It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who is worst Bush or Obama on fiscal irresponsibility

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Now let us remember that Obama doesn't even have one year in the government but the trend is incredible.

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures


President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic
.

Now lets see the comparison.

1- President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.

2- President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.

3- President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.

4- President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.

5- President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.

6- President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

7- President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

People and we still have the rest of this year and 3 more of this type of damage to our nations economy.

Obama is a very dangerous man.


BTW this spending doesn't include the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan


blog.heritage.org...



[edit on 8-6-2009 by marg6043]




posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Amazing, i still think that america needs 100 million gang stalkers, its the job of the future. The stazi where very futuristic in there thinking on what jobs society needs most, i kid you not.

It is amazing the printing press in america, no wonder china and russia speak out. Its a bit like the footie team with the sugar daddy president who buys all the best players, and sticks it on the clubs debts. Where does it end.

I reckon 100 million gang stalkers is all your country needs, and they need those printing presses running 24/7 to pay for all those government perves.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


You know when you read things like this and make comparison you tend to wonder what will become of this nation and if all those prophecies about 2012 are not so much related to religion but to what we as a nation will see.

I know our nation is in trouble but this just getting out of hand and rather than finding ways to fix the problem our government just keep putting bandages to the point that the hemorrhaging of the nation will no longer be able to be stopped.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Number 6 is incorrect... bush minor's tax cuts were tilted heavily in favor of the upper income brackets which meant the major tax burden fell on the middle classes... not the other way around...

bush minor's seriously flawed drug bill will be eliminated if we get a decent nationalized health care program.

But to answer your question... bush minor was far more irresponsible because he was decietful about it.. he hid for example the war costs by leaving them out of the budget.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


Well I can tell you this much Obama health care bill that will be pushed with the help of big pharma and the health care industry will never be approved by congress without the lobbyist involved the bill is not free and don't expect the big pharma and the health care industry to give away anything for free either.

The new taxes proposed by Obama on the "rich and wealthy" will also have plenty of lobbyist taking care of them as you know congress is full of them.

Now as for the war cost, that list neither shows the spending bill, is been kept from Obamas economic recovery bill also because if they add those numbers to it, the word unsustainable deficit will begin to have another meaning.


[edit on 8-6-2009 by marg6043]



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Let's look at this in a slightly diffferent way. A hypothetical scenario:

Chaunceyville is protected from flooding by the Gushem River by a sophisticated levee/pump system that needs to be monitored on an ongoing basis. While in office, the past Mayor, George Shrubski, spent massive amounts of money installing crime prevention equipment because he was convinced that gangs from a remote town were planning on overrunning Chaunceyville. At the same time, the Mayor and his cronies passed a number of bills giving their wealthy friends tax breaks and large city contracts. Meanwhile, numerous people warned about the deteriorating state of the levee but the warnings were ignored.

Not long before Mayor Shrubski's term ended, the levee failed and the town was inundated. Almost the entire infrastructiure of the town was damaged. People were put out of their homes. Businesses closed. People were unemployed. It was a disaster. The recently elected incoming mayor worked quickly to stabilize the situation. Massive amounts of debt were incurred to begin to restore the infrastructure and economic stability of the town.

The moral of the story is: If Mayor Shrubski had performed the oversight that he was legally obliged to do the damage wrecked on the town could have been avoided and the new mayor would not have had to spend all that money repairing the damage.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Who is worst Bush or Obama on fiscal irresponsibility


EXACTLY THE SAME LEVEL OF IRRESPONSIBILITY

Both are/were extremely irresponsible.
Both had/have major agendas.
They just go about it in different ways.

I see no real difference in the outcome - irresponsibility full of agenda.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
To add to your total and last comment the wars were estimated this way in 10/2007:




WASHINGTON — The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could total $2.4 trillion through the next decade, or nearly $8,000 per man, woman and child in the country,

www.usatoday.com...

I'm not sure if this number even reflects some of the costs to "contractors" that has been reportedly recently.

Forget social programs and taxes, it's these damn wars that are going to bankrupt us.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Oh, by the way, this is how Bush and gang justified the war:




In the months before the March 2003 Iraq invasion, the Bush administration estimated the Iraq war would cost no more than $50 billion.

www.usatoday.com...

That's just a little off I'd say. Seems like Bush's accountants were about as reliable as his attorneys.

Edit to add: That's a mistake (lie) of $2,350,000,000,000.50 ( I bought a candy bar with that last 50 cents. )



[edit on 8-6-2009 by zlots331]



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
At this point I think we would be better off with Hitler as president. Atleast then people would know he was evil.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
While we can not doubt that both parties and individual governments have help this nations get into the economy crisis we are today, the job of the new president in power if he truly had the American citizens at hart was to brush off corporate America and taken into his hands the task to reduce government spending immediately and prop the industrial base of the nation to avoid the massive job market collapse we have right now.

Let not forget that Obama at least had the right ideas to fix the nation prior to taking office what happen after that well corporate America needs won over the citizens needs.

Political move, campaign lies I don't know but what is going right now doesn't make me trust Obama anymore that I trusted Bush.

Obama did promise to reduce the military spending but so far he just made it bigger.

Making government spending higher is not the way to fix the economy as long as the real factors that brought the economy to a stand still are addressed.

Sorry to say this but so far Obama looks like a big failure in the making.

BTW anybody noticed that Obama military spending bill is not even in the news? how could it be with all the spending going on around it should not be a problem after all printing money is what government had become very good at.



[edit on 8-6-2009 by marg6043]



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
What I think is interesting is how we won the cold war, by forcing the USSR to spend money they didn't have. Now in return, Gorbachev wants us to copy his version of Communism-Socialism.*

Now Obama/powers that be are forcing the Americans to spend money that we don't have. It's not just the U.S., but all of western civilization that's spending money we don't have.

Is America, the UK and Western Europe being forced down the path the USSR took?

How did the public ever believe the story we've been fed that aimlessly spending money (bailouts + stimulus) creates wealth ( = economic recovery)? Spending the money you have, then spending money you don't have never made anyone rich.

*www.google.com...

Gorbachev calls for perestroika in West
1 day ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev called for a perestroika, or top-to-bottom reform, in the West, arguing that its current economic model was "unsustainable" and needed replacement.

Commenting on the current global economic crisis, the ex-Soviet president who presided over the collapse of his country, said that it was now clear to him "that the new Western model was an illusion that benefited chiefly the very rich.

"The model that emerged during the final decades of the 20th century has turned out to be unsustainable," Gorbachev wrote in an op-ed piece in The Washington Post. "It was based on a drive for super-profits and hyper-consumption for a few, on unrestrained exploitation of resources and on social and environmental irresponsibility."

Gorbachev predicted "perhaps even greater upheaval down the road" and insisted that the current economic and social model existing in the West needed replacing.

"I have no ready-made prescriptions," Gorbachev said. "But I am convinced that a new model will emerge, one that will emphasize public needs and public goods, such as a cleaner environment, well-functioning infrastructure and public transportation, sound education and health systems and affordable housing."

From the mid-1980s, Gorbachev was the initiator of a series of fundamental reforms in the Soviet Union.



[edit on 8-6-2009 by Dbriefed]



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Dbriefed
 


Now US is selling worthless bond finding ways to finance the debt but the problem is that no country is going to invest in them.

The last attempt of the fed to find money while avoiding raising interest that can not get any lower.

People needs to keep an eye to the bond market because that has a become a another bubble and is inflating fast.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join