I'm shocked, see Graph in link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14258888 It was always clear that Obama would have to spent a lot of money to try and make a lot of people happy, but my god how did he manage to spend that much? USA debt was the most important issue when Obama took power, so how or why has he done this? Lunacy!!!!!!!!!!
The way you've phrased the opening question is a good example of poisoning the well. Maybe this image will refresh your memory. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"You thin illuminati is just a fucking conspricy theory?" - Immortal Technique. He's immortal, we should listen to him.
LOL!!! That's great! Also, to the OP: Per the US Constitution, the Congress controls the purse, not the president. Your question should be: "Where has the Congress spent the money?" Read a bit more. Post a bit less. ~String
They are all politically positioning. Our Great President too sad to say . I liked seeing steam come out his ears . It almost seemed like he was trying to lead . The language was pretty strong . What turned Me off was the political positioning though . A lot of the things He said didn't need to be said if He was truly concerned . It would have had more impact if he did not play the blame card . He could have got his point across well enough with out out right blame . Let the public conclude were the blame goes . Made Him look like a complainer and no one likes a complainer . I won't hold it against Him . He is Human after all
Three big ones were the Iraq war, the war in Afghanistan and TARP (the bailout.) Of course he didn't start any of them, but that's a mere detail that only factinistas on the nerd patrol care about.
What about the stimulus? Who owns that baby ? There is plenty of blame to go around . That was in the Presidents speech also if you didn't hear it . I will repeat it " There is plenty of Blame to go around " What He meant encase you didn't understand the President is Both major parties are to blame , of course then he leans toward the right right after that. That was when I noticed He was using the blame card for his own ambitions . Right up tell then I though fuck Obama is on his game tonight. I don't know why he had to fuck up like that . I was eating out of his hand until he kicked the bad dog like that . Agendas get in the way of political action is my best answer
On those things that did the wrong thing to help collapse the system, bailouts to companies that were making the wrong or even illegal decisions to get as much as they could. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thanks for updating me. I'm not someone who blames Obama for the mess, Bush started it thats for sure. I didn't know that so much of the stimulus package came under Obama's presidancey. But, why has the USA not moved to cut spending drastically? I know that risks a depression, but with a debt like that you are talking about collapse.
Obama inherited a mess. There is something seriously wrong with the American political system when a man like bush jr can be the most powerful (idiot) man in the world. His idiocy is legendary, and many comedians were very sad to see bush leave office. I believe Obama is at least intelligent. He is a Harvard educated, and was the president of the Harvard Law Review (he was first black elected to that position as well.), and he taught law at the University of Chicago. Bush was also Harvard educated, but then resigned himself to the oil business. Bush jr ran a smear campaign to get himself elected governor of texas by critisizing the homosexuality of the current governor Ann Richards. When he took office he made it possible for Texans to carry concealed weapons, a law that was repealed after he left office. He became governor with 53% of the vote. Remember bush likes to win by a hair. The graphs in this thread show Obama killing economy and bush killing Bin laden... Isn't it the opposite? Didn't Bush start the wars, including one that seemed to be unrelated to 9/11? Was it not Obama that issued the order to strike Bin laden? If I had any doubts about Obama they were finally relieved when I saw how he put Donald Trump so far into his place that Donald Trump immediately withdrew from talking about the presidency and has maintained a low profile (for him) ever since. This was a magic moment for sure, and i watch it often. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gttmxosEUIA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gttmxosEUIA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gttmxosEUIA It is funnier than any presidential speech i have ever heard, and Donald Trump got crucified, and learned not to mess with Obama.
Yeah and Obama got into Harvard based on his ability, not on this family's power (e.g. legacy admissions). And Obama got A's versus George II's gentelmen's "C"s. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/14/opinion/l-the-gentleman-s-c-659509.html
It wasn't. Unemployment and the financial crisis were the two major issues. Still are. A lot of that is compounded debt from W - Obama didn't spend that money, he just wasn't allowed to pay it back. Likewise his own contributions - he didn't boost spending that much over W (wars just kept going, debt compounding, W's TARP and other expenses accumulating) but was not allowed to boost taxation at all. If you look at the debt as compounding whenever it isn't being paid down on, the shape of the curve is immediately familiar. In absolute magnitude, taking as a President's responsibility the first budget they write themselves (second year's budget) and likewise the budget of their successor's first year, W has the record for absolute increase - almost 6 trillion, on that graph - but spread out over eight years. Obama's contribution is mush less so far, even before discounting for the inherited and compounding debt, but he is still rolling. (Reagan owns the percentage increase, almost tripling the US debt in his tenure).
Well, Bush was certainly its father; Obama was sort of the adoptive parent trying to raise a problem youth. Definitely true!
Yes, congress has the power of the purse. But the president still sets the agenda and has far more power than any congressman. Furthermore, until the shellacking the Democrats took in 2010, his party had controlled congress since 2007 (their first budget would have been for 2008) If you look at this chart, the Democratic takeover of congress certainly did not summon in an era of sound fiscal policy. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well we start by using real numbers rather than the made up numbers you posted. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! George II took office in January of 2001 and really had no responsiblilty for creating the budget for that year. Not everything posted on the internet is truthful Mad. So if you look at the period for which George II had responsibility, the national debt went from 6.2 trillion to 12 trillion dollars. And if you do the numbers, that says the George II administration added over 700 billion dollars a year to the national debt. In total the George II administration along with his merry band of Republicans added almost 6 trillion dollars to the national debt during the eight years of the George II administration. One other little fact I am sure you would like to gloss over and blame on the Democrats is Medicare Part D expenses - the greatest expansion of entitlements since Medicare. That fine little piece of special interest legislation was passed in 2003 by a Republican Congress and signed into law by a Republican president and went into effect in 2006. So the expense of this special interest program fell mostly on Democrats and they had little if anything to do with creating the program. That is what is referred to as a structural buget change - a change that has committed the nation to deficit spending for many years to come. In the year following implentation of Medicare Part D, the growth in the national debt went into double digits and remained there. In the last year for which George II had budget responsiblity, the national debt was growing at an annual rate of 18 percent. The first year that Democrats had full control, the growth rate of the national debt had been reduced by 4 percent. Unfortunately, the numbers and evidence just does not support your contentions that is why those on your side of the house are constantly making stuff up. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
