IGX

I don't care if you hate GWB or Obama more. You have to admit that they are all making this guy look pretty fucking good.

Terry B. wrote:I don't care if you hate GWB or Obama more. You have to admit that they are all making this guy look pretty fucking good.

No doubt he'd win again if he could run, but even fans like me realize he had more to do with Wall St deregulation that blew up in the economy's face than any other Prez.

Wish it were this simple, Mak. Presidents aren't dictators.

Clinton proposed, Newt Gingrich disposed. Maybe the Dot Com bubble helped bring in lots of tax revenues too?

Very good point that Bush and the GOPers from 2000 until 2006 couldn't restrain their spending. Lots of earmarks, Prescription Drug Benefit and the "War on Terror". That "Bridge to Nowhere" shit is why Rahm Emmanuel's DCCC leadership was able to get Blue Dog Democrats to replace some GOPers, leading to Pelosi and the Spendthrifts.


Defending Obama? Fucker didn't get us out of Afghanistan, expanded the War on Terror into Yemen, Pakistan and Libya. No wonder we're going bankrupt, between our wars and Obama being nigger rich with his campaign donors.

Bet it'll be the same tired old shit with Romney....

Fat Cat wrote:Apparently can't compete with Repooplicans' money-for-all.

Anyone else notice that the percentage of spending under Bush Jr. went up after Pelosi and Reid took over the Congress?

Gene wrote:

Fat Cat wrote:Apparently can't compete with Repooplicans' money-for-all.

Anyone else notice that the percentage of spending under Bush Jr. went up after Pelosi and Reid took over the Congress?

Stop it, only the prez counts. Everyone knows that. Newt didn't have anything to do with Clinton's numbers either.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:I read it. It's again misleading.

In the post-war era, federal spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy has hovered around 20 percent, give or take a couple of percentage points. Under Obama, it has hit highs not seen since the end of World War II.... Part of this, of course, is a consequence of the recession, but it is also the result of a sustained higher level of spending.

GDP contracts during a recession. So it's not "part of this," unless his spending increases over Bush were also binge-like. Which they weren't.

Spending is too high, but the GOP is lying on this particular issue.

You didn't read all of it. Nutting and the White House are lying about how much spending Obama and W were "responsible" for. The AP fact checking also agrees.

If the White House were being honest, they would acknowledge the higher spending but argue that it was in response to a recession that started before Obama took office.

The biggest lie the GOP tells about spending is that we can magically cure our budget problems without touching military spending, Social Security or Medicare. All we need to do is cut taxes and stop funding programs that benefit people who don't vote Republican.

The recent spending was during a period of declining tax receipts-- so government revenue was down. Much of the spending increase (like the expanded unemployment benefits) were passed onto states-- which placed them in a difficult situation. And the Obamacare spending won't kick in until 2014 (although to be fair, nobody knows what that is going to look like, even if the Court decides the bill is essentially legal).

Pinky wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:I read it. It's again misleading.

The biggest lie the GOP tells about spending is that we can magically cure our budget problems without touching military spending, Social Security or Medicare. All we need to do is cut taxes and stop funding programs that benefit people who don't vote Republican.

Well seeing as the Military is a Constitutional and a no shit reality, eliminate the other fucking 2 as there is nothing in the Constitution saying we have to handle retirement savings or medical attention on a National level unless it's an emergency.

SS needs to fucking die. Medicaid is adminstered by the States therefore let States pay ffor it and their voters decide if they want them to.

Andy78 wrote:Bush is a good athlete. Obama is an anorexic fucktard with a tiny head...

Wait, are you claiming Bush is a better athlete than Obama?

I got $5 on Obama if they ever play one-on-one basketball.

Thee's not a smidgen of difference between the Dumbo's and Repug's spending. This is one big fat corrupt entitlement culture. The only sane thing for any individual to do for survival is get on that public tit and suck for dear life. Big government small government argument.....BOOOOOLLLLSHIIITTT!!!!!!!!

JimZipCode wrote:

Andy78 wrote:Bush is a good athlete. Obama is an anorexic fucktard with a tiny head...

Wait, are you claiming Bush is a better athlete than Obama?

I got $5 on Obama if they ever play one-on-one basketball.

Bush will kick Obama's ass in that or any other sport. Obama couldn't make a High School varsity basketball team. All his talk to make fools believe he's NBA material is grossly laughable at best.

Bush dodges shoes like The Matrix.

Bush > Obama in everything but basketball - the guy was a fairly serious runner, lifts and rides his bike. They said that the Secret Service had a 100 Club or something of the sort for members who had to go out with him when it was over 100 degrees in Texas.

Putin would take GWB though.

Terry B. wrote:Bush > Obama in everything but basketball - the guy was a fairly serious runner, lifts and rides his bike. They said that the Secret Service had a 100 Club or something of the sort for members who had to go out with him when it was over 100 degrees in Texas.

Putin would take GWB though.

Only if it was a Judo match. I'd put a Texan with a shotgun over a Russky with an AK anyday.

Terry B. wrote:Bush > Obama in everything but basketball - the guy was a fairly serious runner, lifts and rides his bike. They said that the Secret Service had a 100 Club or something of the sort for members who had to go out with him when it was over 100 degrees in Texas.

Putin would take GWB though.

You're gonna get hurt, Buster.