42 replies to this topic

[ExpandMyMind]

ranrod, on 23 July 2012 - 06:37 AM, said:

Must be hard for you not using any public roads, not having an education, not having access to ambulances, or security for when you retire.  Well, at least you're not a freeloader!
Rafterman, the premise is simple.  Bush created the situation Obama inherited.  Obama is trying to fix it.  Republicans are running interference to avoid his re-election.  Should I explain again?

Anyway. the thread premise is true, although there are caveats.  Republicans have blocked all new spending and tax increases are off the table.  If Obama had full reigns, who knows what spending would have been like.  It would be misleading to say Obama is solely responsible for it.  By looking at the OP's chart, it looks like Republicans are only against spending when it's someone else doing the spending

I find it strange that you claim Obama is trying to fix things when you then go on to bring up the fact that the only reason he hasn't spent more is because congress has denied him.

Edited by ExpandMyMind, 23 July 2012 - 09:18 AM.

[preacherman76]

questionmark, on 22 July 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

questionmark, on 22 July 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

The stimulas, bail-outs, and unconstitutional wars 0bama fully supported. What money did Bush spend that 0bama didnt aprove of?

[preacherman76]

Why would you assign 2009 budget spending to Bush when Obama signed off on 9 of the appropriations (the vast majority of the spending) . As Jim Michaels would have said, “here’s a dime. It’s what the story is worth.”

[questionmark]

ExpandMyMind, on 23 July 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

I find it strange that you claim Obama is trying to fix things when you then go on to bring up the fact that the only reason he hasn't spent more is because congress has denied him.

Where you have to say that it is quite difficult to top spending at this point, not even the reality removed Hill-Washingtonians would dare to try to pass a budget where more than 1/3 is financed by debt.

[Bama13]

ranrod, on 23 July 2012 - 06:37 AM, said:

Must be hard for you not using any public roads, not having an education, not having access to ambulances, or security for when you retire.  Well, at least you're not a freeloader!
Rafterman, the premise is simple.  Bush created the situation Obama inherited.  Obama is trying to fix it.  Republicans are running interference to avoid his re-election.  Should I explain again?

Anyway. the thread premise is true, although there are caveats.  Republicans have blocked all new spending and tax increases are off the table.  If Obama had full reigns, who knows what spending would have been like.  It would be misleading to say Obama is solely responsible for it.  By looking at the OP's chart, it looks like Republicans are only against spending when it's someone else doing the spending

This whole roads thing is killing me. The federal government didn't build any roads. They took our money and hired people to build some of the roads we use. Most roads are build by State and/or local government.

Education is a state responsibility. We had, IMHO, a much better education system before the Feds got involoved.

Ambulances? I have never even seen a federal ambulance.

This is just silly. We, the people, paid for all the things you mentioned. We would still have them. To think otherwise is simply inane.

[Rafterman]

ExpandMyMind, on 23 July 2012 - 12:20 AM, said:

MarketWatch is a subsidiary of Dow Jones, a property of News Corporation. MarketWatch is part of Dow Jones' Consumer Media Group, along with The Wall Street Journal, Barron's, the WSJ.com and affiliated internet properties. Through the Rupert Murdoch-controlled News Corp. ownership, MarketWatch is also affiliated with, among many other global media properties, the New York Post, The Times of London, Fox News Channel and multiple other 20th Century Fox spinoffs, and HarperCollins publishers.
http://en.wikipedia....iki/MarketWatch

This isn't a 'lib' study. If anything, this documentation of the facts and figures could be said to come from the right wing. This is based on facts. Fact: Obama is the smallest government spender since Eisenhower. End of story.

I hate Obama, but I also hate the lies that are spewed regarding his presidency.

What matters is who wrote it, not the publication where it's printed.  If Rush Limbaugh writes a piece for USA Today (as he's done in the past) does that make USA Today a "right-wing rag"?

Here is the author and his profile:

Rick Ungar

I write on politics with a 'specialty' in health care policy. My interest in the field began with an experience fifteen years ago in a hospital in Los Angeles that has led me to my current life where I consult a number of government officials and health care advocacy groups. In addition to my contributions to Forbes, I write a political column at The Washington Monthly. On Saturdays, you can find me on your TV arguing with my more conservative colleagues on "Forbes on Fox" on the Fox News Network and serving as a liberal talking head on other Fox News and Fox Business Network shows.

So just another lib spouting lib talking points.

[Rafterman]

ranrod, on 23 July 2012 - 06:37 AM, said:

Rafterman, the premise is simple.  Bush created the situation Obama inherited.  Obama is trying to fix it.  Republicans are running interference to avoid his re-election.  Should I explain again?

And he's done a **** job trying to do that.  Which is exactly why he doesn't deserve another 4 years in office.  He even said it himself.

Poor poor Obama - he's only the most powerful man in the world and he had a majority in Congress for only 2 years.  He just couldn't get anything done because of those waskely Republicans.

[Rafterman]

Bama13, on 23 July 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

This whole roads thing is killing me. The federal government didn't build any roads. They took our money and hired people to build some of the roads we use. Most roads are build by State and/or local government.

Education is a state responsibility. We had, IMHO, a much better education system before the Feds got involoved.

Ambulances? I have never even seen a federal ambulance.

This is just silly. We, the people, paid for all the things you mentioned. We would still have them. To think otherwise is simply inane.

Well, to be fair, about 49% of us paid for them.

[Gromdor]

The transportation system is funded by fuel tax primarily.  The education system here in Iowa is from property tax.  We also have a city and state sales tax.
So I am going to have to dispute your 49% claim.

[ExpandMyMind]

Rafterman, on 23 July 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

What matters is who wrote it, not the publication where it's printed.  If Rush Limbaugh writes a piece for USA Today (as he's done in the past) does that make USA Today a "right-wing rag"?

Here is the author and his profile:

Rick Ungar

I write on politics with a 'specialty' in health care policy. My interest in the field began with an experience fifteen years ago in a hospital in Los Angeles that has led me to my current life where I consult a number of government officials and health care advocacy groups. In addition to my contributions to Forbes, I write a political column at The Washington Monthly. On Saturdays, you can find me on your TV arguing with my more conservative colleagues on "Forbes on Fox" on the Fox News Network and serving as a liberal talking head on other Fox News and Fox Business Network shows.

So just another lib spouting lib talking points.

Are you suggesting that the author fabricated the numbers, statistics and facts?

[questionmark]

ExpandMyMind, on 23 July 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

Are you suggesting that the author fabricated the numbers, statistics and facts?

I would say that after Dubya's spending spree it was pretty difficult to manage a 4% increase. And that is what the author has forgotten to mention.

[ranrod]

ExpandMyMind, on 23 July 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

I find it strange that you claim Obama is trying to fix things when you then go on to bring up the fact that the only reason he hasn't spent more is because congress has denied him.

Obama is trying to fix things.  We don't know what spending would be like if Republicans weren't running interference.  How are those things related?  Are you saying spending = not fixing things?  I'd say that's a hard point to defend.

[ranrod]

Bama13, on 23 July 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

This whole roads thing is killing me. The federal government didn't build any roads. They took our money and hired people to build some of the roads we use. Most roads are build by State and/or local government.

Education is a state responsibility. We had, IMHO, a much better education system before the Feds got involoved.

Ambulances? I have never even seen a federal ambulance.

This is just silly. We, the people, paid for all the things you mentioned. We would still have them. To think otherwise is simply inane.

You have to understand that the anarchist point of view doesn't suit everyone.  You may be self-sufficient and live in an area with little federal involvement, but we have 300M people to take into consideration.  Not just you.  The feds have been building roads and granting money for highways since 1905.  Federal grants to address local problems are used in a wide variety of ways.  Depends on where you live.

[ranrod]

Gromdor, on 23 July 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

The transportation system is funded by fuel tax primarily.  The education system here in Iowa is from property tax.  We also have a city and state sales tax.
So I am going to have to dispute your 49% claim.

Every state takes federal government road construction money.  For starters, Iowa got more money than it put in to the Federal Aid Highway Fund ($1.13 for every dollar Iowa put in).  Roads for national parks/forests are constructed by the feds (maybe your state doesn't have any).  Federal grants for local government needs are also handed out on a per-need basis (maybe your state hasn't needed any).

[DieChecker]

ExpandMyMind, on 22 July 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

http://www.forbes.co...s-barack-obama/

I've looked at this before and it is completely true. There has been little increase in spending since 2008.

But what is also true is that 2008 was a horrendous tragedy of a Budget.

It is like splurging in May and spending an extra 500 dollars more then you earned, and then continuing that into June, July and August, and claiming you're being financially responsible because you have not increased your splurging. When what you should have done is go back to spending what you earn.

This is not an achievement it is a travesty. And putting it out as Good News is simple propaganda.