Obama is right.

[Tonik]

I have to admit, the dude nailed it:

 

'The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.'
 

[Pokey]

Obviously all of this is the fault of Bush.

[Hydrant]

I have to admit, the dude nailed it:

 

'The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.'

 

 

The only thing better than that statement would have been to end with.   "Americans deserve better, therefore I am stepping down from office"

 

[ReconRat]

2006, his first term as new Senator from Illinois

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/debtlimit.asp

 

short memory, times change

 

Debtors used to be taken to the highest building in town, and dropped on their head.

Early Europe didn't have many debtors...

Edited October 9, 2013 by ReconRat

[Revelstoker]

Obviously all of this is the fault of Bush.

 

Yes, as in Jeb throwing FL for his bro. W cannot be blamed because we all know that Cheney was the Prez. W is/was a dumb ass, silver coke spoon fed puppet.

[RHill]

I blame the person who decided bartering wasn't good enough.

[magley64]

Of course, at that time money was being wasted in the billions in iraq, as opposed to now where it's being used to dig us out of the biggest recession since the great depression, but sure.

[Bad324]

Yes, as in Jeb throwing FL for his bro. W cannot be blamed because we all know that Cheney was the Prez. W is/was a dumb ass, silver coke spoon fed puppet.

Well you learn something new everyday. Here I thought you only needed a spoon for heroin

[Scarlett Harlot]

I have to admit, the dude nailed it:

 

'The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.'

 

And he was able to say it with a straight face.......Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle.

[Tonik]

Of course, at that time money was being wasted in the billions in iraq, as opposed to now where it's being used to dig us out of the biggest recession since the great depression, but sure.

 

The Iraq debt is chump change compared to the deficits Obama has run up.

[magley64]

The Iraq debt is chump change compared to the deficits Obama has run up.

actually, the amount spent on 1 war started by Bush about equals the entire debt increase during the Obama presidency.

 

The costs of the 2003-2010 Iraq War are often contested, as academics and critics have unearthed many hidden costs not represented in official estimates. The most recent major report on these costs come from Brown University in the form of the Costs of War project, which said the total for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is at least $3.2-4 trillion.^[1] The report disavowed previous estimates of the Iraq War's cost as being under $1 trillion, saying the Department of Defense's direct spending on Iraq totaled at least $757.8 billion, but also highlighting the complementary costs at home, such as interest paid on the funds borrowed to finance the wars and a potential nearly $1 trillion in extra spending to care for veterans returning from combat through 2050.^[1] An update in 2013 topped this at US$6 trillion

 

Bush accomplished what with the 6 trillion dollar Iraq war? Obama Has rebuilt our entire economy with his 6 trillion... which was money better spent?

[Tpoppa]

Of course, at that time money was being wasted in the billions in iraq, as opposed to now where it's being used to dig us out of the biggest recession since the great depression, but sure.

 

If a republican contradicted them self so blatantly, you would be the first to point it out.  But, you have a man crush on Obama so it's OK that he has become the 'leadership failure' that he was pointing out in the quote.  I love double standards. 

[magley64]

If a republican contradicted them self so blatantly, you would be the first to point it out.  But, you have a man crush on Obama so it's OK that he has become the 'leadership failure' that he was pointing out in the quote.  I love double standards. 

 

Funny, I used to consider myself a republican, but the party has taken such a huge step away from what I valued as a republican, that I couldn't count myself among them anymore.

My first 8 years of voting, I voted R when I was in doubt. I still consider myself more republican than democrat, but I've noticed that republican politicians aren't any good at running the country. They are too polarized in opposite directions, contradictions within themselves.

 

You got the religious right, who claim to be all about jesus, and then you've got the "fiscal conservatives" which is just a euphemism for rich white guy who wants a tax break.

Now you've got the tea baggers co-opting the party just to tank the government in order to build their theocracy... it's become quite the cluster, devoid of much rationality, compromise, or logical thinking.

 

I miss the old school republicans, like Bush 1, and Reagan.  These new school republicans are just self serving blowhards.

[John]

implying that the 2006 vote has bears any resemblance to whats going on today

[Tonik]

implying that the 2006 vote has bears any resemblance to whats going on today

 

 

There is no implication here. It is just another example of the flat out fact that any politician will say anything and take any position on an issue to make themselves look good. Continuing with the same theme of the current fiscal fight. All the Repubs that voted instantly for CR's and debt increases for President Bush are now all of a sudden opposed to them.

[Revelstoker]

Well you learn something new everyday. Here I thought you only needed a spoon for heroin

 

Your too young, you missed the best piece of drug pariphenalia ever.

 

http://www.adrants.com/2007/02/index.php?page=10

 

[Strictly Street]

actually, the amount spent on 1 war started by Bush about equals the entire debt increase during the Obama presidency.

 

 

Bush accomplished what with the 6 trillion dollar Iraq war? Obama Has rebuilt our entire economy with his 6 trillion... which was money better spent?

 

 

Not sure where you get your numbers from, 6 trillion Iraqi war?

 

http://nationalpriorities.org/en/cost-of/war-in-iraq/

 

Obama rebuilt our entire economy with his 6 trillion debt?

 

 

A quick fact check.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Strictly Street

[Strictly Street]

I miss the old school republicans, like Bush 1, and Reagan.  These new school republicans are just self serving blowhards.

 

The new RINO's (Republican In Name Only) are democrats in disguise.

 

Ah for the good old days, but times were simpler then too.

[magley64]

Not sure where you get your numbers from, 6 trillion Iraqi war?

http://nationalpriorities.org/en/cost-of/war-in-iraq/

Wikipedia, and by extension reuters...

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE92D0PG20130314?irpc=932

[magley64]

The new RINO's (Republican In Name Only) are democrats in disguise.

Ah for the good old days, but times were simpler then too.

You mean like ted cruz, and michelle bachman, cantor, and ryan?

[Pokey]

Bring on Ventura and Stern!!!!!!

[Strictly Street]

actually, the amount spent on 1 war started by Bush about equals the entire debt increase during the Obama presidency.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE92D0PG20130314?irpc=932

 

Better check your numbers there. Not even remotely true or even defensible. You must have misquoted something here. Even your article you cite from Rueters doesn't even go that far.

 

"Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt." - Barak Obama 2006

 

Bush accomplished what with the 6 trillion dollar Iraq war? Obama Has rebuilt our entire economy with his 6 trillion... which was money better spent?

 

Blaming Bush for his troubles is now a knee-jerk reaction from Obama. He does it automatically without thinking about it. So do the Obamabots in the media. It's to the point that I'm sure he will still be doing it on his way out the door in 2016. The media will still be giving him a free pass on it too.

 

And what of the six trillion Obama "invested" in the economy to single handedly bail it out? Would this be the GM bailout in which we the people lost somewhere between 43 billion and 100 billion, depending on who you believe. How about the Banking crisis which nobody knows how much was spent and did the exact opposite of its stated purpose. Perhaps the Housing bubble crash that is/was Fannie May and Freddie Mac which still hasn't changed the rules and is still handing out sub prime loans. The ACA with all its new taxes which is causing everyone such angst at the moment? Of course that will be fixed right after election time so maybe I shouldn't include it in this list.  The "Cash for Clunkers" which wiped out the used car market for a bit. That doesn't seem like much of a help to the economy. Record tax revenues or to say it another way, higher taxes on everybody doesn't seem like it was much of a help either. Having NASA promote Muslim values, not much help there either. Using the EPA to shut down entire industries such as the coal fired electricity generation industry.  Shutting down  the only lead smelter in the USA. Not seeing the value there either. Arming middle eastern rebels with ties to Al Qida and siding with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt didn't seem to help even if he did sell a few guns to them not much of an economic win there. Immigration, adding somewhere between eleven and fifty million new citizens to our economic woes doesn't seem like that great of an idea either. Giving away the USS Forrestal for a penny when in fact it is worth millions at scrap metal prices doesn't seem like a wise move either.

 

The economy still sucks even after he did whatever it is that he did. Obama may go down in history as a lot of things but economic savior isn't one of them. I can't see where Obama has single handedly done anything to cause you to make the claim that he spent six trillion to help rebuild our entire economy with his 6 trillion...

 

But you obviously had something in mind when you said this so what did he borrow six trillion for that helped rebuild our entire economy?

 

 

 

Wikipedia, and by extension reuters...

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE92D0PG20130314?irpc=932

 

Ah, they are including military benefits as well in their total of 4 trillion, fair enough. Still a little shy of six trillion as you stated.  Is it fair to call it Bush's war when Obama has kept it going for the last five years? A quibble I admit but it does seem a little misleading

 

 

 

You mean like ted cruz, and michelle bachman, cantor, and ryan?

 

I'm thinking that if you asked them they would claim to be "Tea Partiers" not RINO's. Pretty sure no one will admit to such a label. McCain for one sure fits the bill.

What of Democrats who are really Marxist Socialist such as Hillary? Wonder what we should call them? Demolists? DTARMS? Transformerists, Socialist in disguise!

 

Interesting, the term RINO was coined by Republicans that felt they were being sold out by their misnamed fellow legislators. I wonder if you can be too much of a socialist for the Democrat party? An interesting question.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Strictly Street

[magley64]

 

where Obama has single handedly done anything to cause you to make the claim that he spent six trillion to help rebuild our entire economy with his 6 trillion...

It's quite simple, when Obama took office, the economy was losing jobs at an enormous rate, and our GDP was falling into the toilet. Where is it now? Growing, and steadily growing, jobs are being added every day, the unemployment rate is SHRINKING...

Had he not done what he done, we could very well be in the great depression again. Now that part is entirely conjecture, as none of know exactly what would have happened had he not done what he has done, but the facts are the facts. Bush left us with a hell of a recession, that could have easily turned into a depression. Today, the economy is growing... 

 

 

 

Ah, they are including military benefits as well in their total of 4 trillion, fair enough. Still a little shy of six trillion as you stated.

Do you need me to hold your hand reading the article?

expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

[Strictly Street]

t's quite simple, when Obama took office, the economy was losing jobs at an enormous rate, and our GDP was falling into the toilet. Where is it now? Growing, and steadily growing, jobs are being added every day, the unemployment rate is SHRINKING...

Had he not done what he done, we could very well be in the great depression again. Now that part is entirely conjecture, as none of know exactly what would have happened had he not done what he has done, but the facts are the facts. Bush left us with a hell of a recession, that could have easily turned into a depression. Today, the economy is growing...

 

What exactly is it that he did that preformed this feat? A little bit more specific if you please. Which one of these did this;

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Re-authorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, often referred to as "Obamacare"

 Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010.

 

Are there any market forces at work here that don't need his direct approval.

Such as perhaps China buying our debt? Obama didn't do that but it did happen and is happening still.

The FED is the central bank for the USA, might they have also had something to do with this all?

To be sure Obama did sign laws -and- the economy has changed.

But these two things may not be a tightly related as you seem to think.

Or maybe they are? So what do you think about it?

 

(I'm guessing the "Don't ask, don't tell repeal act" had little influence on the economy. Obamacare doesn't really count yet as it is still kicking in and the effects are either too new or not well understood at this point. Too  much "He said, she said" at this point. As in we are finding out Obama knew 100 million people or 1/3 of the country were getting kicked off their plans when he started. Or are we? The talking heads are still at it)

 

 

 

expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

 

Could grow over the next 40 years, not already spent. It Could turn into teapots circling Jupiter as well as you have so colorfully put conjecture in the past.

 

How much in the last 5 years? How is that Bushes fault? Because he started it or Obama kept at it?

Since 2001 it states,. Ok, over the last 12 years 5 of which Obama has been at the helm. So we could say almost half of the cost is his.

 

Not a very convincing study. I get the point but it seems a little contrived. It's almost like Obama isn't accepting any blame for his actions.

Or more to the point the authors of this "study" are trying to fix the blame of everything on anybody but Obama. Good Obamabots.

 

Which on the other hand is his tried and true mantra, it's always somebody else's fault, Bush, Tea Party, Damned Republicans, Christian right wingers etc.

He does have quite the list of people who's fault it always must be. Good politics I suppose but it does start to sound a little lame after all these years.

 

 

Go Bucs!

[jbot]

I don't understand how magz can be so bad at interpreting math and stats and still be an engineer.