Bush Vs. Obama (in Off-topic)


AdminTal Destra [Forge Of Norn] July 25 2011 10:31 PM EDT

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] July 25 2011 10:38 PM EDT

wait for it...

Demigod July 25 2011 10:39 PM EDT

::puts on helmet and flak jacket::

Catdog July 25 2011 10:45 PM EDT

people who blame obama for the economy don't understand where we were when he started.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] July 25 2011 11:07 PM EDT


Two problems:

Our chief Oompa Loompa and his minions don't see the Bush tax cuts as a cost to be ameliorated. They insist on the bad rhetoric of claiming that "reversing a cut" (or reverting bad policy) = "tax increase".

The war money is money truly already spent thus not a cost we can cut or a revenue we can raise now, thus it is also not typically included in the budget math.

So take out the $1469 and the $1812 and then compare the math. That's the tricky business to which they're up.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] July 25 2011 11:09 PM EDT

::me huggles basty-cakes::

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] July 25 2011 11:11 PM EDT


Groping is overly Conservative of you.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] July 25 2011 11:14 PM EDT

now we have proof, one man's hugging is one bast's groping! nice cakes btw! ; {

Lord Bob July 25 2011 11:56 PM EDT

*gives Bast a thumbs up*

IPoop July 26 2011 1:09 AM EDT

how can war costs be classed as Bush's fault? ... he was almost unanimously voted in by the US people for his last term on the basis of going to war for the 11th of September attacks.

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] July 26 2011 2:14 AM EDT

We could blame the dems for putting Fakenstein and Ketchup Lurch in podium positions which required charisma, or us for ignoring the despotic policies of the Decider, but I'd rather blame a system which encourages betting between two retards in a relay race before pinning the epic fail on the american public again.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] July 26 2011 6:55 AM EDT

Electoral vote 286 251
States carried 31 19 + DC
Popular vote 62,040,610 59,028,444
Percentage 50.7% 48.3%

1.4% is not near-unanimity.

Also "because he had" is not the same as "on the basis of".

Bonus freebie: Everyone who understands that at least one of these wars was egomaniacal nonsense, or that foreign policy shouldn't be based entirely on "because God told me so", can blame him. And we do.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] July 26 2011 9:52 AM EDT

Bast, not saying that I agree with this, but I think he was making the statement that, those who voted for him, did so solely because of that decision to go to war. Once again, I'm not saying I agree with this, just trying to clarify what I think he means.

Lord Bob July 26 2011 10:06 AM EDT

Polls show that the biggest factor for Bush voters in 2004 was "family values." In other words, "gol darng it!, dat der John Kerry gonna legerlize deh gey marriage!"

Unanimously re-elected? Because of Iraq? I truly hope his post was made in jest.

QBRanger July 26 2011 10:55 AM EDT

Cool! I can do that too.

Lochnivar July 26 2011 11:08 AM EDT

It is a fact that 87% of statistics used on the internet are manipulated to support the user's position.

Lord Bob July 26 2011 12:29 PM EDT

Here's an article!
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] July 26 2011 1:00 PM EDT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

I'd recommend reading this first LB, it's from a much more reliable source :). Also, whether or not you agree with it entirely, supply side economics is not what that guy tried to describe in that article. Also, supply side economics is based off of some facts that can simply not be denied, it's not till you look at the principle as a whole, and compare gains to losses can it even be argued. More money in the nation, stimulates growth, even non-supply side economists believe this, it's just a matter of how you want to get that money out there. Supply side, or demand side.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] July 26 2011 1:04 PM EDT


Important question: Why is being in the negatives up to -$400 billion "a grey area" and not "being in the red"?

Lord Bob July 26 2011 1:20 PM EDT

supply side economics is not what that guy tried to describe in that article.
Describing it wasn't the point of the article.

supply side economics is based off of some facts that can simply not be denied,
Yet denies so many other facts.

More money in the nation, stimulates growth, even non-supply side economists believe this, it's just a matter of how you want to get that money out there. Supply side, or demand side.
Demand side.

Important question: Why is being in the negatives up to -$400 billion "a grey area" and not "being in the red"?
In other words, which right-wing site provided him with that image?

QBRanger July 26 2011 2:00 PM EDT

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html

The Washington Post.

Or better yet the CBO.
SOURCE: CBO, White House Office of Management and Budget | The Washington Post - March 21, 2009

A very typical left leaning, no leftward biased paper.

And one of the liberal gods, JKF, reduced taxes and the economy improved. Every time taxes have been cut/reduced, the economy has boomed. Revenues to the government have gone up.

The is something the chart in the OP did not discuss. How the economy grew for 52 straight months after the 03 tax cut. So instead of continuing to count the tax cut as decreased revenue, how about we be fair and count the increased government revenues as a counter, something this chart fails.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] July 26 2011 2:12 PM EDT

opinions are like...

how about some facts!

http://factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/

QBRanger July 26 2011 2:19 PM EDT

Or a better chart:


1990-

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] July 26 2011 2:44 PM EDT

Ranger's first chart is so bias, so deceitful, and so up-to-date they made it in "08 and projected Obama to stay in office until '19?
Regarding sheep side economics....

I'll see your undeniable facts and raise you the $12 monthly maintenance fee Bank of America jacked me for this week. Free money and tax cuts can't put wonder bread on the table, kids. Eat your cardboard.

QBRanger July 26 2011 2:55 PM EDT

Ranger's first chart is so bias, so deceitful, and so up-to-date they made it in "08 and projected Obama to stay in office until '19?

That is based upon Obama's own budget from the CBO.

I'll see your undeniable facts and raise you the $12 monthly maintenance fee Bank of America jacked me for this week. Free money and tax cuts can't put wonder bread on the table, kids. Eat your cardboard.

You can blame that on the new Dodd-Frank law on that. Passed by Democrats without any Republican support.

Lord Bob July 26 2011 3:32 PM EDT

You can blame that on the new Dodd-Frank law on that.
No, we can blame that on Bank of America.

Let's look at your first chart.
Bush left the nation more than 400 billion in debt at the 2008 mark. This is after Clinton left him a surplus.

Now yes, Obama ballooned the debt to spend us out of the recession. You can call it too little, too late (and I have), but it did stem the bleeding.

The interesting thing occurs after 2009, when, as the CBO predicts, that debt is reduced dramatically and rapidly. At the 2012 mark, most of what is left is covered by George Bush's "grey" in 2008.

You can ignore the numbers after that. The entire point of the debt negotiations going on right now - at least from the White House perspective - is NOT to continue on that route.

So your chart tells this story: Bush blew up the deficit, then Obama blew it up like a beast only to bring it right back down to Bush levels. After that will be decided by what happens this week.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] July 26 2011 3:42 PM EDT

And next LB will say it's the energy providers fault when more cap and trade laws pass and our energy bills go up...

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] July 26 2011 3:48 PM EDT

Also gun, what kindof account did you have with BoA? I didn't get any monthly fee recently.

QBRanger July 26 2011 4:00 PM EDT

You can ignore the numbers after that. The entire point of the debt negotiations going on right now - at least from the White House perspective - is NOT to continue on that route.

Have you seen Obama's proposed budget that got voted on by the Senate and lost 97-0? Not even the Socialist Sanders voted for it.

He has not put forth any new budget. And as the CBO states: "speeches cannot be scored".

Obama wants more taxes and a bigger government.

Republicans want less taxes and a smaller government.

The entire debt negotiations are occurring due to the new Republicans in the House that refuse to increase Obama's credit card limit. If Obama had his way, which he did in the last Congress, the debt limit would have been already increased.

Please do not state that Obama cares about the defecit. That could be furthest from the truth. He is being forced, kicking and screaming, pouting in his press conferences, to finally address the boom in spending the last 2 years.

And while you state the stimulus "stemmed the bleeding", quite a lot of economists now believe it did nothing or perhaps made things worse. This is a debateable point. The one thing the stimulus did do is keep government, state and local employees on the job. While the rest of the country suffered.

Compare the recoveries under Reagan and Obama. 7+% growth per quarter during Reagan vs <2% under Obama.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] July 26 2011 4:06 PM EDT

If Obama was a doctor, he'd insist on needing to give a man blood, while simultaneously shooting him in the chest. You can just trying to replenish the blood, you've got to stop the bleeding.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] July 26 2011 4:11 PM EDT

I'm just waiting for everyone to get so crazy that we have a major catastrophe and people wake up and stop having only nearsighted vision. It can't be too far away.

Lochnivar July 26 2011 4:31 PM EDT

I'm just waiting for everyone to get so crazy that we have a major catastrophe and people wake up and stop having only nearsighted vision. It can't be too far away.

You poor idealist Nat!

Incidentally, looking at the two charts Ranger put up I kind of wonder if Bush jacked the Direct Revenue so much with his tax cuts then how is it the 'fiscally responsible' party in power couldn't pull off even 1 balanced budget?
I mean sure, the first couple of years you could argue were carry over from the 2000-2002 decline in TDR, but by 2005,2006,2007?

Maybe there were things outside their control that impacted their budget decisions... maybe that happens to all governing parties...?


Ah well... on the bright side my Canuckistan Pesos are looking dang good on a cross border shopping trip these days.

Lord Bob July 26 2011 4:36 PM EDT

And next LB will say it's the energy providers fault when more cap and trade laws pass and our energy bills go up...
Bank of America raised fees, which is what they love. Fees fees fees. And they have been doing it since before Dodd-Frank. That company made the choice to do business that way. Barney Frank did not hold a gun to the CEOs head and say "raise your fees!" BOA did that all by themselves, thank you.

When corporations get too greedy it is all too easy, especially among conservatives, to go blaming the government instead of the corporation that enacted their own new rules.

Have you seen Obama's proposed budget that got voted on by the Senate and lost 97-0?
Which has nothing to do with what I said. But you sure are quick to deflect everything back on Obama, aren't you?

What we have now is Harry Reid's bill, which is to the right of Boehner's original proposal, but sadly still the best option for passing since the Republicans shifted the goal posts further to the right again. Cut, Cap and Balance was a complete joke. Then there's McConnell's "let's do nothing and just blame Obama again" plan, which is unsurprising coming from the guy who said his biggest goal was to get rid of Obama instad of doing anything for the country. Lastly we have Boehner's new Super-Congress proposal which thankfully even those nuts in the tea-party want nothing to do with. It's the Reid bill we should be looking at now.

Obama wants more taxes and a bigger government.
Then why is he asking for over a trillion in spending cuts? Pay attention.

Republicans want less taxes and a smaller government.
Which is why they fail.

The entire debt negotiations are occurring due to the new Republicans in the House that refuse to increase Obama's credit card limit.
Because they are willing to risk default, which will harm every person in America, for political gain. I love the quote I read yesterday, "The problem with America today is that the Republicans hate -- truly hate -- their President more than they love their country. And they will run this country into the ground to prove it."

Please do not state that Obama cares about the defecit.
Obama cares about the deficit.

He is being forced, kicking and screaming, pouting in his press conferences, to finally address the boom in spending the last 2 years.
Looks like it's the other way around.
http://cspan.org/Events/Speaker-Boehner-Drops-Out-of-Debt-Talks/10737423029-7/

And while you state the stimulus "stemmed the bleeding", quite a lot of economists now believe it did nothing or perhaps made things worse.
Who are these economists?

Lord Bob July 26 2011 4:46 PM EDT

Oh yeah, and Obama's budget received no support in the Senate because it was too far to the Right, not the Left.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/13/obama-budget-proposal-cut_n_822689.html

Republicans won't vote for anything he does anyway, which explains their no votes.

QBRanger July 26 2011 4:47 PM EDT

LB

We likely can go back and forth about things but it would do none of us any good.

You should read up on the Dodd-Frank bill. In addition to all the "safeguards" to proposed to have, it limits the fees banks can charge. So they go after the low risk people to spread the risk around.

As per Obama and the defecit, there is non disputable evidence he did not care one bit until he met up with resistance to increase the debt limit this go round.

The reason Boehner walked out of talks with Obama was Obama's insistance on more taxes, more than the 800B they already agreed upon. Obama wanted another 400B and the speaker walked out since Obama was trying to renegotiate a deal that he previously agreed to.

But either way, we both have our versions of what American should be, how we need to get there, and whom are the obstacles in the way.

You believe greedy corporations, evil rich people who do not pay enough in taxes, and Republican in general.

That is fine.

We should make a bet on the 12 election. I will take the Republican nominee, you take Obama.

100M CB2, deal?

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] July 26 2011 4:49 PM EDT

We should make a bet on the 12 election. I will take the Republican nominee, you take Obama.

I don't know about this, b/c while Obama might not be a good president, he's got a good smile, and that's usually all half of the people that vote know...

Lord Bob July 26 2011 5:10 PM EDT

You should read up on the Dodd-Frank bill.
You assume I know nothing about it.

I am in support of limiting fees and interest rates so low-income people who have bad credit don't get stuck with some of the egregious abuses of the industry, like 80%+ interest rates on credit cards, which all but ensure they can never recover from previous errors. My point was it was never mandated in Dodd-Frank that banks raise fees and rates elsewhere. Banks did that themselves. Blame them.

As per Obama and the defecit, there is non disputable evidence
With words like "non-disputable" I doubt it, but I am willing to let you put something up.

The reason Boehner walked out of talks with Obama was Obama's insistance on more taxes,
Which is what I want, and is what the Republicans refuse to compromise on, despite massive concessions from Democrats. This is exactly what I lay at Boehner's feet.

We should make a bet on the 12 election. I will take the Republican nominee, you take Obama.
I would certainly take that bet, and even thought about asking you, but I doubt I'll still be here next November. Even if I did take the bet, ..

100M CB2, deal?
How the heck do you expect me to come up with that?

Lord Bob July 26 2011 5:12 PM EDT

he's got a good smile, and that's usually all half of the people that vote know...
Yep. Everyone wanted to have a beer with Bush, while as Gun said..
We could blame the dems for putting Fakenstein and Ketchup Lurch in podium positions which required charisma,
So we got "The Decider."

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] July 26 2011 5:31 PM EDT

And while you state the stimulus "stemmed the bleeding", quite a lot of economists now believe it did nothing or perhaps made things worse.

Who are these economists?

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] July 26 2011 6:51 PM EDT


Nat, there is no cure for our shortsightedness, as its cause is The American Dream. See: "Makes me long for the day this could possibly be me."

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] July 26 2011 7:07 PM EDT

temporarily embarrassed millionaires

Catdog July 26 2011 7:09 PM EDT

what is your voting party bast?

Rubberduck[T] [Hell Blenders] July 26 2011 9:49 PM EDT

I would attribute increased revenues from 2003 to the ridiculous increase in money supply.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] July 26 2011 9:59 PM EDT


Intellectual elitist.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] July 26 2011 10:01 PM EDT

Intellectual elitist.

You and everyone else on CB :)

Lochnivar July 26 2011 10:02 PM EDT

Intellectual elitist.

Sooo... is that republican or democrat?

I've always felt the intellectual elitists would do better in politics if they weren't so brainy... how is the beer swilling redneck supposed to relate?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] July 26 2011 10:21 PM EDT

public sentiment in regards to how to deal with the debt seems to be going against the republicans.

http://feeds.reuters.com/~r/reuters/topNews/~3/rqhcLcGRuTc/us-usa-debt-ipsos-idUSTRE76P5Q220110726

the pendulum is always swinging.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] July 26 2011 10:43 PM EDT


*odl*

Everyone else on CB? That's stretching the bounds of both terms beyond credulity.

Relate? My party is not meant to relate. My party actively excludes people too dumb to vote. [See polling data indicating the "majority" of respondents are simultaneously and consistently: concerned about national debt, don't get enough service from their government, and pay too much in taxes.]

Relating is close to the most ridiculous of the fundamental problems associated with a massive majority of under-educated voters. Willful ignorance is what allows people to vote for the candidate most like themselves, never asking the question "How much more qualified than me to do this job is this candidate?"

Lochnivar July 26 2011 10:47 PM EDT

Relate? My party is not meant to relate.

...or catch sarcasm it would seem.

IPoop July 26 2011 11:28 PM EDT

Sorry to go back to my earlier point - just wanted to say thanks for posting the bush reelection stats. I really was under the impression bush won his last term by a land slide just because he was going after bin laden in Afghanistan.
Just to clarify I also think the Iraq war was totally illegal.

Would have said I was wrong earlier but work is a biatch atm

Lord Bob July 26 2011 11:34 PM EDT

he was going after bin laden in Afghanistan.
He wasn't. Obama did though!

Lord Bob July 27 2011 12:03 AM EDT

Here's an excellent response to Boehner's speech that I found on Reddit. I didn't write it, but I wish I did.

Millions are looking for work, have been for some time, and the spending binge going on in Washington is a big part of the reason why.

CBO reports say that in the fourth quarter of 2010 there were somewhere between 1.3 million and 3.5 million people who were then employed who would not have been had the stimulus not been enacted.

Before I served in Congress, I ran a small business in Ohio. I was amazed at how different Washington DC operated than every business in America.

You were with that company for a total of 13 years. You have been in politics since 5 years after starting at that company. You have been in politics for 29 years with 21 years of that being your term in congress. Stop trying to pretend you're still a business man.

Where most American businesses make the hard choices to pay their bills and live within their means, in Washington more spending and more debt is business as usual.

The Joint Committee on Taxation stated that the Bush Tax Cuts costs combined cost us over $2 trillion between 2001-2017. Bush raised national debt by $4.08 trillion thru tax cuts and spending. You were in the house the whole time Bush was president, and voted down party lines 95.95% of the time during those years. More spending and debt is something that you have supported over the years.

on the heels of the largest spending binge in American history.

Well, on pure dollar ammounts, yes. As a precentage of GDP, the last few years are much less than the spending binge that happened for World War 2.

Here's what we got for that spending binge: a massive health care bill that most Americans never asked for

Actually, most Americans did back health care reform. It was one of the hot topics that helped Obama get elected. Beyond that, the CBO also reports that although there would be a $940 billion price tag over a 10 year period, it would actually reduce the deficit by $138 billion.

A 'stimulus' bill that was more effective in producing material for late-night comedians than it was in producing jobs

Once again, 1.5 to 3.5 million jobs accredited to the stimulus bill by the CBO. I'd say that was a larger effect than the effect it had on late-night comedians.

a national debt that has gotten so out of hand it has sparked a crisis without precedent in my lifetime or yours.

A case could easily be made that due to increases in the debt ceiling being common place, that the crisis isn't due to us approaching the limit, but instead due to the inability of the House to pass a bill that has even modest bipartisan support.

And over the last six months, weメve done our best to convince the president to partner with us to do something dramatic to change the fiscal trajectory of our country.

Actually, over the last six months the House has done it's best to convince the president to give into its demands of huge cuts to entitlement programs, pushing the entire burden of these cuts onto the backs of the lower and middle class.

Last week, the House passed such a plan, and with bipartisan support

5 Democrats voted for it, 188 did not. 2.6% is not enough to be considered bipartisan support by any stretch of the imagination.

Unfortunately, the president would not take yes for an answer.

Had the "yes" been "yes, we will pass a bill that fairly affects all Americans", then he would have accepted it. He and the gang of six both said yes to such an answer, you are the one who said no.

Even when we thought we might be close on an agreement, the presidentメs demands changed.

That was because his demands kept getting closer to your demands as he accepted compromises on things such as entitlements. That is what politics is about. Your demands on the other hand have remained steadfast... that is what blackmail is all about.

The president has often said we need a 'balanced' approach -- which in Washington means: we spend more. . .you pay more.

No, by "balanced" he means that the burden doesn't fall just on the backs of the middle and lower class, but that the wealthy take some of the hit as well.

Having run a small business, I know those tax increases will destroy jobs.

If cutting out tax loopholes (which is what the gang of six plan proposes) destroys jobs, then why didn't it do that when Reagan closed tax loopholes and raised payroll taxes himself in 1982?

The sad truth is that the president wanted a blank check six months ago, and he wants a blank check today.

Considering that the president is backing a plan that would cut the deficit by more than the raise that is being asked, it's not a blank check. In fact, He's not asking for a check at all, but instead the ability to keep the government operating. The check writing would come at the time that the yearly budget is crafted.

If the President signs it, the ムcrisisメ atmosphere he has created will simply disappear.

It is the responsibility of congress to craft and pass bills, the only responsibility of the president is to either sign or veto those bills. Obama has acted as a mediator between the two political sides, and has gotten the Democrats to agree to things they do not like. This crisis situation is not due to his actions, but due to partisan bickering in congress.

The solution to this crisis is not complicated: if youメre spending more money than youメre taking in, you need to spend less of it

Or take in more, or do a combination of the two.

You should be ashamed of your speech and all the lies contained inside it Boehner.

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] July 27 2011 12:29 AM EDT

For those thinking t l;d r

Obama caves more than fruit bats and sycophants like Boehner need to be smashed in the face with signed copies of the ironically titled Demonic.

Lord Bob July 27 2011 12:45 AM EDT

For those thinking t l;d r
*laughs* The last line there was a tl;dr, but I edited it out because I thought it stood well with the rest of the post.
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003Cn6">Bush Vs. Obama</a>