Political & Elections

Yes, indeed, Bush did sell Iraq with the idea that it would be paid for with their oil, among other fibs. I believe when the budget director tried to explain that what he wanted to do would cost more than the 100 billion he claimed, Bush fired him to keep the American people from finding out.

I'm still struggling to see why on 100% of the Bush spending, we could afford Secret Service protection for the First Family on dozens of foreign trips, but on 103% of it, the First Family isn't entitled to Secret Service protection for so much as a trip to the American West (a place Bush spent a heckuva lot of time) or even to follow the Secret Service food safety precautions.

I am very glad that private sector jobs and the stock market have recovered from the damage that the Bush years did to them and are finally on the way up. Funny that the guy who massively increased spending and tanked the economy is so entitled in certain eyes compared to the one cleaning it up. 

 

-- Edited by conyat on Sunday 28th of April 2013 07:06:27 PM

-- Edited by conyat on Sunday 28th of April 2013 07:33:05 PM

Not just the cuts. Bush increased spending at a dazzling rate. Obama's only increased it a few percentage points (2-3) over Bush's end point.

So where did you think the money was going to come from? You've yet to say.

Catahoula, instead I'd like to hear from you. Where did you think the money was going to come from to pay for Bush's policies once Bush left office?

Anyone who imagines that Bush's spending was affordable and Obama's isn't, is living in a dream world.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7M6Qk22TGko/UDMQywXhifI/AAAAAAAARVM/AUKK51HNBPM/s1600/Governemnt%252BSpending%252Bas%252BPercent%252Bof%252BGDP%252B-%252BFederal.png&imgrefurl=http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/08/government-spending-as-percentage-of-gdp.html&h=464&w=657&sz=51&tbnid=Lmw93BtjiWSAtM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=123&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dspending%2Bas%2Bpercent%2Bof%2Bgdp%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=spending+as+percent+of+gdp&usg=__IKzu6iOJZXrK7x6RrSi6fYRSLkk=&docid=ykKZ1QSS0riEvM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EvNxUZK1M4XO9AS49YHgCw&sqi=2&ved=0CDYQ9QEwAQ&dur=1

 

Who on earth do you all imagine is responsible for that sharp sharp rise during most of the last decade? And how fast do you expect Obama to clean up your mess?

That's what you pay for when the president and his family travel. Security.  That's why the president doesn't just eat random food people offer him (as was the subject of outrage in another thread).

Funny how deficit spending suddenly became such a bad thing to the hyper-partisan on 1/20/2009, when up to then, it was laudable.

The only one going on and on about the secret service is you, conyat. You aren't making any valid, coherent arguments. Thanks for playing, though. I guess that's all you got?

14 comments by conyat so far, 11 of which invoke the name “Bush” a total of 31 times. The implication of all 11 being that the Bush administration was as bad or worse than Obama’s.

Conyat’s other three comments just reruns of the same “as bad or worse” rationale, but instead invoke “previous” administrations, Michelle Bachman, or a “Republican White House.”

Apparently, judging from the posts so far in this tread, conyat is a one trick pony, where the trick is to point out the supposed hypocrisy of Republicans.

14 posts, but only one argument. Yawn.

And that argument is specious and without merit every which way from Sunday.

First, hypocrisy is part of human nature. We’re all wired that way. It’s just what we do.

Second, because of that, cries of Hypocrisy! can be thrown at anyone and everyone who has ever held, or even run for, public office. It takes very little actual thinking or effort to dig around a little, find an example of the “other guy” doing the same thing your guy is accused of.

Third, conyat's argument either ignores, or is ignorant of, some important facts, not the least of which is that in three years Obama increased the debt more than Bush did in 8, and that Obama's debt as a percentage of GDP, is worse than ANY of his recent predecessors.(1)

Fourth, others on this thread have responded to conyat with actual substance, pointing out some of the important distinctions between Obama and his predecessors. SamuraiLandshark, for example, said “It might be the fact that our country has no money. 16 trillion in debt, and rising. Things have changed. If you cannot see the hypocrisy of closing down WH tours for schoolchildren, while at the same time having Secret Service protection for children's vacations, I have no idea what to say.” And busdriver11 offered: “The economy didn't start to tank until the final months of the Bush administration, and when it did, you didn't see him taking off for weeks with his family.” Yet conyat does not respond to the substance, but just repeats the same argument. It’s the intellectual equivalent of covering one’s ears and shouting “I can’t hear you!”

Fifth, speaking of substance, judging from this thread, other than the childish cry of “Bush (or Republicans) did it too!” conyat offers none.




==========

(1) While raw numbers are interesting, the more telling statistic is when debt is expressed as a percentage of the overall economy (gross domestic product). We’ve rounded the numbers to keep it simple.

Size of gross debt, Federal account debt

Before Reagan: 33 percent, 7 percent

Ronald Reagan: 53 percent, 12.5 percent

George H.W. Bush: 64 percent, 16 percent

Bill Clinton: 56.5 percent, 24 percent

George W. Bush: 77 percent, 30 percent

Barack Obama: 105 percent, 31 percent



The Bottom Line


The data show that the growth of the debt in the last three decades certainly has been a bipartisan enterprise, with only Clinton reducing debt as a percentage of the U.S. economy. But even then, debt owed to Social Security, Medicare and the like kept climbing as a share of the U.S. economy.

Moreover, an increasingly large portion of the debt is money that the government owes to itself because of borrowing from large entitlement programs such as Social Security and the Medicare. That’s because the money spent on discretionary programs has generally declined, as a share of the economy, while spending on mandatory programs has soared — and will only consume a larger share of the economy as the Baby Boom generation heads into retirement.

In fact, the debt owed to entitlement programs is now almost as large a share of the economy as all U.S. government debt before Ronald Reagan became president.

Willie Sutton once supposedly said he robbed banks because “that’s where the money is.” By the numbers, some restraint on the growth of entitlements will be needed in order to control the growth of the national debt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/why-is-the-national-debt-16-trillion/2013/01/03/e2a85386-55fc-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_blog.html

There is a time for going into debt and a time to extinguish that debt. The Great Recession was one of those times when USA was wise, even over the vocal objections of some political leaders,  to absorb the lower tax revenues and spend for unemployement and various stimuli.  This family borrowed massively  during DS college years 2002-2006 and is on par to PBO's numbers posted. Son has assumed payments on all loans. The issue now is whether the loans should be carried or paid down because at the time the loans were relatively cheap but today relatively expensive at 3%.  

PBO's temper tantrum: It's good to be emotional no matter what side one is on. Wear it on your sleeve proudly. I am pro-weapon but realize that somewhere-sometime we are going to get another nutty, political, sociopath (s) who is going to cause some real grief-At which time the call for law & order will be for gun control and the ouster of pro-gun legislators. ...May already be too late for the Republicans because of immigration reform. The next election cycle they will be attacked for not favoring immigration reform in 2012  and at the same time attacked for passing immigration reform in 2013. And by 2020-2024 Texas will be a solid BLUE state regardless how your legistator stance. 

-- Edited by longprime on Friday 19th of April 2013 04:30:56 PM

The president, being he's an olympic class liar himself (and a petulant one to boot), should be able to spot one, true but senators reflect the wishes of a majority of their constituents. (Well, the ones they think are likely to vote, anyway.) And while it's possible they misread their desires back during the old political moment of a few months ago, it's doubtful they did the other day. Situational truth is what it looks, at worst.

Another Perot voter that elected Clinton here and no: they didn't like Perot. Too obsessed with spending which meant he was likely to pull the plug on their re-election money. The horror!

edit to add:

 I forget exactly how many times democrats (including our president) have signed on for extending those same tax cuts but.... I think it has been enough they can reasonably ask the name of one of their more notable members be appended behind Bush's.

-- Edited by catahoula on Friday 19th of April 2013 08:02:02 AM

Actually, i didn't start posting on CC until 2008. 

I voted for Perot back in the day. I have been concerned about our country for a long time. Did I carry a sign saying this? Nope. my dinner time conversations with my family have revolved around this subject since our kids were old enough to understand economics. 

There is a saying - "In politics, everything is local".   The corrolary is, "it is all about economics."

We are not secure if we have no resources, if we cannot service our debt and if we are paying more and more of our GDP on our debt burdens. 

What future will our children have? 

 

So, have you changed your tune, conyat? You were upset about our spending before back in the CC days, with regards to President Bush.

you were concerned with debt and deficits and interest payments and were concerned about the future stability of our country. 

It seems that many of us believe the same things. 

 

The "bill" will again be delayed. Globally, the World lost a good chunk of capital on Monday, when Gold did a flash crash. 

Really? I heard that "deficits don't matter" when a Republican is in the White House.

That Krugman claiming we haven't spent enough has given some the idea they should spend time cherrypicking obscure metrics to prove we've, in fact, been saving, is one the stranger things to come out of the last four years.

Royalty needs to be perfect - unblemished, unaffected, and above the trials of the commons - which is probably the explanation for that little fit thrown yesterday, the one about "liars" and a "minority intimidating senators". Would of made more sense if he was talking about representatives locked in vulnerable districts, but the one thing royalty can't abide or survive is being seen as ineffectual.

So how many Secret Service agents do you think we can lay off if the president and his family are kept under house arrest?

 

Notice how there isn't all this breathless coverage of Cheney's travels, Clinton's travels, or Bush's travels? All of them have protection too.

If the Senators didn't want to be called out on their lies, they shouldn't have told them.

Interesting how people thought that the Bush tax cuts, the Bush wars, and the Bush increases in domestic spending would stop resulting in Bush-sized deficits once Bush left office. I guess they figured the next president would be Canadian or something, and Canada would just pay for all Bush's bad decisions.

 

-- Edited by conyat on Thursday 18th of April 2013 08:09:08 PM

He uses Air Force One less than Bush, spends less on the White House than Bush, and deficit as a % of GDP is falling almost as quickly as Bush skyrocketed it.

But of course that means nothing to those looking for any excuse to justify their resentment of Obama, Mrs. Obama, and the young Obama daughters.

 

Not too long into Obama's first term, he requested a studio send him a copy of a movie that was playing at the time (as many Presidents before him have done) so he and the family could watch it without having to have the expense and hassle to others of a motorcade, etc. The right wing tore him apart for it, as though this were some novel imperial demand. People begrudge their mere existence.

-- Edited by conyat on Thursday 18th of April 2013 06:37:26 PM

And this.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/bachmanns-claim-that-barack-obama-has-a-14-billion-a-year-presidency/2013/03/17/bb5f3ea2-8f40-11e2-bdea-e32ad90da239_blog.html

White House spending is down in this administration. You could look it up, but if I recall correctly, it's down about 10-15% from the Bush years.

Funny how Bush ran up the deficit as a % of GDP, and increased White House spending; Obama reduced the deficit as a percent of GDP and decreased White House spending, so in the minds of the hyper-partisan right, this means Bush's kids were entitled to Secret Service protection when they travel and Obama's children are not.

Do you really think that confining the president's family to quarters the way the right wants is going to result in the layoffs of Secret Service agents?

 

 

I see you have made yourself at home.  Have we met at CC? 

yes, there were messes.  So let's make more of them.  

 

So because Bush's tax cuts, Bush's wars, and Bush's domestic spending increases are still adding to the national debt, it was ok for Bush's children to travel with Secret Service protection, but not the children of the guy trying to fix the problems. Almost as funny as when Republicans mewl that their messes aren't being cleaned up fast enough.

Don't remember anyone attacking Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan for having Secret Service protection. Heck, even Cheney still has it, although the US doesn't have to provide it at this point--Obama extended it. I haven't heard any criticism of that whatsoever.

Amazing how much people resent this president, First Lady, and even minor children for having Secret Service protection when they travel. You have to wonder what's so different about the Obama daughters going to Aspen and the Bush twins going to South America and Africa.

all kinds of cuts going on like this.  It is like looking for change in your sofa to pay for a new car. The only thing they are not doing is realizing they can't afford that car, or the vacations, or handing out money to evertone. 

Entitlement reform Is the key to bringing the country back from financial ruin.  

Read yesterday that Marines educational benefits are being cut.  How would you like to be that guy coming back from a couple of combat tours in Afghanistan and trying to go to college? Sorry, buddy, those bennies are gone. At least for now.