Obama attacks the GOP! - Auto-Trend Repairs and Service Information Forums

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Obama attacks the GOP!

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Here he says the GOP lacks faith in the American people, mind you he is looking to buy the November elections because 99 weeks of getting paid for sitting on your ass turning your nose up at work is a little more than a lack of faith, its a gawd-damn OUTRAGE!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20010906-503544.html

Here he claims the GOP is holding the unemployed hostage, but really these people are holding themselfs hostage in their own foreclosed homes looking for hand outs while turning their noses up at any job that requires more work than walking to the mail box.

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/Obama-Says-Republicans-Holding-Unemployed-Hostage-to-Politics-98770304.html

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Well, If the Republicans hadn't destroyed the economy those people wouldn't need unemployment bennefits.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Come on PowerStroker! Obama's been in office for almost 2 years now!

Things arent getting better... They are getting worse. Wouldnt you agree?

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Actually we've pretty much stopped digging ourselves into a hole, but it will take several years to dig out of the hole it took several years to get in to.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Are you kidding me!?

Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

WITH THE TARP MONEY INCUDED BUSH'S NATIONAL DEBT STOOD AT $10.5 TRILLION. $5.7 Trillion of that was left behind by the Clinton Administration. So its safe to say BUSH added around $5 trillion dollars.

RIGHT NOW and I use that term loosly because it's growing every second, the national debt stands at $13.2 trillion dollars. Of that $13.2 trillion dollars $10.5 trillion of it was inherited when he took office, however Bush gave him $700 Billion to get him to quit crying. Doing the math, taking the $700 Billion the Bush Administration left Obama to spend at his discression you subtract $9.8 Billion from $13.2 Trillion and you have yourself $3.4 Trillion Dollars that OBAMA SPENT IN JUST 2 SHORT YEARS! Compare that with the $5 Trillion that the Bush Administration spent over 8 YEARS with two wars and 911.

Its quite clear PowerStroker! Obama is spending like a drunken sailor! I think this may be the main reason the Obama administration is waiting to instate his healthcare overhaul, because the addition of JUST THAT PEICE OF SHIT will put him well over what Bush spent over 8 years!

Wake up PowerStroker! SHOW ME SOME MATH TO BACK UP YOUR LIES!

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

SELLC wrote:

Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out...

The Heritage foundation is a Right wing think tank and only exists to advance that ideology. Their information and graphs - though based on CBO data, present only filtered information and not all the facts.

WITH THE TARP MONEY INCUDED BUSH'S NATIONAL DEBT STOOD AT $10.5 TRILLION. $5.7 Trillion of that was left behind by the Clinton Administration. So its safe to say BUSH added around $5 trillion dollars.

You can't stop adding Bush's debt the day he leaves office. Most of the reason the Obama administration is running red ink is because most of the Bush policies are still in effect. ie: 2 wars without paying for them, a massive tax cut for millionaires without paying for it ect.

RIGHT NOW and I use that term loosly because it's growing every second, the national debt stands at $13.2 trillion dollars. Of that $13.2 trillion dollars $10.5 trillion of it was inherited when he took office, however Bush gave him $700 Billion to get him to quit crying.

Much like everything else, Bush borrowed that $700 Billion from China and added it to our national debt. Don't think he "gave" anything to Obama. Also, the Bush administration spent half of the $700 Billion bailing out Wall St. Banks PRIOR to Obama becoming president.

Doing the math, taking the $700 Billion the Bush Administration left Obama to spend at his discression you subtract $9.8 Billion from $13.2 Trillion and you have yourself $3.4 Trillion Dollars that OBAMA SPENT IN JUST 2 SHORT YEARS! Compare that with the $5 Trillion that the Bush Administration spent over 8 YEARS with two wars and 911.

As I said, When Obama took office only half of the TARP funds remained. Also the 1.5 TRILLION Dollar annual deficit that Obama inherited was projected by the Bush Office of Management and Budget.

Its quite clear PowerStroker! Obama is spending like a drunken sailor! I think this may be the main reason the Obama administration is waiting to instate his healthcare overhaul, because the addition of JUST THAT PEICE OF SHIT will put him well over what Bush spent over 8 years!

Actually, while the initial investment for the healthcare overhaul is relatively expensive, it is projected to not only pay for itself within approximately 8 years, but actually start REDUCING our annual deficits significantly thereafter. There is no shortage of CBO reports to back this up if you feel so inclined to look it up.

I realize all of these annual deficits (which are enormous) are uncomfortable for you. They add to our national debt and will be a burden on all of us for the rest of our lives. I don't like running red ink either Rex. I still believe however that the Obama policies ie: Healthcare reform, Wall St. Reform, and hopefully soon energy reform will actually make us stronger in the long run and reduce our debt and dependence on other nations. I also hope you will take a lesson from the Great Depression in that when all else fails, the Government... We The People are the employer and consumer of last resort when un-regulated monopoly Capitalism fails us.

It was Friedman economics that caused this mess, Only Keynesian economics will dig us out of it... But then I suppose with your high school education you have no interest in finding out what I'm talking about and are more than content blaming the Black man for all of the problems that have been in the works for a long, long time.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

PowerStroker wrote:

The Heritage foundation is a Right wing think tank and only exists to advance that ideology. Their information and graphs - though based on CBO data, present only filtered information and not all the facts.

Try selling that BS to someone who is interested in buying it. The data as shown from the CBO is about as accurate as you can get.

You can't stop adding Bush's debt the day he leaves office. Most of the reason the Obama administration is running red ink is because most of the Bush policies are still in effect. ie: 2 wars without paying for them, a massive tax cut for millionaires without paying for it ect.

Dude I think you have gotten too much diesel on your skin this week. From what is projected now I am affraid to see what kind of MESS Obama will leave us. By the time him and Hillary get done the Republicans might be left with 10X the debt and a full on WORLD WAR.

Much like everything else, Bush borrowed that $700 Billion from China and added it to our national debt. Don't think he "gave" anything to Obama. Also, the Bush administration spent half of the $700 Billion bailing out Wall St. Banks PRIOR to Obama becoming president.

Bush had to spend half that money because of Obama's dirty Chicago Politics that lowered the moral of buyers who quit buying shit when he campaigned that BS about America going bust. Bush was well aware of the fact the Democrats would squander the money.

As I said, When Obama took office only half of the TARP funds remained. Also the 1.5 TRILLION Dollar annual deficit that Obama inherited was projected by the Bush Office of Management and Budget.

While I pulled the numbers off the web, going by your number of $1.5T and the current national debt of $13T one could say things are getting worse, not better.

Actually, while the initial investment for the healthcare overhaul is relatively expensive, it is projected to not only pay for itself within approximately 8 years, but actually start REDUCING our annual deficits significantly thereafter. There is no shortage of CBO reports to back this up if you feel so inclined to look it up.

Wait 8 years to see some reductions? That's not acceptable. Obama is sand bagging! Maybe 8 years to see some savings is okay if your a Democrat, but to me there are LOTS of savings that can be made starting RIGHT NOW. It's easy for Obama to say 8 years knowing thats the MAX he could ever be in office. Total BS and you know it.

I realize all of these annual deficits (which are enormous) are uncomfortable for you. They add to our national debt and will be a burden on all of us for the rest of our lives. I don't like running red ink either Rex. I still believe however that the Obama policies ie: Healthcare reform, Wall St. Reform, and hopefully soon energy reform will actually make us stronger in the long run and reduce our debt and dependence on other nations. I also hope you will take a lesson from the Great Depression in that when all else fails, the Government... We The People are the employer and consumer of last resort when un-regulated monopoly Capitalism fails us.

Sounds like a love Story. Is your name Michael Moore? Are we to take care of our own? Absolutly! Are we to allow them to take adavntage of us? NO!

It was Friedman economics that caused this mess, Only Keynesian economics will dig us out of it... But then I suppose with your high school education you have no interest in finding out what I'm talking about and are more than content blaming the Black man for all of the problems that have been in the works for a long, long time.

Friedman sounds like a large real estate company, Ketmesian economics sounds like some third world mentality remenicant of Obama's youth. Add them up and you might have another White Water.

Seems that reverse racisim is in style this year. Dem's keep trying to play a race card that has been used and discarded. When the shit gets tuff you pull out the ole' "It's because he is black" excuse.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

I can tell that you are what is called a "low information voter" but seriously. If you don't like Obama's policies, why don't you suggest some specific alternatives. For example you mention you don't like taxes, you also don't like deficits. I would like to hear your suggestions on how to reduce both. The only answer that can reduce both taxes and deficits are DRASTIC spending cuts. I would like to know what specific cuts you would make that amount to 1.5 TRILLION Dollars ANNUALLY without destroying the entire economy. If you can come up with an answer that actually works based on unbiased facts (no Heritage or Kato data) then perhaps you should run against Obama in 2012.

Until you come up with actual solutions however, you remain a whiny right wing hack.

the clk man · Veteran Guest

PowerStroker wrote:

Well, If the Republicans hadn't destroyed the economy those people wouldn't need unemployment bennefits.

I AGREE MY MAN. smile

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

I am well aware of what I would do PowerStroker. It's the same thing EVERYONE ELSE would do. If Bush borrowed 700B from China I'd hate to think where Obama is getting all the money he's spending.

As far as running for President.... Well lets just say the thought has crossed my mind more than once during Obama's tenure.

It's not the 1.5 trillon that scares me.... Its the other 11.5 Trillon you big dummy!

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

The majority of the other 11.5 Trillion came from Republican presidents though. Actually Reagan was the biggest offender, but that was before your time. George Jr was during your time though. Where were you when he started 2 wars without paying for them? Where were you when he implemented a massive tax cut for millionaires and billionaires without paying for it? I have to believe that Al Gore wouldn't have done these things had the election not been stolen from him by a conservative majority on the supreme court. Just think Rex, If Clinton's policies had been continued for another 8 years our ENTIRE national debt could have been paid off... And Al Gore probably wouldn't have ignored the intelligence community when they told him Bin Laden was planning to attack the WTC. While I can't guarantee 911 would have been averted under a Gore presidency, I can pretty much guarantee his response to it would have been budgeted for, and actually directed at the people who attacked us rather than using Hussein as a scape goat and excuse to occupy Iraq.
There is other suffering here at home that could have been avoided by a Gore presidency. Perhaps you conveniently forgot already, but it wasn't too long ago - around the time there were 2 oil men in the White House and a Republican controlled congress, we had $4 per gallon gasoline. Do you think Gore would have allowed the abuses from Wall St speculation and Oil company greed that caused it?

This is exactly why I have suspicions about you having some racial tensions... Because I didn't hear a peep out of you when white "conservative" motherfuckers were racking up your debt. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why. Maybe it's not race at all... Maybe you just hate Democrats in general, but it seems the National problems about which you whine most, weren't caused by Dems.

You should work on being less "feeling" driven, and more "thought" driven Rex.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

I bet your one of them people that actually THINK that Gore invented the internet.

You are, arent you?

LOL

You seem like the Michael Moore type, you tell a good love story. Helping is one thing, raping is another. When the rich people get done bailing out all the fuckers on the Obama home plan, collecting their 99 weeks of free unemployment money are they going to bitch like a baby when rewarded with a tax cut?

It's ME-ME-ME or US-US-US either way someone is getting fucked. Money is just a way to control the people. Cut your debt and live like a barbarian, it's been working for me.

What came first PowerStoker? The feeling or the thought?

-- Edited by SELLC on Thursday 22nd of July 2010 05:40:20 PM

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

You didn't answer my question about where you were when Republican presidents were racking up your debt at greater speeds than any Democrat ever dreamed of.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Might you have some kind of documentation to back up your claims? At this point I don't really feel one could even say the Republicans spent more than Owebama.

Don't worry PowerStroker, when the Obamacrats get done spending they may have beaten ALL the other Presidents on both sides combined.

I myself have never borrowed my way out of debt, I would be interested in knowing how that works. Maybe someone should tell these people that balance transfers do not qualify as being DEBT FREE.

-- Edited by SELLC on Thursday 22nd of July 2010 08:27:37 PM

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

U.S. president	Party	Term years	Start debt/GDP	End debt/GDP	Increase debt ($T)	Increase debt/GDP (in percentage points)	House Control (with # if split during term)	Senate Control (with # if split during term)
Roosevelt/Truman	D	1945-1949	117.5%	93.1%	0.05	-24.4%	79th D, 80th R	79th D, 80th R
Truman Harry Truman	D	1949-1953	93.1%	71.4%	0.01	-21.7%	D	D
Eisenhower1 Dwight Eisenhower	R	1953-1957	71.4%	60.4%	0.01	-11.0%	D	83rd R, 84th D
Eisenhower2 Dwight Eisenhower	R	1957-1961	60.4%	55.2%	0.02	-5.2%	D	D
Kennedy/Johnson	D	1961-1965	55.2%	46.9%	0.03	-8.3%	D	D
Johnson Lyndon Johnson	D	1965-1969	46.9%	38.6%	0.05	-8.3%	D	D
Nixon1 Richard Nixon	R	1969-1973	38.6%	35.6%	0.07	-3.0%	D	D
Nixon2 Nixon/Ford	R	1973-1977	35.6%	35.8%	0.19	+0.2%	D	D
Carter Jimmy Carter	D	1977-1981	35.8%	32.5%	0.28	-3.3%	D	D
Reagan1 Ronald Reagan	R	1981-1985	32.5%	43.8%	0.66	+11.3%	D	R
Reagan2 Ronald Reagan	R	1985-1989	43.8%	53.1%	1.04	+9.3%	D	99th R, 100th D
Bush GHW George H. W. Bush	R	1989-1993	51.1%	66.1%	1.40	+15.0%	D	D
Clinton1 Bill Clinton	D	1993-1997	66.1%	65.4%	1.18	-0.7%	103rd D, 104th R	103rd D, 104th R
Clinton2 Bill Clinton	D	1997-2001	65.4%	56.4%	0.45	-9.0%	R	R
Bush GW1 George W. Bush	R	2001-2005	56.4%	63.5%	1.73	+7.1%	R	107th Split, 108 R
Bush GW2 George W. Bush	R	2005-2009	63.4%	83.4%	2.63	+20.0%	109th R, 110th D	109th R, 110th D
Obama1 Barack Obama	D	2009-2013	83.4%				D	D

(Source: Whitehouse FY 2011 Budget - Table 7.1 Federal

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Fuck you.

By the time Obama is finished with his term he will have made Bush and all the other Presidents look like penny pinchers.

The Dems always were good at cooking the books and sand bagging debt to carry over to the next president. By the time healthcare goes in effect there will be another President in office.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Democrats Tax and invest for the future, they are slightly left of center in the political spectrum , but often contain members who are more conservative than some Republicans. They started as a racist group who promoted segregation in the south, but around the time of the Lincoln presidency, they evolved to represent the interests of the working class, and actually embrace minorities in their electoral base. Democrats want as much good government as they can afford, but ironically the size of government usually shrinks when they are in power.

Republicans Borrow and Crusade for obsolete ideals. They originated as a reform party but soon sold their souls to the railroad industry... They have been sold out to corporate interests ever since. They are slightly right of center in the political spectrum but in the past have had some members who were more liberal than some current Democrats ie: Dwight Eisenhower and Theodore Roosevelt. Republicans believe in a small government with a strong military. Around the time Reagan took control the party has been moving farther to the right, not quite Fascism, but they are approaching it as they now attempt to use the power of government to impose Christian religious doctrine. This has been a very effective tool in persuading Evangelical Christians to vote against their economic interests.

Tea Partiers are just the racist militant wing of the Republican party

Libertarians are more Liberal Republicans who want to have sex and smoke dope while promoting a free market without Government regulations of any kind

Greens are Democrats who want to smoke dope and convert hemp to bio fuels
(actually a pretty good idea...The bio fuels part anyway)

Communists are those who have no confidence whatsoever in the free market and believe the Government should be the soul employer and owner of all things in the country. This is the far left extreme of the political spectrum. Example: United Soviet Socialist Republic

Socialists believe corporations should be highly regulated and taxed to provide a social safety net for the citizenry. They promote the idea that corporations shouldn't necessarily be owned by the government like Communists do, but owned by the employees.

Fascists are those who have no confidence whatsoever in the democratic process
and would use the power of Government to impose corporate interests on the citizenry. This is the far right extreme of the political spectrum. Example: Nazi Germany.

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Friday 23rd of July 2010 06:41:15 PM

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Is that what they tell you in Donkey school PowerStroker? Do they e-mail you this shit weekly?

Here's some graphs they don't e-mail you!

PowerStroker, how do you invest with borrowed money? Isn't that risky?

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

SELLC wrote:

Fuck you.

The Dems always were good at cooking the books and sand bagging debt to carry over to the next president. .

Actually what you stated has happened, but by far the biggest offender was Reagan. You see, Reagan wanted to cut taxes for people in his bracket but knew that by doing so he would no longer have a balanced budget. He had a meeting with his Fed Chair Alan Greenspan and asked for ideas on how to get around this dilemma. Greenspan then told Reagan that if he borrowed money from the Social Security trust fund it wouldn't show up as "red ink" on the annual budget report because it is essentially the government borrowing from itself. Reagan then got a twinkle in his eye and pushed us off that very slippery slope that we must now deal with today.

Were those Reagan tax cuts worth it Rex?

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Spare me the social security balony. This is a little bit more than that.

I dont agree with this $14 Trillion in spending. You sign your soul to that bill, I don't want any part of it. As a matter of a fact I wont see ONE PENNY of it because I am not collecting unemployment, I'm not loosing my home sucking money from the Obama plan, I did not trade in my clunker for a new car-payment, and I sure as hell don't expect Social Security to be around when I am 60; hell by the time I am 60 the Democrats will have raised the age to 80.

It doesn't take much smarts to look at the past and see errors. Do you think the lazy bums loosing their homes on unemployement racking up debt so they can go bankrupt really give a fuck if the nation goes bust with them? Hell no they dont!

Like I said, "Fuck you" and anyone else trying to put a $14 Trillion dollar tag on our heads!

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

If it makes you feel any better, the United states has been in a lot more debt than this before as a percentage of GDP. Our current debt is approximately 85% of GDP... After WW2 our debt was approx 117% of GDP. I expect we will hit over 90% of GDP before we again start going the other way because a few things are going to happen in the relatively near future to help the situation.

1 At the end of this year the Bush tax cuts for millionaires expires

2 The Iraq war is winding down

3 Obama will begin pulling troops out of Afghanistan in 2011

4 In approx 8 years the healthcare overhaul will have paid for itself and will begin saving the government billions every year thereafter

5 The recently passed Wall St. Reform bill will prevent the need for any future bailouts of Big Banks at the taxpayer's expense.

6 The political climate improving to the point where adjustments to Social Security may soon be possible to make it sustainable into the future... It actually only requires some relatively small adjustments to fix, but they have been politically impossible in the past.

7 The US dollar has gained strength in the global market due to the European debt crisis.

While Obama has to spend some money now to make some of these things happen, the CBO projects the long term effects will be beneficial to our government's economic health.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

PowerStroker wrote:

If it makes you feel any better, the United states has been in a lot more debt than this before as a percentage of GDP. Our current debt is approximately 85% of GDP... After WW2 our debt was approx 117% of GDP. I expect we will hit over 90% of GDP before we again start going the other way because a few things are going to happen in the relatively near future to help the situation.

After WORLD WAR 2? Damn guy do the Obamacrats think the Iraq war was ANYTHING comparable to WW2? And what if WW3 breaks out? Will our debt rise to 300% of GDP?

1 At the end of this year the Bush tax cuts for millionaires expires

Are you a millionaire PowerStroker? Do you even know any Millionaires? I think all this will do is cause the millionaires to start moving their money overseas.

2 The Iraq war is winding down

This is because our CLEAR OBJECTIVE in Iraq has been realized. I cant say there is a clear objective in Obama's Afghan war.

3 Obama will begin pulling troops out of Afghanistan in 2011

Seems like a TOTAL WASTE of resources if you ask me. Considering there is no clear objective there I think Obama made a bad investment. Wasted money is still wasted money.

4 In approx 8 years the healthcare overhaul will have paid for itself and will begin saving the government billions every year thereafter

In approx 8 years the intrest on all this money that was borrowed to reform healthcare will bust the bank. People WILL revolt when they start being forced to buy a shitty government insurance plan. It has already been projected that the new FLAWED government healthcare reform will run into the red. Hell it's already in the RED. You want some Government cheese to go with that Government Whine?

5 The recently passed Wall St. Reform bill will prevent the need for any future bailouts of Big Banks at the taxpayer's expense.

PLEASE! Wall St. will figure out another way to screw the people. I myself dont even play around in the stock market, yet because all the idiots that do have fucked it all up, we pay. They should have let them go bust like everyone else. Now we have just thrown a shit load of good money at bad debt.

6 The political climate improving to the point where adjustments to Social Security may soon be possible to make it sustainable into the future... It actually only requires some relatively small adjustments to fix, but they have been politically impossible in the past.

Key word here is "May". We all know social security takes a big hit due to the current unemployment crissis. Not only that, the healthcare reform seems to be another Soc. Security failure by design.

7 The US dollar has gained strength in the global market due to the European debt crisis.

What happens if war breaks out? Can you show me some proof the US dollar has gained anything but a fraction of what was already lost?

While Obama has to spend some money now to make some of these things happen, the CBO projects the long term effects will be beneficial to our government's economic health.

I cant wait to see this new Energy Bill, I am positive it's going to be another inch on the 8 incher America is alreay taking in the can with the Obamacrats.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Oh, by the way...

Your more recent graphs that show a drastically worse deficit after Obama took office, show that for a reason. The Obama office of managment and budget actually adds the average costs of the wars to their projected deficits and presents a more honest number. The bush OMB operated under the assumption that since the cost of the wars are unknown, they would just use the number 0 for war expenditures.

In essence, it's not that the Bush administration was spending any less than Obama, it's just that Obama is man enough to tell you the truth about it.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

^^^^^ TOTAL BULLSHIT WITH NO BACKING ^^^^^^^

I am curious what other kinds of smoke the Democrats are blowing up your ass.

-- Edited by SELLC on Saturday 24th of July 2010 09:41:21 PM

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

SELLC wrote:

^^^^^ TOTAL BULLSHIT WITH NO BACKING ^^^^^^^

Massive Impending Spending Once Again Omitted
When President Bush took office in 2001, the national debt was $5.7 trillion and was projected to decline. Seven years later, that number is over $9.2 trillion. Like in FY 2008, the president's FY 2009 budget is an attempt to sweep under the rug this massive run-up of debt by misdirecting attention to what he claims will be a balanced budget in 2012. Yet the only way the president shows a balanced budget on paper is by omitting two huge and almost certain spending items.

The president makes two critical but highly dubious assumptions that Congress will not reform the AMT and that spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be less than $100 billion in 2009, with no war funding at all allocated thereafter. While a complete overhaul of the AMT is not certain, it is likely Congress will continue to make annual changes to the AMT to prevent millions of middle-class taxpayers from falling into AMT liability. These types of changes would cost $168 billion from 2010-2012, according to the Brookings-Urban Tax Policy Center. If the Bush tax cuts are made permanent, this estimate jumps to $243 billion. These costs are unacknowledged in Bush's budget.

A similarly irresponsible assumption about war spending is made in the president's budget: war spending will not exist beyond 2009. Since the president has ruled out a complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan in the coming year, his exclusion of funding for the wars beyond 2009 is an act of fiscal negligence that serves only to help show a balanced budget. If history is any indication, war costs will be significant for many years to come. From 2001 through 2007, $602 billion has been appropriated for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Congressional Budget Office projects if the number of military personnel deployed for both wars dropped from around the current level of 200,000 military personnel to 30,000 at the start of FY 2010, it would still cost the Treasury $570 billion through 2017.

President Bush has chosen to ignore these highly probable expenditures in his projections, which destroy his claims of reaching a balanced budget. It is further an indicator of the seriousness with which he has approached annual budget making since the inception of his presidency. From artificially inflated deficit estimates that allow for pats on the back when they fail to materialize to politically unrealistic plans for billions of dollars in cuts from Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and Food Stamps, the president has been more prone to making political statements through the budget rather than actually submitting to Congress a workable spending blueprint. This budget is no exception

Source: http://www.ombwatch.org/node/3605

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

From 2001-2007 $602 Billion dollars was appropreated for the war in Iraq.

Seems like chump change when you consider the deficit is at almost $14 Trillion.

And let's not forget, Obama is doing the same thing with his healthcare reform. The big diffrence is Obama's HCR bill was $1 Trillion dollars, but everyone knows it will be well over that amount.

How can you bitch about Bush doing something when Obama does it himself? Oh that's right... If the Republicans did it.... You know the rest.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Um, there's a big difference between what was appropriated for the wars, and how much it actually is costing. That is why Bush had so many emergency supplimental war spending bills. Iraq alone has already cost more than a Trillion. The difference is When Obama spends money, he actually tries to appropriate the amount it actually costs. He happens to spend it wiser too.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

PowerStroker wrote:

Um, there's a big difference between what was appropriated for the wars, and how much it actually is costing. That is why Bush had so many emergency supplimental war spending bills.

Gee PowerStroker, it kind of sounds a lot like Obama's healthcare plan, and his Stimulus packages, and his Cars for Klunkers, and oh you get the picture.

The difference is When Obama spends money, he actually tries to appropriate the amount it actually costs.

This is absolute bullshit and you know it.

He happens to spend it wiser too.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

I realize you probably become frustrated when confronted with facts that contradict your worldview.

Suck it up princess.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Meanwhile we all sit here waiting for these "Facts".

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Here you go Rex:

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

So which spending would you like to cut?

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

I am not asking for much, let's just reverse everything that Obama has done and start over.