Talk Politics

Comment

Comment by NavyDads Admin (Paul) on October 19, 2010 at 1:15pm

what is obscene about the whole thing, regardless of party, is the way people throw the term "a trillion dollars" around like it was nothing.

a dollar bill is 0.0043" thick, multiply by a trillion (1^12), do some conversions and you see a trillion dollars is a stack of dollar bills 67,866 MILES high. All I can say is that someone, be they a dem a repub or a Martian better step up to the plate and do something about this deficit issue. Spending money to reduce the deficit is like trying to drink to sobriety

Comment by Mike Stark on October 19, 2010 at 12:12pm

The graph projects estimates through the end of FY10. The deficit came in smaller than estimated in July, although $1.3 trillion is still way too huge, it's lower than the almost $1.5 trillion originally projected.

As always, the numbers don't lie

It's also hard to take the Budget 2011 post seriously when there are howler errors like "quadruple the deficit". The Fy2008 deficit, almost all accumulated before the stock market crash and all under President Bush, was $962 billion. The total stimulus was just under $800 billion. The math I learned says that doesn't even double, let alone quadruple, the deficit, leaving aside the stimulus being a multiyear program.

This would also be a more honest analysis if the cost of both President Bush's huge defense spending increases and the two wars were discussed. Please note I'm not commenting on the need or lack thereof for the spending, only that it is not covered with either revenue or balancing spending cuts.

Finally, when I hear a red stater call for the zeroing of agriculture subsidies or other corporate welfare, I'd begin to believe they actually mean what they are saying about spending. Right now, we have a country that across the board wants a free lunch, and politicians of both parties are all to willing to promise it, as reflected in deficits since Bill Clinton left office to this very day. Prime Minister David Cameron in the UK is doing a far better job of showing how painful choices should be made.

Comment by greg delany on October 19, 2010 at 9:01am

This graph is now over one year old. For up to date information see this post: Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits 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 which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.

What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:

•President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
•President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
•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.
•President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.
•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.
•President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

•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.
UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added.

CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

Comment by Mike Stark on October 18, 2010 at 4:30pm

Comment by Robert Hartman on October 15, 2010 at 5:04pm

The Declaration, the Constitution, and Liberty in Our Time
By Jacob Hornberger
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1156

Comment by Rex on October 15, 2010 at 1:53pm

Comment by greg delany on October 14, 2010 at 8:15pm

Roosevelt, asitting President, was in a wheel chair for a long part of his last years in office which is very sad and the press never metioned it, out of respect for the office.
Bush, a sitting President, landed a jet on an Aircraft Carrier, which is super cool, and the press rakes him over the coals, out of pure disdain

Comment by greg delany on October 14, 2010 at 6:10pm

A Long War by Doug Ireland Oct 2001.
The first paragraph states: Bush raised the bar so high that it is apparent this war could LAST FOR YEARS.
It was written by a Bush hater and a Democrate waiting for the economy to fall deeper into a Clinton made recession: "Although the economy was already in recession before the attacks—and is headed for even more serious trouble—it isn't hurting Bush. As CNN polling analyst Bill Schneider put it, "It's no longer the Bush economy, it's the bin Laden economy." The left had always hoped that when the overheated economy tanked, the downturn would provide fertile ground for a shift back to a more progressive politics; instead, it's having the opposite effect."


http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/25/24/ireland2524.html


The Bush State of the Union Addess in 2002 in his own words: "Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch, yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch."

We can't stop short. If we stopped now, leaving terror camps intact and terror states unchecked, our sense of security would be false and temporary. History has called America and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight.

Our first priority must always be the security of our nation, and that will be reflected in the budget I send to Congress. My budget supports three great goals for America: We will win this war, we will protect our homeland, and we will revive our economy

That was the call to war for the Democrate party to begin to hinder Bush and the Republicans or lose power forever. After the attacks on 9/11 everyone work together and we came out of that recession and had 8 years of prosperity. When the press began attacking Bush and calling his success failure and talked our economy into a real recession so they could: "shift back to a more progressive politics". Lets forget the more progressive social agenda and lets get back to being proud of winning instead of making it a thing to be ashamed of.

Comment by Mike Stark on October 14, 2010 at 4:25pm

Difference is, in 1942 everyone knew we still had a long, tough war ahead of us. President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld sold the Iraq war as an easy cakewalk, although the Army knew better. Our troops were let down by the utter lack of an occupation plan. Which to me makes Rummy an even worse secretary than McNamara, and that's saying an awful lot.

Let me ask the general audience -- would any American politician be able to promise the voters "blood, toil, tears and sweat" in this day and age? Or is "don't you worry your pretty little head, just go shopping" the new world order? Not that we needed the level of sacrifice Britain made in both world wars, but the past administration conducted a war of choice without paying for it, to our nation's detriment.

Bush does deserve credit for the surge, though. General Petraeus had a good plan, but it took guts to stick with it when the casualties initially increased. I didn't like the original decision and still don't, but once you're in it it is immoral to leave the country you occupy in a shambles.

Comment by greg delany on October 14, 2010 at 3:11pm

On April 18, 1942, 16 B-25 bombers lumbered off the deck of the American aircraft carrier Hornet and turned toward the Japanese coast, more than 600 miles away. Their top-secret mission: to carry out the first attack of the war on the enemy homeland.

Leading the raid was 45-year-old Lieutenant Colonel James Doolittle, a modest but highly capable officer who owned all the major aviation racing trophies of his day as well as a Ph.D. in aeronautical engineering from MIT. Doolittle's airmen were volunteers who knew only that they had signed on for a "dangerous secret mission." Details would be revealed after they were at sea.

The bombers were fitted with extra fuel tanks, and the fliers practiced taking off from shortened runways intended to simulate a carrier flight deck. Since the B-25s were too cumbersome to land on a carrier, their missions would be one-way, with the bombers continuing on to secret airfields in China.

Doolittle intended to launch about 400 miles from the coast, but an encounter with a Japanese picket vessel 600 miles out forced an earlier departure. All 16 B-25s got airborne and bombed various military and industrial targets, most located in Tokyo, before fleeing toward China. Short on fuel due to the early launch, the crews of 15 planes either crash-landed or bailed out. One bomber landed in Vladivostok, Russia, where the five-man crew was interned.

Of the other 75 raiders, one man was killed bailing out, two drowned after crash-landing in the water, and eight were captured by the Japanese. Three prisoners were executed. Another died of malnutrition while in captivity. The other fliers evaded the Japanese and found refuge with the Chinese Nationalists. Upon his return home, Doolittle was awarded the Medal of Honor.

While the material damage inflicted was minimal, the Doolittle Raid lifted Allied morale and stunned the Japanese, who had grown complacent with victory after victory. No longer could the Japanese pretend that the homeland was inviolate.

Now compare the Bush photo, on the carrier and remember the American public that was hungry to thank our troops for a fast and efficient mission into Bagdad. If we had a press corp that reported the war on terroism like they reported the war against Japan in 1942. We would have, and should have, cheered that day Bush thanked our troops for a job well done. Militarily, the raid on Japan, did nothing for our cause. However, the morale of the American people was lifted. It should have been the same after 9/11. Everyone should have praised our troops for a Job well done!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 48
• 49
• 50
• 51
• 52
• …
• 113
• Next ›
• Page