Geebus, I can't belive the "Blame Bush" crowd is still at it!

[AzCat]

Bush v. Obama on spending: the facts.

For the ADD crowd (all you lefties & most of the rest):


D'oh!  So much for the "Bush was even worse than Obama" crap.

So what's Obama doing with all that money?  Buying votes, just like every other politician on the planet:


On the bright side we'll all have a shot at buying back into the markets fairly cheaply in the next couple of years.   

[ednksu]

Bush v. Obama on spending: the facts.

For the ADD crowd (all you lefties & most of the rest):

Not sure you understand statistics.jpg

So what's Obama doing with all that money?  Buying votes, just like every other politician on the planet:

On the bright side we'll all have a shot at buying back into the markets fairly cheaply in the next couple of years.   

if you agree that they are all doing it R&D alike I don't think any sane person would disagree with you. 

[AzCat]

Bush v. Obama on spending: the facts.

For the ADD crowd (all you lefties & most of the rest):

Not sure you understand statistics.jpg

Seems likely that one of us certainly does not.

[ednksu]

Bush v. Obama on spending: the facts.

For the ADD crowd (all you lefties & most of the rest):

Not sure you understand statistics.jpg

Seems likely that one of us certainly does not.

how many of Bush's programs did Obama end?  I would place this chart in the suspect category because it make it seem like both Presidencies started at a zero or equal plateau, when neither clearly did.  Clearly the chart shows an average.  President Bush has the advantage of having 1 year without any war.  Than other year without the war in Iraq.  Those two major spending obligation have been in Obama's average since day 1.  I would also note going back to my original point, Obama stepped into office and was not able to start at the same level of spending as Bush due to those wars.  Obviously wars go beyond election cycles, so of course his average will be higher than Bush's for that simple fact.

[AzCat]

how many of Bush's programs did Obama end?  I would place this chart in the suspect category because it make it seem like both Presidencies started at a zero or equal plateau, when neither clearly did.  Clearly the chart shows an average.  President Bush has the advantage of having 1 year without any war.  Than other year without the war in Iraq.  Those two major spending obligation have been in Obama's average since day 1.  I would also note going back to my original point, Obama stepped into office and was not able to start at the same level of spending as Bush due to those wars.  Obviously wars go beyond election cycles, so of course his average will be higher than Bush's for that simple fact.

Your first sentence there is the key point: Obama, despite being the first US President in decades to simultaneously have a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate, ended none of Bush's programs (or at least none that I can recall).  This despite the fact that the Democrats were in complete control of US government as of January 2009 and could have rammed through repeals of every single Bush-era program.  Yet while possessed of the ability to do whatever they liked what they chose was to retain everything Bush had signed.  Thus they, and Obama, now own all of it and all of the associated spending & costs.  

Nice try on the wars but even including the cost of them defense spending is still well below its post WW II average in real terms:

Both Bush I and Clinton slashed defense to further gorge the welfare state beast.  Bush II would've done the same but the first major attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor forced him to do otherwise.

As a matter of fact, we could eliminate the entire Department of Defense, not just spending for present foreign wars but the ENTIRE DOD ...


... and Obama would still run roughly a $1,000,000,000,000.00 deficit in 2011 alone:


There is very clearly a spending problem but it has little to do with Bush, our present foreign wars and/or the DOD.  

[ednksu]

from what I gathered the 2011 deficit would be about 1.1/1.2 trillion.  Now if we cut the entire DOD that would, by your pie chart, get us about half of it back. 

Obviously the entitlement state and discretionary spending/earmarks/worthless projects are the main thing bleeding this country dry.  That is a constant topic with my family's political discussion and I always wonder why we hand out citizenship or visas to anyone staying here for economic reasons rather than wanting to become "american".  But that is another thread entirely.  Both Rs and Ds feed that beast the finest government cheese available. 

Now to your point about passing cuts, reauthorizing Bush plans etc etc.  To put all of that on the Obama admin and the Dems is intellectually dishonest.  Of course the status quo will keep itself, the machine, in roughly the same order as the previous administration.  I mean how else do you account for people saying the Obama healthcare plan will cost a lot of money to repeal when most of the plan's objectives haven't come into affect yet?  The second thing that you are being dishonest about is the majority the Dems had in congress and their ability to push through anything.  First off the Republicans certainly became the party of NO in the house and refused to let anything meaningful through from the Dems.  Now I will add a caveat and say that the Dems are CLEARLY the most incompetent political party in the world for easily the last 5 years, if not decade.  I mean you are right they did have a majority.  But the Republicans were able to block EVERYTHING they didn't like and forced the Dems to water anything down to the point of being a shell of its former self to get 'passed' through.  I think we can agree that Pelosi and Obama to a lesser extent have failed their party and most importantly their constituents mightily in the last 10 years. 

[Bookcat]

AzCat...if you're point is that Obama has failed because he's too much aligned with any Tea Party or neo-nazi conservative....then yes...spot on.

[chum1]

this thead could turn into an epic graph-off

[husserl]

Your facts are very misleading, especially concerning 2009.  You're probably unaware of this, and it's not really your fault. 

How do these major broadcasters get to be so clueless? We’re not sure, but Candy Crowley even got steam-rolled by Tim Pawlenty on Sunday’s State of the Union! We know—a broadcaster can’t be ready for every claim a guest might make. But Pawlenty made a remarkably basic claim—and Crowley failed to challenge it:

    PAWLENTY (7/24/11): Well, first, let's—I do want to say, let's remember how we got here. President Obama took office with a $500 billion or so deficit, and he ran it up the deficit to $1.5 trillion—excuse me, $1.5 trillion.

Say what? It’s true that the deficit for fiscal year 2008 was roughly $450 trillion. But, as Crowley surely knows, that fiscal year ended in the fall of 2008, with Candidate Barack Obama still on the campaign trail. On January 7, 2009, the CBO issued its deficit forecast for fiscal year 2009—a year which had now been under way for three months.

Obama was still two weeks from taking office. But on the front page of the Washington Post, Lori Montgomery explained where the projected deficit stood:

    MONTGOMERY (1/8/09): The nation's budget deficit will soar to an unprecedented $1.2 trillion this year, congressional budget analysts said yesterday, a startling tide of red ink that could dampen enthusiasm on Capitol Hill for some of President-elect Barack Obama’s most ambitious priorities.

    In the first official estimate of the damage done to the nation's finances by a weakening economy and various financial-sector bailouts, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that the gap between government spending and available revenue will exceed 8 percent of the overall economy by the end of September, a chasm not seen since the end of World War II.

    The news drew a grim reaction from Congress, where the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), called the figure "jaw-dropping." While lawmakers said they expect to dig this year's hole even deeper by approving a massive stimulus package aimed at pulling the nation out of recession, Conrad and his House counterpart, Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (D-S.C.), said they have warned to limit the package to temporary measures that will not add to the deficit in future years.

A key word there is “president-elect.” Due to the economic disaster, the 2009 deficit was already projected at $1.2 trillion, even before Obama took office—even before any Obama stimulus measures had been enacted. Once again, the fiscal year was already three months old.

This is a very basic matter. Whatever one may think of Obama’s budget policies, you don’t understand recent budget history if you don’t understand this framework. But on Sunday, Crowley seemed to frame her response to Pawlenty from somewhere southwest of Mars:

    PAWLENTY (7/24/11): Well, first, let's—I do want to say, let's remember how we got here. President Obama took office with a $500 billion or so deficit, and he ran it up the deficit to $1.5 trillion—excuse me, $1.5 trillion.

    CROWLEY: Can I just interject that he inherited two wars? He inherited an ongoing prescription drug plan that was passed under the Bush administration, and a recession that went deeper and deeper.

    PAWLENTY: The two wars were taking place under President Bush at a larger level in Iraq. So again, when President Bush left office there was a $500 billion deficit. Now it's about $1.5 trillion under President Obama's watch. He tripled the deficit of this country.

Pawlenty went on and on from there. When he finally finished his speech, Crowley raised a new topic.

Is it fair to the American public when their most prestigious Sunday news shows are hosted by people like these? Of course, the hapless incompetence of these people has been driving the nation to ruin for a very long time.

[Dugout DickStone]

That may be the worst paste in this room.  And there is a list of many competing for that title.

[AzCat]

Now to your point about passing cuts, reauthorizing Bush plans etc etc.  To put all of that on the Obama admin and the Dems is intellectually dishonest.  Of course the status quo will keep itself, the machine, in roughly the same order as the previous administration.  I mean how else do you account for people saying the Obama healthcare plan will cost a lot of money to repeal when most of the plan's objectives haven't come into affect yet?  The second thing that you are being dishonest about is the majority the Dems had in congress and their ability to push through anything.  First off the Republicans certainly became the party of NO in the house and refused to let anything meaningful through from the Dems.  Now I will add a caveat and say that the Dems are CLEARLY the most incompetent political party in the world for easily the last 5 years, if not decade.  I mean you are right they did have a majority.  But the Republicans were able to block EVERYTHING they didn't like and forced the Dems to water anything down to the point of being a shell of its former self to get 'passed' through.  I think we can agree that Pelosi and Obama to a lesser extent have failed their party and most importantly their constituents mightily in the last 10 years.  

Normally I'd agree with you about it being intellectually dishonest to blame all present spending problems on the present administration but in this case I don't and you're wrong.  The difference this time is that Obama enjoyed a fillibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate and a large majority in the House.  Had he really wanted to kill: No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, the "Bush tax cuts", etc. he, and his party, could have done so and there was no way the Republicans could have stopped him.  But he chose to leave it all in place so now he and the Democrats own it all.  In case you're wondering the last Senate supermajority also belonged to Democrats and occurred under ... wait for it ... Jimmy Carter.  

The "cost" to repeal Obamacare stems mostly from the massively dishonest way the CBO was forced to score it and partly from the fact that Obamacare was an enormous tax increase and many (most?  all?) of those taxes have already kicked in.  Did that have any economic impact?  Looks like it may have:



This is the discussion we should be seeing in the media about Obamacare.

Your ignorance of the workings of the US government is showing: the Republicans could not have stopped anything in the House prior to the changes following the 2010 elections, nor could they have forced anything to be "watered down".  Try again.

[06wildcat]

Obama enjoyed a fillibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate and a large majority in the House.

Oh for eff's sake, they're called Blue Dog Democrats.

Republicans, while not a big tent party, are starting to get a taste of what having a "majority" with a factious membership can mean. Unfortunately for the American people, the Republican's faction is to the extreme right. Boehner had a Democratic president offering up real, solid entitlement reform but had to walk away from it because tax increases were included. Then he couldn't even get his own bill passed in the House.

[AzCat]

Obama enjoyed a fillibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate and a large majority in the House.

Oh for eff's sake, they're called Blue Dog Democrats.

Republicans, while not a big tent party, are starting to get a taste of what having a "majority" with a factious membership can mean. Unfortunately for the American people, the Republican's faction is to the extreme right. Boehner had a Democratic president offering up real, solid entitlement reform but had to walk away from it because tax increases were included. Then he couldn't even get his own bill passed in the House.

Remind me again how those Blue Dogs voted on Obamacare.  Fact is they were either straight party-line or as much so as was necessary to give Obama whatever he wanted during his first two years in office.  Some few token votes against Obama policies were allowed to vulnerable Democrats in the House (and after cloture votes in the Senate) but never enough to derail anything the White House really wanted.

What, precisely, was the "real,, solid entitlement reform" Obama allegedly offered up?  Boehner said there were no details *ever* from the White House, only vague suggestions that there might at some indeterminate future time be a plan after the steep immediate tax hikes Obama was demanding were implemented.

[ednksu]

AZ you need to stop acting like the democrats are a political force to be reckond with. 

First off the Dems did not fully support the healthcare initiatives.  34 Dems jumped ship to oppose it with 100% of the Republicans.  http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-21/politics/health.care.main_1_health-care-entire-house-democratic-caucus-pre-existing-conditions?_s=PM:POLITICS

The Republicans were able to stop a vast majority of Dem initiatives with their party of no bullshit.  I would say the Republicans of the last 15 years are more responsible for the break down of political discourse and compromise than any other force in US history.  Now DO not mistake that for making the Dems out to be victims.  They are clearly some of the most incompetent political leader in generations.  The party bosses/leadership couldn't guide their party out of wet paper bag.  They allowed the Republicans to do what ever they wanted (part of no) because of their own political ineptitude. 

I really have to call BS on your notion that we could just stop these wars with an administration change,  now if I were President I would stop these wars over night, but that would involve a red button being pushed and the glass market having a massive price drop because of a massive influx of supply.  But due to the way our system 'works' that isn't possible and neither is stopping the wars Jan 21st. 

It will be interesting to see how Obamacare effects the job market.  I don't think it is honest to say that the passage of obmacare causes a slow down in job growth.  You run into a correlation/causation issue there.  Now what could legitimately be argued is that he should have waited and pushed the Republican congress for a jobs bill, waited for the economy to improve, and waited for improved revenue from a rejuvenated economy.  I think he wasted political capital, time, and money on a massive overhaul that we needed, but were not ready for right now.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

The Republicans were able to stop a vast majority of Dem initiatives with their party of no bullshit.  I would say the Republicans of the last 15 years are more responsible for the break down of political discourse and compromise than any other force in US history.  Now DO not mistake that for making the Dems out to be victims.  They are clearly some of the most incompetent political leader in generations.  The party bosses/leadership couldn't guide their party out of wet paper bag.  They allowed the Republicans to do what ever they wanted (part of no) because of their own political ineptitude. 

Every political party wonk says the exact same thing about the other.  Just swap out the "Republican" for "Democrat" and visa versa. 

One party isn't more responsible and the other doesn't let the one get its way.  It takes two to act this childish. 

[AzCat]

AZ you need to stop acting like the democrats are a political force to be reckond with.  

First off the Dems did not fully support the healthcare initiatives.  34 Dems jumped ship to oppose it with 100% of the Republicans.  http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-21/politics/health.care.main_1_health-care-entire-house-democratic-caucus-pre-existing-conditions?_s=PM:POLITICS

The Republicans were able to stop a vast majority of Dem initiatives with their party of no bullcrap.  I would say the Republicans of the last 15 years are more responsible for the break down of political discourse and compromise than any other force in US history.  Now DO not mistake that for making the Dems out to be victims.  They are clearly some of the most incompetent political leader in generations.  The party bosses/leadership couldn't guide their party out of wet paper bag.  They allowed the Republicans to do what ever they wanted (part of no) because of their own political ineptitude.  

I really have to call BS on your notion that we could just stop these wars with an administration change,  now if I were President I would stop these wars over night, but that would involve a red button being pushed and the glass market having a massive price drop because of a massive influx of supply.  But due to the way our system 'works' that isn't possible and neither is stopping the wars Jan 21st.  

It will be interesting to see how Obamacare effects the job market.  I don't think it is honest to say that the passage of obmacare causes a slow down in job growth.  You run into a correlation/causation issue there.  Now what could legitimately be argued is that he should have waited and pushed the Republican congress for a jobs bill, waited for the economy to improve, and waited for improved revenue from a rejuvenated economy.  I think he wasted political capital, time, and money on a massive overhaul that we needed, but were not ready for right now.

As I said rather clearly above: some Democrats from moderate / conservative districts were allowed by their leadership to vote against some of Obama's initiatives on occasions when their votes didn't scuttle major Democrat initiatives.  That's purely politics, an attempt to fool the rubes at home into sending them back to Congress where they'll be reliable leftist votes whenever called upon.  

Obama should have declared victory & withdrawn all of the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan on day one of his administration.  President Perry / Romney would be well advised to do exactly that in 2013.  Militaries are for killing people & breaking things, not imposing democracy & nation building.  Bounce the rubble, declare victory, come home, repeat as necessary if necessary until someone buys a clue.

The badly needed overhauls Obama should have taken on were those of Mecaid, Medicare & Social Security.  Had he controlled costs there without causing granny to go on an all-Alpo diet he'd have been a hero.   As it stands as health care costs skyrocket, his massive new unfunded entitlement kicks in & applies the coup de grace to the federal government's ability to pay its bills, and ever-increasing numbers of people are pushed out of private health care and into lousy government subsidized options his reputation and the fortunes of his party will merely recede.  Following the European path towards a very European style sovreign debt crisis won't endear him to future generations.  

[Dingo]

I caught Mr. Mom on cable awhile back.  You know, that old 80s movie where Michael Keaton gets laid off and has to become a stay-at-home dad.  There's a scene where his supervisor calls him back to the office for a chance to get his old job back, and the head honcho says something like:  "I notice that productivity has gone down and costs have gone up in the six months after we let you go."

And Keaton's supervisor says to Keaton:  "Yeah, I covered for you as long as I could."

That's Obama.

[ednksu]

AZ you need to stop acting like the democrats are a political force to be reckond with.  

First off the Dems did not fully support the healthcare initiatives.  34 Dems jumped ship to oppose it with 100% of the Republicans.  http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-21/politics/health.care.main_1_health-care-entire-house-democratic-caucus-pre-existing-conditions?_s=PM:POLITICS

The Republicans were able to stop a vast majority of Dem initiatives with their party of no bullcrap.  I would say the Republicans of the last 15 years are more responsible for the break down of political discourse and compromise than any other force in US history.  Now DO not mistake that for making the Dems out to be victims.  They are clearly some of the most incompetent political leader in generations.  The party bosses/leadership couldn't guide their party out of wet paper bag.  They allowed the Republicans to do what ever they wanted (part of no) because of their own political ineptitude.  

I really have to call BS on your notion that we could just stop these wars with an administration change,  now if I were President I would stop these wars over night, but that would involve a red button being pushed and the glass market having a massive price drop because of a massive influx of supply.  But due to the way our system 'works' that isn't possible and neither is stopping the wars Jan 21st.  

It will be interesting to see how Obamacare effects the job market.  I don't think it is honest to say that the passage of obmacare causes a slow down in job growth.  You run into a correlation/causation issue there.  Now what could legitimately be argued is that he should have waited and pushed the Republican congress for a jobs bill, waited for the economy to improve, and waited for improved revenue from a rejuvenated economy.  I think he wasted political capital, time, and money on a massive overhaul that we needed, but were not ready for right now.

As I said rather clearly above: some Democrats from moderate / conservative districts were allowed by their leadership to vote against some of Obama's initiatives on occasions when their votes didn't scuttle major Democrat initiatives.  That's purely politics, an attempt to fool the rubes at home into sending them back to Congress where they'll be reliable leftist votes whenever called upon.  

Obama should have declared victory & withdrawn all of the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan on day one of his administration.  President Perry / Romney would be well advised to do exactly that in 2013.  Militaries are for killing people & breaking things, not imposing democracy & nation building.  Bounce the rubble, declare victory, come home, repeat as necessary if necessary until someone buys a clue.

The badly needed overhauls Obama should have taken on were those of Mecaid, Medicare & Social Security.  Had he controlled costs there without causing granny to go on an all-Alpo diet he'd have been a hero.   As it stands as health care costs skyrocket, his massive new unfunded entitlement kicks in & applies the coup de grace to the federal government's ability to pay its bills, and ever-increasing numbers of people are pushed out of private health care and into lousy government subsidized options his reputation and the fortunes of his party will merely recede.  Following the European path towards a very European style sovreign debt crisis won't endear him to future generations.  

believe me, I agree with the majority of what you are saying.  I think you are dead wrong on the Dems though.  I know you think they were "allowed" to vote against Obama care (which you said it was a party line vote when it wasn't) but I don't think the Dem leadership is that powerful.  Herding cats would be an easier job than keeping all the Dems on the same page.  The Dem leadership is rough ridin' weak, I mean come on, Pelosi?  GMAFB she couldn't motivate a vote to save her job, and look where she is now. 

In principle we should have dropped a bunch of daisy cutters and said peace we're out the day after OBL got 5.56 or 4.6 in the head.  There have been many milestones where we should have ejected and haven't for no good reason.

[michigancat]

what I want to know is if AzCat used "Geebus" instead of "Jesus" because he thinks "Jesus" is a swear word.