Why is it that when people talk about Obama deficit spending they dont acknowledge that over 75% of

Well that is the question. Of all the deficit spending Obama has done the CBO says that over one trillion of that is in stimulus spending on the economy, or over 75%. I am not saying he should have done it, I do not think he should have. But cmon even last place finisher at the Special Olympics could tell you that the economy was being compared to The Great Depression when Bush left and Obama has spent his ass off trying to keep the economy running. If you took the stimulus spending that Obama has performed out of the economy GDP would have been in the negative since Obama took office.

Seems to me Obama is catching undue blame. He inherited an economy on the brink and continued the stimulus spending to try to hold up the good ol US of A. Again, he shouldn't have, it was a dumb move. But he was in fact only reacting to something G dub had already set out for him. Is the above not all true?

reply to post by shug7272


He is the leader and as the leader he shares the blame pure and simple. Bush too. Not one leader in washington is unaccountable.
Stop placing blame on people start placing it on the entirety of the leadership. America has often done things the citizens don't want and what was the repercussions of their actions? Getting rich...

This is what happens when government is so separate from the people, when governments have more say then those they govern. It collapses, time and time again. Either that or revolutions.

You operate on the idea that Govt spending equals a better economy, no?

Originally posted by EspyderMan
reply to post by shug7272

 

He is the leader and as the leader he shares the blame pure and simple. Bush too. Not one leader in washington is unaccountable.
Stop placing blame on people start placing it on the entirety of the leadership. America has often done things the citizens don't want and what was the repercussions of their actions? Getting rich...

This is what happens when government is so separate from the people, when governments have more say then those they govern. It collapses, time and time again. Either that or revolutions.

edit on 29-7-2011 by EspyderMan because: (no reason given)

How about when we divy up this blame we do it proportionately -- that would be the fair thing I think -- even though I also think that being any kind of Bush/rigth wing apologist is disingenuous

reply to post by shug7272



The biggest reason this is so is because the Murdock bullhorn is the one defining the news for the tea party and they seem to be the ones bleating the most right now

reply to post by spyder550


A reasonable poster, on ATS? If I could give you 80 stars I would.

I would like to give you all a thread, very conspiracy related. It will help a lot of you, if you bothered to read it.:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's not by me, but by a poster who seems to be quite wise. You see, honesty is very important, and when you actually understand what honesty is, you may begin to walk the honest path.

Originally posted by spyder550

Originally posted by EspyderMan
reply to post by shug7272

 

He is the leader and as the leader he shares the blame pure and simple. Bush too. Not one leader in washington is unaccountable.
Stop placing blame on people start placing it on the entirety of the leadership. America has often done things the citizens don't want and what was the repercussions of their actions? Getting rich...

This is what happens when government is so separate from the people, when governments have more say then those they govern. It collapses, time and time again. Either that or revolutions.

edit on 29-7-2011 by EspyderMan because: (no reason given)

How about when we divy up this blame we do it proportionately -- that would be the fair thing I think -- even though I also think that being any kind of Bush/rigth wing apologist is disingenuous

edit on 29-7-2011 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)

Hey, even Obama stated to spread the wealth.

i dont agree ever since 2006 when the democrates took over in the house and controlled it from 2006 to 2010 and controlled the senate from 2006 to present.

pretty hard to just blame bush when the democrats held the purse strings and controlled legislation.

all i hear now is about how obstructionist the republicans are seems to me all that supposed power they have now that would have meant

that the democrats could have stepped in and done something from 2006 to present but wait they didnt

and in my opinion whats going wrong with this country is on the democrats and only them.

and that stimulus bailed out unions and lawyers and did nothing that it was sold as.

obama and the democrats have the majority of the blame here and thats why they offer no real solutions

and i am not saying the republicans are any better than just a tad bit.

reply to post by shug7272


I think its partly because he's "black"... I don't think that's undeniable, the whole "the economy is bad and there's a black guy in office so it must be totally his fault" ideal is in full effect, but I think its also because he didn't bring an abrupt end to the blatant greed-motivated system in place now among the major corporations which really control the country. He gave them a stern talking-to and nothing more, basically letting business continue as usual. There should be a policing agency of some sort specifically aimed at corporations to stop the corrupt practices eating away at our country like rust on a pipeline.

Honestly, they need to cut the bs and legalize marijuana. The war on that plant is beyond stupid. There's millions of people in prison, costing the US billions, for smoking a naturally growing plant that is no more dangerous than tobacco or alcohol... in fact less dangerous. And more billions are spent trying to enforce the stupid laws that criminalize a plant. Just think about it, "nature is against the law"...a plant that existed before humans even knew what it was is "illegal". Prohibition made more sense than the war on marijuana.

Our country is burning itself with so many ass-backwards laws and regulations like this. There's a total lack of common sense in policy creation and the current economic situation is just one of the major side effects of this. Stupid ideas can only create stupid outcomes.

reply to post by neo96

and in my opinion whats going wrong with this country is on the democrats and only them.

and i am not saying the republicans are any better than just a tad bit.

The republicans aren't any better, but it's all the Democrats fault? I don't think I need to say much about these statements. You have made yourself and your ideology very clear!

Originally posted by shug7272
If you took the stimulus spending that Obama has performed out of the economy GDP would have been in the negative since Obama took office.

If you took the stimulus spending that Obama apportioned to the economy out of Obama's hands and back into the hands of the taxpayers, there would have been an even better result. Government is the problem, and raising taxes does not improve the economy. An improved economy is less taxes, less regulations, and generally less government period. He didn't get that money out of nowhere, he stole it from the taxpayers, whether it be through direct taxation or indirect taxation [via inflation].

reply to post by sheepslayer247


lets break it down then

the democrats created the federal reserve and the devaluation of the dollar and since that dollar is tied to oil

that relationship led to the current crisis compounded with decades of social engineering and legislation that has destroyed american wealth and pushed it offshores.

decades of policies man decades blame the right all you want it doesnt make the truth that partty who controls 2/3s of the govenrment created this mess and offer no solutions but more of the same?

no thanks feel free to blame whoever you want there are some of us out there knows what the real score is.

So fire chief Stan sets the town on fire then resigns.

In comes fire chief George who splits his time between sitting on his hands and throwing gas into the burning buildings.

Why am I going to waste my time bitching about what Stan did? He isnt going to undo anything. But George is here and he could at least be pretending to put out. For christs sake he could stop throwing gasoline onto it.

reply to post by neo96


Yes, let's break it down....yo!

Who was the man instrumental in creating and sponsoring the Fed Reserve act of 1913? Republican Sen. Nelson Aldrich!

Who was the man that chaired the committee in opposition of this bill? Democrat Arsene Pujo.

the democrats created the federal reserve and the devaluation of the dollar

Would that be a false statement, or just a lie?

The only thing that stood in the way of banks from raping the American financial system was the Glass-Steagal act that regulated the industry. True to form, the Republicans have been in the pocket of the banks for a long time and so it was Phil Gramm and Jim Leach, both Republicans and enjoyed a nice majority in congress, repealed the Glass-Steagal act!

that relationship led to the current crisis compounded with decades of social engineering and legislation that has destroyed american wealth and pushed it offshores.

Are you talking about the social engineering enforced by the Right Wing political machine, including the propaganda outlet FoxNews? Also, isn't the wealth being pushed offshores by capitalistic businessmen who find it more profitable to outsource jobs to foreign countries because it's better for the bottom line?

there are some of us out there knows what the real score is.

Obviously you don't!

I have just shown how the deck has been stacked. Yes, the Dems are a party of spineless babies that whine more than anything else, but history shows the damage that has been done by the last 50 years of Republican representation.

Will you concede to these overbearing facts, or will you continue to defend party....regardless of the truth?

reply to post by sheepslayer247


dude woodrow wilson signed it into law

not even going to bother with the rest

Originally posted by Watts
reply to post by shug7272

 

I think its partly because he's "black"... I don't think that's undeniable, the whole "the economy is bad and there's a black guy in office so it must be totally his fault" ideal is in full effect,

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ea2623fcd6b8.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by macman


I am from Georgia -- most of it is because he is black -- I am upper middle class -- a democrat in an incredibly red county -- so red that everyone assumes that they are all alike -- it is like being under deep cover -- trust me when I say most of it is because he is black and by most I mean the very most, you just cant say it isn't.

I know my father in Nebraska would never vote for a black man. They quit going to the public pool when they allowed the coloreds. You just can't say race isn't a factor. The biggest problem Obama has is that he is fundamentally a good and intelligent man -- who actually screams family values with out saying a word about it. Tough to hate - but he has that black think going for him and that makes it easy - and here we are with a totally jammed up government. With a president that could actually move this thing forward.

Originally posted by spyder550
reply to post by macman

 

I am from Georgia -- most of it is because he is black -- I am upper middle class -- a democrat in an incredibly red county -- so red that everyone assumes that they are all alike -- it is like being under deep cover -- trust me when I say most of it is because he is black and by most I mean the very most, you just cant say it isn't.

I know my father in Nebraska would never vote for a black man. They quit going to the public pool when they allowed the coloreds. You just can't say race isn't a factor. The biggest problem Obama has is that he is fundamentally a good and intelligent man -- who actually screams family values with out saying a word about it. Tough to hate - but he has that black think going for him and that makes it easy - and here we are with a totally jammed up government. With a president that could actually move this thing forward.

To be honest, I have lived in GA. Yes, downtown Atlanta is predominantly Black. So what.
He was elected solely on the premise of being the first Black President.
But, I hate to squash your outlook, it is wrong.
No, people as a whole do not dislike him due to his color. He is disliked based on his merits and actions.
And no, he is not a good man, as he is dragging our country down the toilet to fulfill his own ideological views.
Intelligent? Based on what? Getting a piece of paper from a College?


He is disliked by many, but not based on his color.

George Bush does deserve some of the blame, but the dems deserve the lions share. They were in control of the congress and senate the majority of the time. If they think the bailouts and stimulus were the wrong thing, they could have stopped it, but, no, they added to it so SEIU, Acorn and other lefty left organizations could benefit from it, Obama used the stimulous funds to pay back his political supporters, then bought out Chrysler and GM, Bush didnt do that, Bush also didnt decide to put a moratorium on oil drilling, didnt pass a huge spending bill that they call obamacare, didnt send us into yet another war, Thats all Obama. For those of you that really honestly think it's because he is black...your an idiot, plain and simple, I could not care less if he were purple, his skin tone has nothing to do with his utter lack of intelligence. What was Obamas debt ceiling plan? raise taxes and raise spending more than the cuts and taxes? Explain to me in y our liberal mathamatics how you can add billions to the budget and spend less? where i went to school 2+2+2- 6 not 1.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by sheepslayer247

 

dude woodrow wilson signed it into law

not even going to bother with the rest

Yes he did. No denying that. But didn't you in fact make the case earlier in this same thread that Bush couldn't be held responsible because there was a Democrat controlled congress in power?

pretty hard to just blame bush when the democrats held the purse strings and controlled legislation

Well Neo, what we have here is a failure to be consistant! Which way will it be? Are you going to make an ideological stand and stick with it or are you going to pick and choose when it fits the situation? Is congress to blame, or is the president?

I would like for you to "bother with the rest" if you don't mind. It would go a long way in proving your point and showing everyone else that I am wrong. So please do!