Is there a problem in this country that Obama won't fix via more spending?

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
I am amazed that republicans continue to use the phrase "tax and spend liberal" without turning red-faced in shame.

I don't get it, either. THey badmount contenders for wanting to raise taxes as if raising taxes = larger government. We already have big gov. It's called the first $2T and $3T federal budgets under a SINGLE president (and he wasn't a democrat). All the dems want to do is catch up and work over time to pay the credit card off.

Are Obama's plans over the top? Probably. And if he sucks, I will still blame the republicans, because after Bush there is NO CHOICE except to vote democrat this time.

What happened to a balanced budget?

This q from a republican? Fvcking classic.

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I find it pathetic that you believe it can be done via 'oversight' are you that naive of our history when it comes to spending?

Take a guess at the last time our budget shrank...

1965 and before that? 1955.
We are talking about 50+ years of constant growth in government spending.
Even if Obama did not put forward one new government program our budget would continue to grow. It is the nature of the beast we have created.

On top of that since WW 2 we have NEVER seen a Democrat President with a Democrat Congress pass a balanced budget.

We could say that Bill Clinton did a pretty good job balancing the budget, despite the Republican Congress. And the 90's were probably the most prosperous time in the U.S. history since the WWII.

As for Obama's policy layout as a presidential candidate - Obviously there are populist elements and not everything will and can be accomplished. Those are mostly the 'best case scenarios' and then with some luck. Does that invalidate his proposals? Absolutely not. To me it's actually better that way since no plan will pass without resistance. Might as well have bigger plans knowing a lot of them will be compromised anyway.

 

[First]

It's not the balanced budget that's the issue, it's the poorly thought out programs Bush did support, the idiotic pork spending simply because a Republican Congress was in power, and of course moronic war which has cost the taxpayers $500B+ in about a term of presidency, so you can take that right out of the made up $850B figure.

All in all, too much spending for most sane people but still superior to Bush (and McCain since he'll stay in Iraq) if you can add numbers. Also doesn't take non-use costs such as diminished foreign policy making ability and image around the world into account.

 

[mshan]

According to a recent PBS American Experience episode about George H. W. Bush, 60% of the budget surplus during the Clinton years was due to the unpopular deal he cut with democrats during his first and only term (combination of tax increases and decreased spending). I think it was mentioned in second hour here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bush41/

And though there may be elements of the Democratic Party that will probably want to go nuts on spending after the mandate they may feel the voters have given them in November, I believe Obama will actually be a moderating / restraining force: Pragmatic Politics Forged on t...olitics/11chicago.html[/L]

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
I'm sure he won't fix trolling on forums.

LOL. :thumbsup:

 

[jpeyton]

As long as he's spending it on domestic programs, and not nation building, I'm all for it.

 

[OrByte]

neocons complaining about BHO spending???

thats a riot!

McSAME will outspend anybody by leaps and bounds.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: OrByte
neocons complaining about BHO spending???

thats a riot!

McSAME will outspend anybody by leaps and bounds.

Evidence to back that up?

 

[JSt0rm]

Can we get pj a clown avatar? This guy is desperate. You had your time pj, a good 8 years. It's not our fault that the neocons hoodwinked the conservatives. You guys should of seen it coming but you didn't, the republicans can't be trusted with the country, its really that simple. If you need a hug or a box of tissues i totally understand...

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OrByte
neocons complaining about BHO spending???

thats a riot!

McSAME will outspend anybody by leaps and bounds.

Evidence to back that up?

How about you answer some of the points brought up in your troll thread.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
It's not the balanced budget that's the issue, it's the poorly thought out programs Bush did support, the idiotic pork spending simply because a Republican Congress was in power, and of course moronic war which has cost the taxpayers $500B+ in about a term of presidency, so you can take that right out of the made up $850B figure.

1. Democrats are now in control of congress and we are still getting pork spending, what makes you think that will stop with Obama in power?

2. Even if Obama follows through with his plan to leave Iraq it will still take several years and a lot of money before we are finally out of Iraq. In the mean time he will greatly increase domestic spending giving us both an expensive war and expensive domestic programs.

3. link Obama's senior campaign advisor has suggested that we keep between 60,000-80,000 troops in Iraq as late as 2010. He actually said we should transition to force of 60,000-80,000 by 2010 with no plans for a withdrawal beyond that.

4. We are facing a budget time bomb in the form of rising SS and Medicare costs as the baby boomers retire. The last thing we should be doing is creating more social spending programs and instead should be working to balance the budget and then reduce the debt.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: lopri
We could say that Bill Clinton did a pretty good job balancing the budget, despite the Republican Congress. And the 90's were probably the most prosperous time in the U.S. history since the WWII.

That would be a totally false statement.

As I have proven many times Bill Clinton had NO plan to balance the budget prior to the Republicans taking over in 1995. You can look at his first two budgets and you will see him proposing $200 billion deficits for his entire term.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OrByte
neocons complaining about BHO spending???

thats a riot!

McSAME will outspend anybody by leaps and bounds.

Evidence to back that up?

How about you answer some of the points brought up in your troll thread.

This thread is about BHO and his promise to spend spend spend - not about Bush. I don't see how you and the others can call this a troll thread... unless you are admitting that you are trolling and duhverting.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: RichardE
How about you answer some of the points brought up in your troll thread.

1. What questions?

2. Why is this thread a troll thread? Because I disagree with you? The entire thing is backed up with evidence of what I am claiming. You want to see trolls go look at everyone running around claiming "McSame"

 

[fskimospy]

Maybe we should just make a sticky thread for Pro-Jo to cut and paste whatever daily anti-Obama crap he's picking up from the right wing websites.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Maybe we should just make a sticky thread for Pro-Jo to cut and paste whatever daily anti-Obama crap he's picking up from the right wing websites.

And have one for you leftists to post anti-bush and McCain crap you pick up from fringe lib sites.

 

[dahunan]

Is there a problem in this country that Bush won't fix via more murders of innocent Iraqi citizens?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Maybe we should just make a sticky thread for Pro-Jo to cut and paste whatever daily anti-Obama crap he's picking up from the right wing websites.

And have one for you leftists to post anti-bush and McCain crap you pick up from fringe lib sites.

Hurp a durp! In case you missed my point, it was that a large volume of stupid, vapid crap has been coming from a single poster recently and it is getting annoying.

 

[ProfJohn]

lopri,

Go here and scroll down to page 14 and look at Clinton's estimated deficits. This is his 1996 budget that he presented to congress if Feb of 1995.
1995 192 billion
1996 196 billion
1997 213 billion
1998 196 billion
1999 197 billion
2000 194 billion

As I said Bill Clinton had NO plans to even attempt to balance the budget before leaving office.

Next look at his 1997 budget on page 20 and look at the difference a year made.
All of a sudden he plans to balance the budget!! Wow imagine that.
Republicans take over congress and now Clinton wants to balance the budget...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: RichardE
How about you answer some of the points brought up in your troll thread.

1. What questions?

2. Why is this thread a troll thread? Because I disagree with you? The entire thing is backed up with evidence of what I am claiming. You want to see trolls go look at everyone running around claiming "McSame"

Yeah you're right... just because McCain supports nearly every one of Bush's policies doesn't mean that they are the same. For example, McCain has less hair.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
I am amazed that republicans continue to use the phrase "tax and spend liberal" without turning red-faced in shame. Given the choice between democrats who want to increase spending on domestic programs we can't afford, and republicans who want to freeze domestic spending but spend three times that amount on the military and on nation building, it seems an easy choice to pick the democrats.

Then again, I heard some of them don't wear flag pins, so we can't trust them...

:thumbsup:

The denial and the hypocrisy are just mind-boggling.

Bush proposes $3 trillion budget

Growth of federal budget since 1996:
- 2009 - $3.10 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
- 2008 - $2.90 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
- 2007 - $2.77 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
- 2006 - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
- 2005 - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
- 2004 - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
- 2003 - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
- 2002 - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
- 2001 - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)
- 2000 - $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)
- 1999 - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)
- 1998 - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)
- 1997 - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)
- 1996 - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: RichardE
How about you answer some of the points brought up in your troll thread.

1. What questions?

2. Why is this thread a troll thread? Because I disagree with you? The entire thing is backed up with evidence of what I am claiming. You want to see trolls go look at everyone running around claiming "McSame"

Backed up by what? You added a bunch of numbers and called it a budget. Do you want a cookie? You obviously know nothing about the candidate and just eat all the talking points you can gobble down. Obama has already stated how he would deal with spending if he was elected, and what measures would be put in place to control spending.

So yes, it is a troll thread. You are ignorant regarding the person who the topic is about and instead spew ignorant half truths to fear monger more "omg, Obama is going to destroy the nation with overspending!". Not only that, you only offer problems but no solutions. You criticize any plan of action yet offer no alternative. Your criticisms are not valid either, compromising entirely of "no that will not work because it has always been this way." A statement which again shows your ignorance of what Obama is about.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OrByte
neocons complaining about BHO spending???

thats a riot!

McSAME will outspend anybody by leaps and bounds.

Evidence to back that up?

How about you answer some of the points brought up in your troll thread.

This thread is about BHO and his promise to spend spend spend - not about Bush. I don't see how you and the others can call this a troll thread... unless you are admitting that you are trolling and duhverting.

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

:roll:

 

[JSt0rm]

all of you "conservative" republicans voted for these people that created this mess. don't even pretend you didn't. In my mind none of you have any credibility. You can make 1000 threads screaming about SS timebombs and spending but its all bs. If the SS timebomb really mattered to republicans they would of taken care of it on their watch. None of this shit really matters to you people, you just want to divide and derail progress. let me turn things around. Republicans are unamerican and unpatriotic hacks, they should be relegated to the sidelines while real men and women stand up to the problems facing this country. No more Mr. Danger. Republicans are like little children crying because their toys are being taken away. Well if you wouldn't break your toys they wouldn't be taken away now would they?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Maybe we should just make a sticky thread for Pro-Jo to cut and paste whatever daily anti-Obama crap he's picking up from the right wing websites.

And have one for you leftists to post anti-bush and McCain crap you pick up from fringe lib sites.

Hurp a durp! In case you missed my point, it was that a large volume of stupid, vapid crap has been coming from a single poster recently and it is getting annoying.

1. Stop trolling.

2. Look at the P&N front page and you will see one thread created by me in the past several days. The last thread I created prior to this one was 5-13.