Thursday, July 01, 2010

Why Fiscal Conservative Should be Voting for Obama

When the next idiot conservative who just got done with his daily, Two minutes hate, brain washing from Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck talks about how Obama is some fiscally irresponsible big government spender, tell them to stop listening to fantasies and fairy tales and look at the facts:

Bush tax cuts for the rich cost us: $2.2 Trillion
Useless war in Iraq: $731 Billion
2008 Bush bailouts for rich bankers: $700 Billion

= $3.6 Tillion towards our deficit.

Our deficit for 2009 was $1.42 Trillion. So without Bush and his spending and economic planning disasters, we would be running a $2.18 Trillion dollar surplus and the richest 2% of our country would be paying the same tax rate they were paying during the prosperous '90s.

Lets not forget that "defense" spending for 2010 is $663 Billion....Supporting the two largest airforces in the world to fight guys in caves with IED's.

When will these morons start realizing that the $700 Billion that Bush and Paulson spent in October of 2008, went on the 2009 budget, not the 2008 budget so when Obama took office, he inherited that spending and so his budget for 2009 increased by that $700 billion overnight. The total increase in the 2009 budget was $960 Billion so 73% of the budget increase for 2009 was Bush spending. THAT WAS NOT OBAMA SPENDING!!!!

And let's also not forget that now the deficit is forecast to decline to $1.17 trillion by the end of 2010 and to $533 Billion by 2013...Thanks to Obama!

60% of our budget is dedicated to the following:
Social Security
Defense Spending
Medicade (8.19%)

Social Security and Defense accounts for 38% of our total budget.

None of these programs were invented by Obama.


dmarks said...

"Bush tax cuts for the rich cost us: $2.2 Trillion"

Actually, the tax cuts were mostly for the middle class, and revenues increased as a result. Cost? We gained. The government got more revenue, and the people prospered a little more because government was less greedy and robbed them less.

"Useless war in Iraq: $731 Billion"

I know we disagree, but I think it was useful to fight back against the terrorists. Quite necessary, in fact.

"2008 Bush bailouts for rich bankers: $700 Billion"

Guess what. This is Obama's. He voted for it in the Senate. And then he doled out more bailouts when he got to be President. Making him by far the king of corporate welfare.

Most Republicans voted against this, by the way, as they voted against Obama's other bailouts.

dmarks said...

Also, after Jan 20 2009, it WAS all Obama spending. He had the power, along with Congress, to change the budget.

So what did he do? He approved and accepted the budget for 2009, making it 100% his own. And then he added hundreds of billions more of waste spending of his own onto it.

Toad734 said...

Well, he had no choice but to spend on the Iraq war, Afghanistan war, etc... which Bush started...Without those wars and Bush's tax cuts, we wouldn't be in the hole we are in now and if a Clintonian would have been president instead of Bush, we wouldn't be in such a recession.

Toad734 said...

There weren't any terrorists, especially any terrorists that had anything to do with 9/11 until Bush invaded Iraq and created a bunch of terrorists. Again, what planet are you on and where are you getting your information?

And no, the rich got a larger tax decrease than the middle class got...a larger percentage even. That is not debatable its a fact.

And we obviously didn't gain more revenue or we wouldn't have gone from a surplus to a trillion dollar deficit...The math is pretty simple on this one. And guess what the rich did with that extra money??? They speculated on property and threw it into mortgage backed securities...Guess where that got us? And guess why they were able to do that?? Three Republicans named Gramm-Leach and Bliley...Look up their act and see what it repealed from the depression era??

dmarks said...

Bush did not start either war. Saddam Hussein was attacking US and UK peace keepers BEFORE Bush took office. Saddam broke the cease fire and attacked us and refused to comply with easy cease fire requirments. Unprovoked aggression from Iraq, which Bush responded to only as a last resort.

The government of the Taliban launched 9/11 before Bush's measured and belated response.

"Without those wars and Bush tax cuts".

1) The tax cuts resulted in an increase of revenue.

2) Fighting back against the terrorists had cost us about $800 billion by tne end of the Bush administration. That's a small amount of the total 5 or 6 TRILLION added to the debt under Bush. Most of it was social spending. (Yes, Bush was reluctant to veto bad spending bills, caving into Democrats way too often).

If we had decided to let the terrorists win and not fight back, the debt would have been $4 trillion. and it would have been even larger if not for the Bush tax cuts on all taxpayers which caused more revenue.

"There weren't any terrorists"

Another whopper served by you. Saddam Hussein was well documented as a major terrorist kingpin (if not the biggest in the world at the time, hosting and funding a large number of terrorist groups. Clinton Admin reports (and Bush reports after) detailed this.

Do you want a list of the terrorist groups?

No one ever said Saddam caused or funded 9/11. But 9/11 taught us that it was stupid to let terrorist aggression continue. Stupid to let them keep attacking us.

Facts: After the Bush tax cuts, the rich STILL pay a bigger percentage of taxes than the rest of us.

"We obviously didn't gain more revenue".

Actually, check the facts. Tax revenues were at a record high under Bush. More money coming in than at any point in the history of the nation.

" backed securities..."

Glad you mentioned this. The financial meltdown as caused by Federal policy. Check into the Democrats setting up Fannie Mae to encourage banks to make so many bad loans.

Toad734 said...

1) Then why did we run one of the biggest deficits in history?

2) You mean invading Iraq which created a lot of terrorists after the fact.

Saddam Hussein never supported any terrorist group that was involved in attacking the US. He did provide financial security for the families of suicide bombers in Israel but that is Israel's war to fight, not the USs. So are we going to invade Ireland and the Basque area of Spain to route out their terrorists too?? Saddam never attacked the US plain and simple.

The financial melt down had a little to do with Freddie and Fannie, mainly to do with the Republican deregulation of the depression era laws that were eradicated under the Glass (R) Steagall (R), Bliley (R) act. and by the American Dream Downpayment Initiative under Bush:

dmarks said...

1) I told you. Bush overspent. The blame is his, even though he was not as bad as the Democrats (Dems in Cognress complained when he vetoed spending bills, and they tried to get Bush to spend even more.

2) Saddam Hussein himself attacked the US, and the terror groups he supported and funded DID target and kill American civilians. Sorry, the "ignore terrorism and it will go away" idea is long outdated.

Invade Ireland? If they attack us as Saddam did.

The financial meltdown had everything to do with Freddie and Fannie. The Dems encouraged them to lend to undeserving people.

dmarks said...

Also: "And let's also not forget that now the deficit is forecast to decline to $1.17 trillion by the end of 2010 and to $533 Billion by 2013...Thanks to Obama!"

That's $1.6 TRILLION in new debt. New debt that Obama added by choice. $1.6 trillion is much higher than the debt racked up by Bush during a comparable period.

It is als equal to the entire amount racked up during Clintons' 8 years of solid budget deficits.

And we did not even add in Obama's massive 2009 debt.

Toad734 said...

Oh Saddam Hussein attacked the US??? Right, The Gulf of Tonkin incident... I forgot. Man, I am sure glad he didn't get as far as Chicago. So are you in occupied territory right now??

Stop lying. Iraq no more attacked us than Ireland did.

You obviously didn't look at my link of the bill Bush signed to encourage lending to people who couldn't afford it. Again, stop watching Faux News, you are being lied to.

Sorry to break it to you but the 2009 Budget was Bush's budget, not Obama's.