• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
The debt is mainly the fault of CONGRESS...Last time I checked CONGRESS controls funding...The President asks CONGRESS for funding and they vote "yes" or "no" if they want to authorize the funding.

Or am I interpreting the constitution too literally and need to use a little empathy? Or am I naturally unable to interpret the constitution correctly because I am not a latina?
 
Originally posted by: Patranus
The debt is mainly the fault of CONGRESS...Last time I checked CONGRESS controls funding...The President asks CONGRESS for funding and they vote "yes" or "no" if they want to authorize the funding.

Or am I interpreting the constitution too literally and need to use a little empathy? Or am I naturally unable to interpret the constitution correctly because I am not a latina?

The Republicans really need to change their mascot to the parrot. "Empathy! squawwwwk! Telepromter! Squawwwwk! Celebrity! Squawkkkkk!"

Congratulations on your learning grade school civics. Now you might want to get a clue about how the real system works before posting on it.

The political reality is that the President submits the draft budget Congress starts from, and the president has a huge influence on the budget.
 
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Bush gets the blame for the current economic crisis, BUT, IMO, the blame actually goes back to the Republicans, who slipped the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act" past Congress...which set the stage for the financial meltdown.

IMO, Obama is TRYING to spend us out of the meltdown...but I don't see it working...at least not here in Kahleeforneeya.

Might want to re check your facts...

Glass-Steagall was repealed by Bill Clinton's signature and that got ride of regulations that prevented banks and investment banks from leveraging capital in the ways they did that caused their downfall.


Secondly the micromanaging of the mortgage industry via the "Community Reinvestment Act" (thank you Jimmy Carter) forced banks to make risky loans. To combat the pressures by congress (Barney Frank) to lend money to under qualified families, these banks had to "invent" other types of mortgages such as adjustable rate mortgages. This allowed many many people who should have never been able to buy a house the ability to buy a house. Bush actually called for an overhaul of this in 2003 but was threatened with a filibuster so it never got out of committee.

Now, you have all these people with adjustable rate mortgages. These mortgages were packaged into securities and sold. Banks leverages significant quantities of money against the securities as they were considered "safe" investments.

Fast forward to 2007/2007...
Oil prices and other commodities skyrocket. To combat inflation the FED has to raise interest rates. As interest rates went up, so did the mortgages payments for people with adjustable rates. Now this was not a problem for some people who actually read their contract and bought houses they could afford and could pay the difference. However many did not anticipate for their interest rate to reset at a higher rate, did not plan to pay more, and ended up in a situation where they defaulted on their mortgage.

As people started to default on their mortgage payments the value of the secularized mortgages dropped in value. This drop in value caused financial institutions to be unable to liquidate the asset. This froze cash causing a lock in the corporate lending market....and the dominoes fell from there.

Now tell me, what role did Bush play?
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Patranus
The debt is mainly the fault of CONGRESS...Last time I checked CONGRESS controls funding...The President asks CONGRESS for funding and they vote "yes" or "no" if they want to authorize the funding.

Or am I interpreting the constitution too literally and need to use a little empathy? Or am I naturally unable to interpret the constitution correctly because I am not a latina?

The Republicans really need to change their mascot to the parrot. "Empathy! squawwwwk! Telepromter! Squawwwwk! Celebrity! Squawkkkkk!"

Congratulations on your learning grade school civics. Now you might want to get a clue about how the real system works before posting on it.

The political reality is that the President submits the draft budget Congress starts from, and the president has a huge influence on the budget.


No where in the constitution does it say Congress can't just give the president the middle finger and say NO...we will NOT give you money. That is the entire point of checks and balances.

I guess next you are going to tell me that the war in Iraq is 100% the fault of the Republicans even though Democrats voted for it.
 
Originally posted by: Craig234

Fact is, Republicans - with some help from some Democrats - screwed up the ecoomy big time

I'm just stunned Craig234 had the intellectual honesty to finally admit this. Sadly, it's probably just a one-time slip-up on his part and won't happen again.
 
Originally posted by: aeternitas
And whats with the 2 choices on the pole? How retarded. You get a bunch of idiots in here taking one side or the other because they are too stupid to look at the bigger picture becuse they are both digging ditches on either side of a rotted fence.

It's a Phokus poll, created as an exercise in trolling.
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Patranus
The debt is mainly the fault of CONGRESS...Last time I checked CONGRESS controls funding...The President asks CONGRESS for funding and they vote "yes" or "no" if they want to authorize the funding.

Or am I interpreting the constitution too literally and need to use a little empathy? Or am I naturally unable to interpret the constitution correctly because I am not a latina?

The Republicans really need to change their mascot to the parrot. "Empathy! squawwwwk! Telepromter! Squawwwwk! Celebrity! Squawkkkkk!"

Congratulations on your learning grade school civics. Now you might want to get a clue about how the real system works before posting on it.

The political reality is that the President submits the draft budget Congress starts from, and the president has a huge influence on the budget.

Weren't you just complaining in this very thread about dishonest arguments? Check your mirror - change starts at home.
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Bush administration adds more than $4 trillion to the national debt.

http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

Obama has a long ways to go before he surpasses Bush. If you voted Obama in this poll, you need to retake elementary school math class.

Dont worry Obama will surpass that in his first term at this rate. What you are doing is pointing out a temporary situation. Yes in Bush's 8 years he spent more than Obama has in his first 150 days. What an accomplishment for Obama. Americans should rejoice!

Push it out over 4 years and Obama hits nearly 5 trillion in deficit spending. It is only a matter of time.
 
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?
 
Originally posted by: sactoking
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Bush administration adds more than $4 trillion to the national debt.

http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

Obama has a long ways to go before he surpasses Bush. If you voted Obama in this poll, you need to retake elementary school math class.

Really? Because in Bush's 8 years the deficit increased by approximately $4.3 trillion. In Obama's first year the deficit is projected to be $1.8 trillion. In 2010 Obama has proposed a $3.55 trillion budget. The highest tax revenue ever collected was $2.6 trillion in 2007 (2008 obviously is not over for tax collection). That means that in his first two years Obama is on pace to add approximately $2.7 trillion to the debt. That's about 50% of the Bush debt in 25% of the time. There's NOT a long way to go before he surpasses Bush.

wow... I can hear the crickets chirping.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
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?
This.
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Patranus

The current estimated cost of war in Iraq (3/20/2003-6/9/2009) is approximately 676 billion dollars, well under the "trillions" you claim.

Expanding on Phokus's point, your "current estimate" fails to estimate a lot of the real costs we'll be paying for decades. Do you include the cost of death benifits, or the cost of continuing care for our wounded troops for the remainder of their lives, or the cost of lost productivity from those killed those wounded, or the cost of any number of lost alternative revenue producing investment opportunities in infrastructure, education and more? Do they even contemplate the cost of the interest on the huge deficits caused by the war in Iraq?

There's a lot more to consider beyond what's contemplated in your "current estimated cost of war."

THE RECKONING
The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More


By Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz
Sunday, March 9, 2008; Page B01

There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a free war. The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home.
.
.
But the costs to our society and economy are far greater. When a young soldier is killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, his or her family will receive a U.S. government check for just $500,000 (combining life insurance with a "death gratuity") -- far less than the typical amount paid by insurance companies for the death of a young person in a car accident. The stark "budgetary cost" of $500,000 is clearly only a fraction of the total cost society pays for the loss of life -- and no one can ever really compensate the families. Moreover, disability pay seldom provides adequate compensation for wounded troops or their families. Indeed, in one out of five cases of seriously injured soldiers, someone in their family has to give up a job to take care of them.

But beyond this is the cost to the already sputtering U.S. economy. All told, the bill for the Iraq war is likely to top $3 trillion. And that's a conservative estimate.
.
.
(continues)

And that doesn't address the cost of the economic disaster caused by the Bushwhackos' complete abandonment of oversight and control of their wealthy Wall Street robber baron contributors. I already acknoledged that they weren't alone in dismantling it, but it was all their show when the warning signs appeard, and they took us from a surplus to deficits.

Harvey's quite correct that the true costs of the Iraqi excursion won't be known for decades. Heck, we're still paying for WW II (and every war since).
 
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: OCguy
Any increase in spending since Obama took office, that was not a previously enacted program by Bush Administration, is 100% Obama.


Any more easy questions?

That's exactly what i think. Some of your buddies above you disagree. They think Bush's spending is now obama's fault.

I mean how much of kool-aid drinking rightwinger do you guys have to be that OCGuy actually gets the question right and became the voice of reason on your side? 😛

Funny you say cool aid drinkers when Obama started off his champaign in the house of a friend of Jim Jones. Irony?

Anyhow the Debt has projected going from almost 2bil to 10-11bil in a few months. Sounds like Obama just spent more $ in a few months than every other president combined.

Bush is a turkey for certain. Spent like a drunk sailor. He dug the first 2 feet of our economic grave But Obama has got spending money down to a science and dug us a further 8 feet. Any way you look at it we're fooked.
 
Originally posted by: EXman
Funny you say cool aid drinkers when Obama started off his champaign in the house of a friend of Jim Jones. Irony?

Anyhow the Debt has projected going from almost 2bil to 10-11bil in a few months. Sounds like Obama just spent more $ in a few months than every other president combined.

Bush is a turkey for certain. Spent like a drunk sailor. He dug the first 2 feet of our economic grave But Obama has got spending money down to a science and dug us a further 8 feet. Any way you look at it we're fooked.

Your numbers are very strange. When Bush came into office, the debt was $4 trillion. When Bush left office it was $10 trillion. During the next eight years, if Obama is re-elected, the debt is projected to double once again.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Obama could have ended Bush policies if he really wanted to. So yeah, right now, its all on Obama.

The President of the US has absolute power? 😕


The disconnect is strong with you and spidey.

Yeah, when close to 100% of what he wants to get done and congress lock-steps right in is pretty close to absolute power, until another election comes up....
 
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?

bush's spending = obama's fault, gotcha

repubulicans.txt
 
Originally posted by: Phokus
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?

bush's spending = obama's fault, gotcha

repubulicans.txt

Yeah, that is what I said when clearly stated I voted Bush you dumbass. Your reading comprehension is piss poor again.
 
Originally posted by: Phokus
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?

bush's spending = obama's fault, gotcha

repubulicans.txt
Bush spending bad...Obama spending good...gotcha.

hack.txt
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Phokus
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?

bush's spending = obama's fault, gotcha

repubulicans.txt

Yeah, that is what I said when clearly stated I voted Bush you dumbass. Your reading comprehension is piss poor again.

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

again, bush's spending = obama's fault, gotcha

Only dumbass is you. Bush signed on the dotted line, but it's Obama's fault now.
 
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Phokus
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?

bush's spending = obama's fault, gotcha

repubulicans.txt

Yeah, that is what I said when clearly stated I voted Bush you dumbass. Your reading comprehension is piss poor again.

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

again, bush's spending = obama's fault, gotcha

Only dumbass is you. Bush signed on the dotted line, but it's Obama's fault now.

How does me stating any future spending Obama and Democrats do is on their own shoulders equal Bush's spending is Obama's fault in your head?


 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Phokus
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?

bush's spending = obama's fault, gotcha

repubulicans.txt

Yeah, that is what I said when clearly stated I voted Bush you dumbass. Your reading comprehension is piss poor again.

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

again, bush's spending = obama's fault, gotcha

Only dumbass is you. Bush signed on the dotted line, but it's Obama's fault now.

How does me stating any future spending Obama and Democrats do is on their own shoulders equal Bush's spending is Obama's fault in your head?

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.
 
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.
 
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:
 
Back
Top