Yes Republicans, there IS a global test...

Just curious as to why they are still the 'Bush tax cuts' when Obama extended them. Should they not be the 'Bush/Obama tax cuts'?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Point well taken.

reply to post by Janky Red


So you believe as Obama does that Joe the plumber should pay more taxes so that those who sit on their duff can "experience success"?

Sounds like a load of BS to me. Let those who actually work for a living experience the success they have earned, and let those who refuse to work suffer the consequences.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


And Obama had nothing to do with the situation this country is in now??

You are as blind or as indifferent as the Republicans your whinning about.i guess if people like you did not have the blame game to play you would not have much of a life ...........................would you.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
reply to post by beezzer

 

Bush is the one that spun our debt out of control in the two wars and all the spending on spying on Americans.
.

Lets Look at 2000 Clinton 6T debt, 1.7T spending, 190B deficit

eight years later and 2 wars

Lets look at 2008 Bush 10T debt, 2.8T spending, deficit 330B We can see and agree that Bush was spending much more than we wanted him too, I can agree.... but

three years later 2 wars on big draw down

Now 2011 Obama, 14T debt, 3.6T spending, 1.4T deficit This is hyper spending totally out of control...put the blame were due people.

Bush and Obama are both robbers, but Bush stole a pack of cigarettes to Obama robbing a bank by comparison, and Obama is far from done or topping off.


The biggest problem is Obama is spending 1.4T more than they are taking in per year compared to Bush's 330B. 330B is workable/fixable 1.4T is totally out of control.....is that really hard to understand?

reply to post by Xtrozero


I see where you are coming from but I feel like your argument is flimsy. To me, that is like saying that the driver of the getaway car involved in a bank robbery that left innocent people shot and killed isn't as at fault as, say, those who pulled the trigger.

Maybe they didn't all plan on it, but they have all had a hand in it. Arguing over who is most guilty is a waste of time, in my very humble opinion.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Lets look at 2008 Bush 10T debt, 2.8T spending, deficit 330B We can see and agree that Bush was spending much more than we wanted him too, I can agree.... but

What exactly is included in Bush's spending?

I heard the wars were not included in Bush's official spending. I could be wrong. But if they're not - - why aren't they?

And if expense of war is not included in Bush's spending - - - how much exactly would that add to his spending?

Let's use War as a topic here when it comes to senseless spending:

-The first Bush lead this country into war with Iraq.

-Clinton sent troops to Somalia, got soldiers killed. He also had the US military bomb Kosovo, along with bombing a factory in Sudan and launching missiles into Afghanistan.

-George W. Bush...under his Administration, we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Meanwhile, we bombed Pakistan and Yemen.

-Obama removed a majority of troops from Iraq but left about 50,000 behind. He increased the amount of troops in Afghanistan. Obama also continued bombing Pakistan, Yemen, and now got us in a war with Libya.



Don't you think these wars might've taken part in why we're in a bit of a financial crisis? Eh?

reply to post by SeventhSeal


Exactly!

And we were hoodwinked into one of them!

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Lets look at 2008 Bush 10T debt, 2.8T spending, deficit 330B We can see and agree that Bush was spending much more than we wanted him too, I can agree.... but

What exactly is included in Bush's spending?

I heard the wars were not included in Bush's official spending. I could be wrong. But if they're not - - why aren't they?

And if expense of war is not included in Bush's spending - - - how much exactly would that add to his spending?

Spending is spending...a deficit of 330b kind of shows everything above and beyond what was taxed. Was there hidden monies?

Clinton did little during his eight years but ride a Dot Com frenzy that crashed horribly.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Lets look at 2008 Bush 10T debt, 2.8T spending, deficit 330B We can see and agree that Bush was spending much more than we wanted him too, I can agree.... but

What exactly is included in Bush's spending?

I heard the wars were not included in Bush's official spending. I could be wrong. But if they're not - - why aren't they?

And if expense of war is not included in Bush's spending - - - how much exactly would that add to his spending?

Spending is spending...a deficit of 330b kind of shows everything above and beyond what was taxed. Was there hidden monies?

Clinton did little during his eight years but ride a Dot Com frenzy that crashed horribly.

I am well aware that Clinton lucked out being Prez when Silicon Valley was at its highest and got out just as it was collapsing.

Was war expenses included in Bush's official expenditures?

Originally posted by PatriotGames2
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

I see where you are coming from but I feel like your argument is flimsy. To me, that is like saying that the driver of the getaway car involved in a bank robbery that left innocent people shot and killed isn't as at fault as, say, those who pulled the trigger.

Maybe they didn't all plan on it, but they have all had a hand in it. Arguing over who is most guilty is a waste of time, in my very humble opinion.

Basically what I'm saying is Bush was spending 330b more than he should even if we count two wars. Obama is spending 1.4t more than he should. Obama wants to tax the American people few more TRILLION per year to make up his HUGE and I mean Huge spending that at this point is of out of control.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


>>He pointed to the decision by Congress about whether to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as one crucial area. "If you let them lapse for the high-income earners, that could give you another $950 billion," he said.

Originally posted by Annee
Was war expenses included in Bush's official expenditures?

You tell me, you got Google too. The wars were about 1 to 1.5t in cost over his eight years. What is Obama's extra 1.1t deficit spent on?

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Basically what I'm saying is Bush was spending 330b more than he should even if we count two wars. Obama is spending 1.4t more than he should. Obama wants to tax the American people few more TRILLION per year to make up his HUGE and I mean Huge spending that at this point is of out of control.

Are Obama's expenses a direct result of the debt America is in because of Bush's wars?

War expenses that are not listed as part of Bush spending?

Tax cuts do mean you are paying taxes in the first place, right?

Only tax cuts I got was.... hmmm I didn't get any.

I had a deduction of 2 adults and 2 kids and tax on my house of about 6k....that was it. Could not use an IRA or child tax credit since I make too much for that.

So what is wrong with tax cuts? I feel I pay more than my share anyhow, and no matter how much "cuts" I get I will still pay more taxes than the vast majority of Americans.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Annee
Was war expenses included in Bush's official expenditures?

You tell me, you got Google too. The wars were about 1 to 1.5t in cost over his eight years. What is Obama's extra 1.1t deficit spent on?

You are evading the question.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

I've done nothing but read about this issue. Focusing on increases in taxes is myopic at best. No one, apparently, has the stones to admit that this administrations keynesian spending tactcs have caused this.

You do realize over 75% of current admin spending has been stimulus to try to prop up the economy that Bush decimated.... You DO realize that dont you? Nah, you dont.....Ignorant people man.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Basically what I'm saying is Bush was spending 330b more than he should even if we count two wars. Obama is spending 1.4t more than he should. Obama wants to tax the American people few more TRILLION per year to make up his HUGE and I mean Huge spending that at this point is of out of control.

Are Obama's expenses a direct result of the debt America is in because of Bush's wars?

War expenses that are not listed as part of Bush spending?

I would say no for the mere fact that Obama doesn't blame his spending on Bush's wars. The question to answer is why was Bush spending just 330b more than he can collect in taxes and three years later Obama is at 1.4t. Even Clinton ran close to 200b during his years, so seeing 330b on Bush's watch is a big jump and could have been the result of the wars. We now shift to 2011. War cost is going down, Military is drawing down some, but Government spending explodes like a atom bomb.

We are three years after Bush... time to look at Obama and say why?

Originally posted by shug7272

You do realize over 75% of current admin spending has been stimulus to try to prop up the economy that Bush decimated.... You DO realize that dont you? Nah, you dont.....Ignorant people man.

You mean failed stimulus as in flushing a trillion down the toilet type fail.... Economy under Bush was not bad at all even though he was spending well more than I would have liked to see. Economy three years later under Obama is all Obama.