BO: Hypocrite-in-Chief!!!!

The link worked for me- my guess is that dr moen,phd has some filter that only allows far leftist talking points to get through.

 

A filter keeps things out. Sort of like your brain keeps out facts.

 

...and I almost forgot Crazy Joe Biden's little nugget when he claimed one's patriotism was directly linked to the amount of taxes one pays.....

 

No wonder you have such a slant. You filter out the news you don't like. I guess you feel being informed on only one side is better than learning the whole story.

 

You mean like this kind of "news"?

View attachment 260

 

Yep, that is but one example of the un-news.

 

Yet every figure is accurate. You have not bothered to try and refute anything in the graph. Therefore it just seems like an inconvenient group of facts that you prefer not to talk about. Hum? Please, please show us all where this graph is incorrect. David certainly ignored it. You posted irrelevant deficit figures and even if they are accurate (and that is a big "if") the thread is about the debt.

I have to go but for some reason I'm going to guess that you'll ignore facts that you can't refute and take off on the nearest tangent. It is your pattern. Then you'll claim that you were right without ever offering a counter argument.

 

Inaccurate? It assigns all of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to Bush. Despite Obama's promise to get out, it is now HIS choice to stay. Therefore, BO's costs, not Bushes. Also, anyone who believe Obamacare will only cost $152B needs to read the rest of the news.

 

Yeah, I don't think I am buying that all the initiatives of a former President are don't the current President's when he takes office. Obama signed the extension to the Bush Tax cuts all by himself and even added more tax cuts to the bill he signed. I can't see how one can justify that as being Bush's any more. They expired. 2010 and 2011 and whatever comes next with that is Obama's money.

Also difficult for me to put the Afghanistan and Iraq wars on a former president forever too. The current President has had plenty of time to change course in 3 years and he actually upped Afghanistan and decided on his own to just follow Bush's plan in Iraq...so far. I am betting he also chooses not to leave according to that plan. Will that be on Bush too?

I can guarantee that if the Republicans take Congress and the Presidency, Obama's healthcare plan will be history. Obama could have done the same with the things he was given too... especially the tax cuts and the wars which seem to make up the most of that graph.

 

What I think it's doing is documenting the new costs that each president has added. If I understand this thing right, the Obama numbers are those that he has added to what existed when he took office. The Bush costs are those the HE added to those that were there when he took office. And it's valid to point out that the stimulus costs are not ongoing unless Congress decides to authorize more in the future.

 

tikija, do you realize just how meaningless those numbers are?

 

I think that when you are talking human lives that numbers do mean something.

 

Yep, tikija, "Policy Changes Under Two Presidents" definitely equates to lives. Obamacare is going to kill more than were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined with several others.

 

.....the markets really seem to have faith in BO's latest spending-disguised-as-job creation (read: saving his own job at the expense of everything else) "act" as evidenced by the recent dramatic drops....

 

Then the last 2 years of the 'Bush Tax Cuts' should be in there under Obama and I don't see them. The old tax cut law expired and Obama signed the new tax cut legislation (which cost even more per year than the old one) into law.

Not to mention that I think it is a little disingenuous to not put Afghanistan since 2009 in Obama's column since that is not legislation at all but totally in the realm of the Commander in Chief...and he increased that little excursion.

I could see some logic with the laws that would require legislative appeal not being counted toward the current President (like the prescription drug benefit) as his initiatives. But new legislation and military actions under his control? I am not buying it. People are free to believe the opposite but I think it is totally irrational.

The current President is probably every bit as bad as the former in regards to our budget problems when realistic numbers are used. And by the end of the year - when he signs the new tax legislation and decides to stay in Iraq past the deadline - he will more than likely add up to be worse.

 

The $425 billion dollar figure is the extension of the Bush tax cuts Obama signed into law in December 2010. They end next year.

 

To take it one step further, consider how much of what BO spent was actually wasted. Not just spent but wasted. Everyone of his spending sprees have failed...billions upon billions of dollars simply wasted with nothing to show for it except a worse economy, more debt and higher unemployment.

 

Yeah, except that the bailout was TARP which was under Bush not Obama.

 

So you are telling me that Bush is still running the government? He was in charge of all those shovel ready jobs that were not shovel ready? He is going to spend the rest of the monies they have not yet spent? If he has done all of that, just where has BO been?