• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Mitt Romney is beneath the office of Presidency

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
I can't believe we could ever be in the position to say the Bush years of fiscal irresponsibility are longed for.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
126
I can't believe we could ever be in the position to say the Bush years of fiscal irresponsibility are longed for.
I don't long for them. I simply say that as fiscally irresponsible as Bush was, Obama went crazier yet.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
774
126
I don't long for them. I simply say that as fiscally irresponsible as Bush was, Obama went crazier yet.
Yeah, that's quite an accomplishment. Obama ran a 1.8 trillion dollar deficit in FY 09. He only ran a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit in FY 11. Wow.

And since you want to be stickler, I'll call you out on the bolded "blatantly dishonest statement".

Bush's deficit went down, according to your own link, from 595 billion in FY 04 to 553 billion in FY 05, as well as from 575 billion in FY 06 to 500 billion in FY 07.
Woah big changes there. But if we REALLY wanted to be a stickler for truth, you'd admit that you should really include '09's deficit with Bush since most of the spending is based on what Bush signed into law before he left office.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Yes, because Obama started 2 wars and bankrupted the country. Oh wait, no, he took over a steaming pile of shit from Bush.

YOU ARE THE PROBLEM
And did nothing to correct the problems.
Bush already started the process to get us out of IRAQ. We ate still in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future.

The deficit went up instead of down as Obama stated he would make it do.

Unemployment has not gotten better.

For those that claim he was.blocked by the rogue Dems, he has demonstrated a willingness to ignore laws and the constitution and govern by fiat.

He dumped a $2000 plus tax on each taxpayer but claims it wad not a tax. USSC says it is and that is why it is allowed.

Transparency never made it up the front stairs.

He walked in the front door with his arms around his favorite lobbyists.

Was handed a 1T check and blew it wastefully because he would not listen to the best way to utilize it. Had to go to political goals and feel good projects.

Those public employee jobs were not saved, just pushed off and are being cut in 2012 and 2013 by governments that still do not have the revenue to support those jobs.

Obama has demonstrated he failure to lead and does not show any improvement. He is asking for a do over. And you trust him to do better.

Obama is unable to defend his record, yet you attack a person that did not destroy a Democratic Blue state.

Romney can not do worse than Obama is doing now.

Obama who is having to start pointing the finger to cover his failures and ignoring the law because he was politically slapped.

What type of leader passed the mantle of responsibility.

Truman must be turning over. "The buck stops here".

Community organizers know how to beg and pass the buck, not be responsible with it. Because it is not their money!
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Now, I'm not a political master, but, isn't the budget created and passed by Congress, and then sent to the POTUS to sign? Does not the POTUS then elect to sign it, or, veto it and then it's sent back to Congress to either get the needed votes or submit a revised budget to the POTUS for again another vote?

Or is the budget different from the lawmaking process?
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
I don't long for them. I simply say that as fiscally irresponsible as Bush was, Obama went crazier yet.
I don't long for them either, unless I'm faced with perpetual $1T+ deficits (can we even say that, if we don't even have a budget?).
 

Mandres

Senior member
Jun 8, 2011
944
58
91
Since the deficit is a function of (revenue - expenditures), it's a lot more useful to compare revenues and expenses separately between administrations. Does anyone have a chart for that?

I'd be much more interested in the change in federal expenditure spending from Bush > Obama. Revenues are obviously down because of the implosion in the national economy, so it's not surprising that the deficit under Obama was higher. His administration could have cut spending and still ended up with a higher deficit if revenues were low enough...
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
Anyone seriously trying to blame Obama for our nation's debt crisis is not worthy of having an intellectual conversation with.

The reason we are in the place we are in is simple. Two massive unpaid wars. Huge unpaid tax cuts.

Obama had absolutely nothing to do with any of this. This was all Bush and co.
 

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,540
16
0
It took Bush 8 years to rack up $4 trillion in debt, Obama ran up $4 trillion in debt in only 4 years. Obama is twice as bad as Bush.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
It took Bush 8 years to rack up $4 trillion in debt, Obama ran up $4 trillion in debt in only 4 years. Obama is twice as bad as Bush.
Obviously that's because Republican policies are twice as bad when Democrats are in control of them. Wars immediately cost twice as much, tax cuts immediately cost twice as much, and pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. He's just golfing anyway.

So how's that hopey changey thing working out?
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
Obviously that's because Republican policies are twice as bad when Democrats are in control of them. Wars immediately cost twice as much, tax cuts immediately cost twice as much, and pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. He's just golfing anyway.
You're smart enough to know why Obama ran up more debt per year than Bush did.

Whether you want to know why is a different matter.
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
Obviously that's because Republican policies are twice as bad when Democrats are in control of them. Wars immediately cost twice as much, tax cuts immediately cost twice as much, and pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. He's just golfing anyway.

So how's that hopey changey thing working out?
A possum is a fitting avatar for you. You seriously have without question some of the dumbest takes I've ever seen on this forum. You are second only to cybrsage.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
17,420
2,646
126
You didn't find Reagan explicitly breaking the law and authorizing the sale of weapons to America's enemies to be more egregious than Clinton getting a blowjob from a staffer?
To be honest, no I didn't. Aside from that, I don't recall Reagan ever being convicted of a crime. Though my memory of that era is a bit vague.
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,581
313
126
It took Bush 8 years to rack up $4 trillion in debt, Obama ran up $4 trillion in debt in only 4 years. Obama is twice as bad as Bush.
The only way to think anyone could rationalize something like this would be to think they were being sarcastic.

Otherwise, I fear for you my friend.
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,581
313
126
..pointless revisionist history...

Community organizers know how to beg and pass the buck, not be responsible with it. Because it is not their money!
Yes because private enterprise has been such a stalwart steward of other people's money. Like borrowing money to pay out dividends! Now thats what I call responsibility :)

That quote is pure frosted mini wheats.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY