We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Bush VS Obama on Spending
| 83 | 12876 |
Last night it wouldn't let me make a new thread, so now here it is...
Here is a lovely little statistic about how both stack up with spending. Obama will surpass every dime that was spent by the Bush adminsitration in 20 months and 11 days of his presidency. No matter who he increases taxes on our FEDERAL debt is projected to increase by 1.35 T in 2011 alone. The current federal debt is aroud 5 T. Go figure.
[img]http://westernexperience.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/miss-me-yet-1.jpg[/img/
- 83 Replies
The whole republican attitude to politics is wrong. The Democrats are far superior.
Superiority is an opinion.
That, and political parties don't mean much but which side idiots decide to pick.
bush and obama are from 2 different parties.
and republicans usually opt for expansionary policies, which expand our economy through spending.
and the democrats usually have to do some kind of contractionary policy of sorts to reign in the huge debt built up by the republicans. and thats about it in a nut shell
I'm going with Obama! I'm just not feeling good vibes from Bush
I'm just saying
It's not like america's,not in debt by like a trillion dollars!?To me there just both presidents..
Well Obama spent More then all the U.S. Presidents Combine so I guess he wins.
It's not like america's,not in debt by like a trillion dollars!?
Actually it's 13 Trillion.
The whole republican attitude to politics is wrong. The Democrats are far superior.
And why is that?
Actually neither party is superior, which is why both are equally popular. They each have different aspects of governing and economics on which they place a priority, but both are quite necessary in our current system.
Well Obama spent More then all the U.S. Presidents Combine so I guess he wins.
Sources? I find this nearly impossible to believe.
I believe, if this source is credible, that this would be best to compare the spending of bush and obama so far.
The whole republican attitude to politics is wrong. The Democrats are far superior.
A little bit of an ignorant statement. Unless you are some sort of genius who has figured out the whole governmental system and deemed the democratic party fool-proof, you can see that democratic presidents have not, over history, made anything NEAR superior progress to that of republicans.
The thing we have to consider with regards to the deficit is to look at where that money is going, and why it's being spent. Everyone places such great emphasis on spending, yet they fail to see that there are numerous other effects of spending v saving. The majority of the spending done by the Obama administration has been in the form of government bailouts. Now while I agree that most of these are useless and senseless in the way that they are applied, we cannot deny that the national economy has leveled out slightly, and the unemployment rate has been dropping slightly in many areas. Much of this can be directly attributed to the spending.
you can see that democratic presidents have not, over history, made anything NEAR superior progress to that of republicans
so you mean to tell me that these democratic presidents made NO differnce:
Franklin Delano Roosevelt- WW2 AND depression
Thomas Jefferson- founding father, founds U.S Mint
James Madison- strengthens U.S Military
Andrew Jackson- War hero, unifies democratic party
woodrow Wilson- leads US thru WW1, establishes first child labor and welfare laws
John F. Kennedy- puts 1st man on moon, negotiates treaty to ban atmoshperic nuclear testings.famous
Bill Clinton- gets America out of record budget deficits, high unemployment and increasing crime, all caused by 12 years of REPUBLICAN presidents.
do ANY of those sound familiar????
well anyway..... i think Obama might be causing more debt, but its all for the better, and i also find it unfair that all the debt caused by Bush's term has to be passed on to Obama
so you mean to tell me that these democratic presidents made NO differnce:
Did I say democratic presidents made no difference? Unless I am mistaken I did not. I said that democrats have not made "far superior", in Avorne's words, progress than republicans.
^ i'm just saying tat democrats have pulled the country through many hard times, as shown above.
Bill Clinton- gets America out of record budget deficits, high unemployment and increasing crime, all caused by 12 years of REPUBLICAN presidents.
You wanna know a major reason for that? He cut our armed services by over 400,000 troops during his tenure, reduced our naval and air force equipment by nearly 8% and rejected 2 pay increases for our military.
Sorry, but as a military man and a very staunch supporter of maintaining a strong, well trained, well equipped, and well compensated military this really just rubs me the wrong way, especially when the financial savings resulting from this are touted as a fantastic accomplishment.
The whole republican attitude to politics is wrong. The Democrats are far superior.
And why is that?
Actually neither party is superior, which is why both are equally popular. They each have different aspects of governing and economics on which they place a priority, but both are quite necessary in our current system.
You know, the more I watch the news and read internet reports our current US government 2 political party system is sounding more similar and is shrinking to one party.
I didn't vote for Mr.Obama and it sickened me to consider voting for Mr.McCain but Obama said that the "status quo" had to go. Please point it out to me if it's left the building yet because Obama talks the same as Bush, just speaks better when he isn't trying to sound black, and the spending...?
I believe, if this source is credible, that this would be best to compare the spending of bush and obama so far.
Well, for one thing this article is a year+ old.
The Heritage Foundation is a political, ultra conservative organization. It's a good source but I would stick with The Washington Post or Washington Times if you want unbiased news. Whenever you're in doubt of a companys' stand, check their about.
The majority of the spending done by the Obama administration has been in the form of government bailouts.
Just a little bit of good news is that one car company has paid the money back with interest. That's where my good news ends because the only other thing I've been hearing is how much more money we're borrowing and printing. People, it's not good when a government continues to print new money it can't afford to back. We lost credibility with the world markets when we dropped the gold standard.
Andrew Jackson- War hero, unifies democratic party
There's only three democrats on your list worth mentioning, and my favorite is Andrew Jackson who was totally against a central bank. The other two are Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and I don't think I have to explain why. Thomas Jefferson wasn't without his faults though when it came to his stand of not freeing his slaves but thinking it was disgusting for anyone else to keep theirs.
PLease, don't get me started on FDR and Woodrow (drop the A bomb) Wilson, they were both all for sacrifice of the thousands for the benefit of the rich peoples millions. JFK was scaring J.Edgar Hoover so badly I wouldn't be surprised if one day history reveals that he pulled one of those triggers. Bill Clinton with his NAFTA, "Let's give American jobs away" and confuse the American people with so much rhetoric and sex scandals that they'll forget there ever was a Jimmy (can't get the helicopter out of the desert and rescue our guys, right)Carter, please stop me from this rant.
I assure you I'm still waiting for a decent, honest politician to step forward without the backing of Wall Street or Labor Unions or Hollywood and be the woman or man to lead this nation without a scandal or cover ups.
Whew.....
honest politician to step forward without the backing of Wall Street or Labor Unions or Hollywood and be the woman or man to lead this nation without a scandal or cover ups
that would be nice, but politics itself prevents that. you need votes ,money and support to win ,after all , and all of those provide just that. which is why i think the presidency and such offices shouldnt be a " who do i like more?" election and be elected according to abilities...
You must be logged in to post a reply!