 10-17-2013 at 08:09 PM..
No, I did not. Let's hope a miracle happens and he becomes something more than just the personable empty suit he has been up to date. Unlike Lautenberg, perhaps he will actually reside in NJ instead of just using a condo as a mailing address.
No, I did not. Let's hope a miracle happens and he becomes something more than just the personable empty suit he has been up to date. Unlike Lautenberg, perhaps he will actually reside in NJ instead of just using a condo as a mailing address.
Or Tom Kean who talked like he lived in Hah-vahd Yahd. I have never in my life heard someone born & raised here talk like he did.
what does GWB have to do with anything? barack Obama is on a pace to rack up as much debt as all the presidents before him combined. gwb added debt, too much debt. but compared to barack Obama, bush is a total amateur.
balancing the budget is something that the democrats have not come anywhere close to addressing. they haven't presented anything to that end. im making an assumption based on a total lack of any evidence of what you are saying.
If you ignore that most of the debt added under Obama is directly related to GWB's policies, then you'd be correct. Unfortunately for you, not everyone is that ignorant though.
When was the last time Republicans balanced a budget? And before you answer the 90s, take a look at how many Republican votes were on the Act that passed in 1993 that required a balanced budget....
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.
