Who is more responsible for the debt? Bush or Obama? *now with poll*

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus


You're being ambiguous with your sentence, are you saying that the future spending that bush signed into law is now the democrat's fault? Because that's what it sounds like.

Only in that upside down brain of yours. How can Bush pass any of Obama's impending budgets and spending? That is why I included the word future in my sentence. Try more reading and less foaming at the mouth partisanship.

Learn to write clearer sentences idiot, the sentence you wrote was ambiguous and contradictory.

"What happened under Bush is irrelevant " - Yeah right :roll:

In the context of future spending it certainly is irrelevant. Obama has the ability to cut or increase spending regardless of what Bush did in his 8 years.

btw love how you completely ignore I voted that the current debt situation is more bush's fault than Obama. Sign of a true hack right there.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus


You're being ambiguous with your sentence, are you saying that the future spending that bush signed into law is now the democrat's fault? Because that's what it sounds like.

Only in that upside down brain of yours. How can Bush pass any of Obama's impending budgets and spending? That is why I included the word future in my sentence. Try more reading and less foaming at the mouth partisanship.

Learn to write clearer sentences idiot, the sentence you wrote was ambiguous and contradictory.

"What happened under Bush is irrelevant " - Yeah right :roll:

In the context of future spending it certainly is. Obama has the ability to cut or increase spending regardless of what Bush did in his 8 years.

btw love how you completely ignore I voted that the current debt situation is more bush's fault than Obama. Sign of a true hack right there.

I'm just curious how you can assign 100% blame on Obama for the spending bills that affect future spending that Bush signed into law. That's a sign of a hack.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Your argument is like saying that if you buy too much on your credit card but a later drop in interest rates helps, your irresponsibility in spending is somehow reduced. No, it's not.

Spending irresponsibility is spending irresponsibility. Interest rate reductions are nice to have, but are not a license to justify bad spending policies.

The fact that interest rates may have become more favorable does not change the issue of Bush failing to act as he should have during the better times.

and all of that does what to contradict my statement of "despite the large increase in the national debt it actually became cheaper to service due to low interest rates"? stop trying to start fights.

 

[Patranus]

To answer the question you have to ask your self who has been more irresponsible with spending?

Who is more irresponsible the wife who runs up $50,000 in credit card debt or the husband who says frack it and spends another $50,000?

While Bush was irresponsible to spend money in the first place, and according to the CBO the projected 2009 deficit was somewhere in the ballpark of 500 to 600 billion dollars. The current estimates are somewhere in the ballpark of 1.6 to 1.8 trillion dollars mainly due to programs put forth by President Obama and passed by congress.
CBO Web Site:http://www.cbo.gov

Now, Obama's plans simply rely on an optimistic outlook for the economy which did not pan out. Instead of cutting back on his projected spending because of this, he is going forward with NEW spending on such things as health care.

The simple fact of the matter is, Obama is more of the same except he is spending 4x more borrowed money. Why do you think China has stopped buying government bonds? The position Obama has put the USA in is a VERY bad one. The USA has to borrow 1.6 to 1.8 trillion dollars by September (not including any blank check health care...if that is passed). Since no one is buying US bonds at the current rate the government has two options to deal with the debt.
1)Raise Interest Rates
2)Monetize debt
Either option is really really bad right now. If you raise interest rates you kill capital investment and hinder the ability of private industry to borrow money. Furthermore this would kill any recovery in the housing market. If you monetize debt you are printing money and that leads to inflation. Depending on how much the Government is actually able to raise, if it is forced to print a lot of money, it could actually be hyper inflation.

So yes, both are being/were irresponsible for incurring debt but Obama has significantly weakened the position of the USA to recover from the massive debt.

Borrow and spend to spur borrowing and spending to solve problems brought on by too much borrowing and spending.

Sounds like a great plan to me!

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Genx87
btw I find this piece a little pathetic. Now that polls are starting to show a slight swing away from all the spending democrats and Obama have done in the past few months it is time to bring out the excuse pieces in an attempt to deflect any blame or convince themselves everything is fine.

While I voted Bush. This thread is pretty stupid. What happened under Bush is irrelevant to future spending that can be controlled by Obama and Democrats. Everybody acknolwedges Bush's spending was out of control. So how does that excuse Obama doing it in grander fashion?

Let bygones be bygones, eh?

Unfortunately, a lot of the ramifications of the repug's spending can't be undone. What can be noted however is the credibility of those who supported bush&co and their shenanigans.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus


You're being ambiguous with your sentence, are you saying that the future spending that bush signed into law is now the democrat's fault? Because that's what it sounds like.

Only in that upside down brain of yours. How can Bush pass any of Obama's impending budgets and spending? That is why I included the word future in my sentence. Try more reading and less foaming at the mouth partisanship.

Learn to write clearer sentences idiot, the sentence you wrote was ambiguous and contradictory.

"What happened under Bush is irrelevant " - Yeah right :roll:

In the context of future spending it certainly is. Obama has the ability to cut or increase spending regardless of what Bush did in his 8 years.

btw love how you completely ignore I voted that the current debt situation is more bush's fault than Obama. Sign of a true hack right there.

I'm just curious how you can assign 100% blame on Obama for the spending bills that affect future spending that Bush signed into law. That's a sign of a hack.

I assign 100% blame to future spending bills Obama pushes through a democrat senate on Obama. Who the hell else would I assign blame to? I dont understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp for you.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Has Obama taken responsibility for anything? All I hear coming out of his mouth is 'inherited a problem' and 'gitmo'.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Bush spending bad...Obama spending good...gotcha.

hack.txt

NO. Bush WAR costing trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of other lives bad. Bush abandonment of financial control and oversight costing more trillions of dollars and loss of busineses and employment bad. Spending by any subsequent admin to address trillions of dollars of losses and incalculable social costs caused by Bush, no choice... Got it?

logic.txt

Originally posted by: Genx87

What happened under Bush is irrelevant to future spending that can be controlled by Obama and Democrats.

Bullshit! The damage the Bushwhackos did our nation, including our economy, didn't just "happen." They started and ELECTIVE war in Iraq based entirely on LIES. See the article at the link in my previous post. That war committed our nation to trillions of dollars of current and FUTURE spending to repair the damage they did years before Obama was elected.

When we were attacked on 9-11, the world, including Arab and Muslim nations, stood with us and supported us in going after Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Bushwhackos squandered all of that good will when they turned their attention to Iraq, and for all of the years since, nobody has wanted to help us, let alone do us any favors.

Their war of LIES in Iraq added to further current and future costs due to their failure to conclude the war against the enemy we were right to engage, against the enemy that really DID attack us, in the war they SHOULD HAVE won long ago in Afghanistan.

Add to that the inestimable costs of their legacy of war crimes and crimes against humanity because your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang of traitors, murderers, torturers and war criminals shit all over the good name, the integrity and the very honor of the United States of America in the world community.

Then, they doubled down and did it again by allowing their wealthy Wall Street robber baron contributors to pay themselves gigazillion dollar bonuses and golden parachutes while raping our economic system and wiping out the savings of millions of middle class Americans.

And, of course, they lowered taxes on those same upper 1% of the wealthy while pretending that their war of LIES wouldn't cost anything because all that Iraqi oil would pay for their illegal war.

While you're busy bitching about how Obama is addressing these problems and their attendant monetary and social costs, remember that, but for the Bushwhackos' criminal follies, these problems would never have existed in the first place. THEY are the ones who left us holding the bag... and the bill. :thumbsdown: :|

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Bush spending bad...Obama spending good...gotcha.

hack.txt

NO. Bush WAR costing trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of other lives bad. Bush abandonment of financial control and oversight costing more trillions of dollars and loss of busineses and employment bad. Spending by any subsequent admin to address trillions of dollars of losses and incalculable social costs caused by Bush, no choice... Got it?

logic.txt

Originally posted by: Genx87

What happened under Bush is irrelevant to future spending that can be controlled by Obama and Democrats.

Bullshit! The damage the Bushwhackos did our nation, including our economy, didn't just "happen." They started and ELECTIVE war in Iraq based entirely on LIES. See the article at the link in my previous post. That war committed our nation to trillions of dollars of current and FUTURE spending to repair the damage they did years before Obama was elected.

When we were attacked on 9-11, the world, including Arab and Muslim nations, stood with us and supported us in going after Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Bushwhackos squandered all of that good will when they turned their attention to Iraq, and for all of the years since, nobody has wanted to help us, let alone do us any favors.

Their war of LIES in Iraq added to further current and future costs due to their failure to conclude the war against the enemy we were right to engage, against the enemy that really DID attack us, in the war they SHOULD HAVE won long ago in Afghanistan.

Add to that the inestimable costs of their legacy of war crimes and crimes against humanity because your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang of traitors, murderers, torturers and war criminals shit all over the good name, the integrity and the very honor of the United States of America in the world community.

Then, they doubled down and did it again by allowing their wealthy Wall Street robber baron contributors to pay themselves gigazillion dollar bonuses and golden parachutes while raping our economic system and wiping out the savings of millions of middle class Americans.

And, of course, they lowered taxes on those same upper 1% of the wealthy while pretending that their war of LIES wouldn't cost anything because all that Iraqi oil would pay for their illegal war.

While you're busy bitching about how Obama is addressing these problems and their attendant monetary and social costs, remember that, but for the Bushwhackos' criminal follies, these problems would never have existed in the first place. THEY are the ones who left us holding the bag... and the bill. :thumbsdown: :|

Please spare us your millionth BDS diatribe...it's impossible to rationally discuss anything with you. Your a certifiable nut case dude.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
...
Please spare us your millionth BDS diatribe...it's impossible to rationally discuss anything with you. Your a certifiable nut case dude.

The ironing is delicious.

Why don't you go uselessly rev your car engine in neutral for an hour to piss off a greenie?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
...
Please spare us your millionth BDS diatribe...it's impossible to rationally discuss anything with you. Your a certifiable nut case dude.

The ironing is delicious.

Why don't you go uselessly rev your car engine in neutral for an hour to piss off a greenie?

Look...Bush spent way to much. No arguments here. But now we're looking at HUGE increases in spending that make Bush look like a tightwad. Republicans AND Democrats BOTH had a huge hand in getting us into our current economic situation and to solely blame Bush for EVERYTHING wrong is juvenile partisan hackery at best. And the same goes for blaming Obama for everything wrong. But this incessant BDS rant from Harvey is getting damn annoying.

BTW?you're little stereotype of me says absolutley nothing about me?but speaks volumes about you. Think about it.

 

[Munky]

If the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits.

Well, there's a classical propaganda tactic.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Has Obama taken responsibility for anything? All I hear coming out of his mouth is 'inherited a problem' and 'gitmo'.

yes, we now have a president who admits mistakes right as he started his presidency... contrast that with your disaster of a president bush who balked at admitting mistakes for such a long time.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=4404162

Anymore questions?

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I assign 100% blame to future spending bills Obama pushes through a democrat senate on Obama. Who the hell else would I assign blame to? I dont understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp for you.

I don't know why it's so hard for you to grasp that Bush signed some of the future spending into law. That at the very least he shares some of the blame for that?

"HURF, DURF, MY NAME IS GENX AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND SIMPLE CONCEPTS"

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
...
Please spare us your millionth BDS diatribe...it's impossible to rationally discuss anything with you. Your a certifiable nut case dude.

The ironing is delicious.

Why don't you go uselessly rev your car engine in neutral for an hour to piss off a greenie?

Look...Bush spent way to much. No arguments here. But now we're looking at HUGE increases in spending that make Bush look like a tightwad. Republicans AND Democrats BOTH had a huge hand in getting us into our current economic situation and to solely blame Bush for EVERYTHING wrong is juvenile partisan hackery at best. And the same goes for blaming Obama for everything wrong. But this incessant BDS rant from Harvey is getting damn annoying.

So now you're trying the reasonable route? Sorry, your reputation precedes you.

Like one of your cohorts stated in his sig about doing something to annoy a liberal, harvey annoying a con is frosting on the cake.

BTW?you're little stereotype of me says absolutley nothing about me?but speaks volumes about you. Think about it.

btw, this was a big stereotype. Someone who would go to this extreme has some big issues.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87
I assign 100% blame to future spending bills Obama pushes through a democrat senate on Obama. Who the hell else would I assign blame to? I dont understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp for you.

I don't know why it's so hard for you to grasp that Bush signed some of the future spending into law. That at the very least he shares some of the blame for that?

"HURF, DURF, MY NAME IS GENX AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND SIMPLE CONCEPTS"

Is Obama unable to cut back on any programs that Bush enacted? Should Bush blame Clinton for any programs Clinton enacted and Bush continued to support? And Clinton do the same on down the line?!?!?!?!?

Obama has a congress with a near, soon to be super majority. He can do whatever he damn well pleases when he crafts a budget and the congress will agree to pass it. Thus anyfuture spending in his budgets is square on his shoulders. He could could cut any program he wants, including Bush programs. But he wont because he supports them.

Your level of idiocy grows with each passing day.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
...
Please spare us your millionth BDS diatribe...it's impossible to rationally discuss anything with you. Your a certifiable nut case dude.

The ironing is delicious.

Why don't you go uselessly rev your car engine in neutral for an hour to piss off a greenie?

Look...Bush spent way to much. No arguments here. But now we're looking at HUGE increases in spending that make Bush look like a tightwad. Republicans AND Democrats BOTH had a huge hand in getting us into our current economic situation and to solely blame Bush for EVERYTHING wrong is juvenile partisan hackery at best. And the same goes for blaming Obama for everything wrong. But this incessant BDS rant from Harvey is getting damn annoying.

So now you're trying the reasonable route? Sorry, your reputation precedes you.

Like one of your cohorts stated in his sig about doing something to annoy a liberal, harvey annoying a con is frosting on the cake.

BTW?you're little stereotype of me says absolutley nothing about me?but speaks volumes about you. Think about it.

btw, this was a big stereotype. Someone who would go to this extreme has some big issues.

Hmm?I was trying to give you an idea of where I was coming from?but I see now that you already know everything...and that you've got it all figured out. :roll:

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87
I assign 100% blame to future spending bills Obama pushes through a democrat senate on Obama. Who the hell else would I assign blame to? I dont understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp for you.

I don't know why it's so hard for you to grasp that Bush signed some of the future spending into law. That at the very least he shares some of the blame for that?

"HURF, DURF, MY NAME IS GENX AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND SIMPLE CONCEPTS"

Is Obama unable to cut back on any programs that Bush enacted? Should Bush blame Clinton for any programs Clinton enacted and Bush continued to support? And Clinton do the same on down the line?!?!?!?!?

Obama has a congress with a near, soon to be super majority. He can do whatever he damn well pleases when he crafts a budget and the congress will agree to pass it. Thus anyfuture spending in his budgets is square on his shoulders. He could could cut any program he wants, including Bush programs. But he wont because he supports them.

Your level of idiocy grows with each passing day.

According to you then, any past president who signed a spending bill or created a government agency that affects future spending is all Obama's fault. Social Security? Obama's fault. Dept of Education? Obama's Fault. DHS? Obama's Fault. etc. etc.

You're retarded, but that goes without saying.

http://www.glassgiant.com/peta...=REPUBLICAN&l4=Genx87&

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87
I assign 100% blame to future spending bills Obama pushes through a democrat senate on Obama. Who the hell else would I assign blame to? I dont understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp for you.

I don't know why it's so hard for you to grasp that Bush signed some of the future spending into law. That at the very least he shares some of the blame for that?

"HURF, DURF, MY NAME IS GENX AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND SIMPLE CONCEPTS"

Is Obama unable to cut back on any programs that Bush enacted? Should Bush blame Clinton for any programs Clinton enacted and Bush continued to support? And Clinton do the same on down the line?!?!?!?!?

Obama has a congress with a near, soon to be super majority. He can do whatever he damn well pleases when he crafts a budget and the congress will agree to pass it. Thus anyfuture spending in his budgets is square on his shoulders. He could could cut any program he wants, including Bush programs. But he wont because he supports them.

Your level of idiocy grows with each passing day.

According to you then, any past president who signed a spending bill or created a government agency that affects future spending is all Obama's fault. Social Security? Obama's fault. Dept of Education? Obama's Fault. DHS? Obama's Fault. etc. etc.

You're retarded, but that goes without saying.

http://www.glassgiant.com/peta...l2=RETARDED&l3=Average REPUBLICAN&l4=Genx87&

I dont know why I bother responding to such a twit like you.
Likewise using your own logic how can you blame Bush for all of those programs? Isnt that the point of this excercise? To put all the blame for the next decades worth of spending on Bush?

That is such a thoughful activity isnt it? Dont think too hard, just blame Bush.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
...
Please spare us your millionth BDS diatribe...it's impossible to rationally discuss anything with you. Your a certifiable nut case dude.

The ironing is delicious.

Why don't you go uselessly rev your car engine in neutral for an hour to piss off a greenie?

Look...Bush spent way to much. No arguments here. But now we're looking at HUGE increases in spending that make Bush look like a tightwad. Republicans AND Democrats BOTH had a huge hand in getting us into our current economic situation and to solely blame Bush for EVERYTHING wrong is juvenile partisan hackery at best. And the same goes for blaming Obama for everything wrong. But this incessant BDS rant from Harvey is getting damn annoying.

So now you're trying the reasonable route? Sorry, your reputation precedes you.

Like one of your cohorts stated in his sig about doing something to annoy a liberal, harvey annoying a con is frosting on the cake.

BTW?you're little stereotype of me says absolutley nothing about me?but speaks volumes about you. Think about it.

btw, this was a big stereotype. Someone who would go to this extreme has some big issues.

Hmm?I was trying to give you an idea of where I was coming from?but I see now that you already know everything...and that you've got it all figured out. :roll:

If you're trying to have an honest conversation, try being less obtuse.

Ignoring the other meanderings.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87
I assign 100% blame to future spending bills Obama pushes through a democrat senate on Obama. Who the hell else would I assign blame to? I dont understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp for you.

I don't know why it's so hard for you to grasp that Bush signed some of the future spending into law. That at the very least he shares some of the blame for that?

"HURF, DURF, MY NAME IS GENX AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND SIMPLE CONCEPTS"

Is Obama unable to cut back on any programs that Bush enacted? Should Bush blame Clinton for any programs Clinton enacted and Bush continued to support? And Clinton do the same on down the line?!?!?!?!?

Obama has a congress with a near, soon to be super majority. He can do whatever he damn well pleases when he crafts a budget and the congress will agree to pass it. Thus anyfuture spending in his budgets is square on his shoulders. He could could cut any program he wants, including Bush programs. But he wont because he supports them.

Your level of idiocy grows with each passing day.

According to you then, any past president who signed a spending bill or created a government agency that affects future spending is all Obama's fault. Social Security? Obama's fault. Dept of Education? Obama's Fault. DHS? Obama's Fault. etc. etc.

You're retarded, but that goes without saying.

http://www.glassgiant.com/peta...l2=RETARDED&l3=Average REPUBLICAN&l4=Genx87&

I dont know why I bother responding to such a twit like you.
Likewise using your own logic how can you blame Bush for all of those programs? Isnt that the point of this excercise? To put all the blame for the next decades worth of spending on Bush?

That is such a thoughful activity isnt it? Dont think too hard, just blame Bush.

Wow, you are fucking dumb. Any blame bush got was for the stuff he signed into law. Did clinton sign the medicare bill? Did Clinton declare war on Iraq? Did clinton sign no child left behind? That's what people talk about when people talk about bush's spending, idiot.

fixed link

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/517/petarded.jpg