Bush's MULTI Trillion dollar spending plan budget proposal:

[UABblazer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/washington/04cnd-budget.html?_r=2&ex=1359867600&en=96a30cd354042e14&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16989248/

So its ok to spend TRILLIONS in other countries but when we try to spend it on our home soil its called Socialism?

[bairdi]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/washington/04cnd-budget.html?_r=2&ex=1359867600&en=96a30cd354042e14&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16989248/

So its ok to spend TRILLIONS in other countries but when we try to spend it on our home soil its called Socialism?
Yep. Such is the mind of the conservative.

[UABblazer]

I mean seriously.. how would a couple TRILLION dollars spent in Iraq actually help our economy????

But I guess that was the time period when McCain thought "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" lol... and to think they wanted his ass to run this country. :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

[SeniorChief]

A couple trillion?
Peanuts.

Asshole-In-Chief has already augmented/spent $11 Trillion.

[UABblazer]

A couple trillion?
Peanuts.

Asshole-In-Chief has already augmented/spent $11 Trillion.


blah blah, blah blah,

[Smurf-Herder]

Spending overall has been out of control for a long time. And I didn't agree with everything Bush did as President. But it doesn't justify spending even more on continued pork and entirely new programs that commit us to years of additional higher spending.

Also, the "socialism" factor involves what the money is spent on; not just the spending itself.

[Reality4u]

Spending overall has been out of control for a long time. And I didn't agree with everything Bush did as President. But it doesn't justify spending even more on continued pork and entirely new programs that commit us to years of additional higher spending.

Also, the "socialism" factor involves what the money is spent on; not just the spending itself.

It all comes down to simple economics. You don't borrow money unless you know you will earn enough to pay it back. Obama is borrowing and spending enormous amounts of money, when he knows the government doesn't earn enough to pay it back. That's the problem in a nut shell.

Even though I wasn't happy about Bush's deficit spending, at least he kept the deficit at a manageable level. He never let it hit 4% of the GDP, a level that economists will tell you is the point where it becomes to large to control. Obama's deficit is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to be around 5% of the GDP, which is a figure that even his own white house budget director says is too large to be managed.

Think about it. One of the major reasons we are in this economic recession, is because so many people borrowed money to buy a home, but didn't earn enough to pay it back... Isn't this exactly what president Obama is doing with the budget right now?

[The Professor]

LOLOL!

bush is in the PAST

america always looks FORWARD

the driver of this broken down vw, when he's not got his nose in that radical text book written in 1975 when america was fat and flush

when he's not reading from alinsky or frank marshall davis

he's staring in the rear view mirror

while the hurricane lashes OUR windshield

and everyone knows the bridge is out

too bad harvard law didn't offer a driver's ed course

LOLOL!

yes, the deficit is WAY BEYOND levels of sustainability

for anyone who knows what they're talking about, that is

which would preclude, obviously, everyone in bigears' admin

gdp for 2008 was estimated at 14.2 trillion

deficit for 2010, ACCORDING TO OBAMA himself, is 1.75T

that makes DEFICIT AS % OF GDP exactly (by those figures):

drum roll, please

12.3%

no LOL

instead, a dirge

anyone got a bugle?

cliff

[Smurf-Herder]

It all comes down to simple economics. You don't borrow money unless you know you will earn enough to pay it back. Obama is borrowing and spending enormous amounts of money, when he knows the government doesn't earn enough to pay it back. That's the problem in a nut shell.

Even though I wasn't happy about Bush's deficit spending, at least he kept the deficit at a manageable level. He never let it hit 4% of the GDP, a level that economists will tell you is the point where it becomes to large to control. Obama's deficit is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to be around 5% of the GDP, which is a figure that even his own white house budget director says is too large to be managed.

Think about it. One of the major reasons we are in this economic recession, is because so many people borrowed money to buy a home, but didn't earn enough to pay it back... Isn't this exactly what president Obama is doing with the budget right now?

I believe he's operating on two tracks in this.

1) Push through all of the programs that lay the foundations for his "Vision" of what he wants America to be.

2) Destroy the US Dollar, in order to establish a new monetary system; creating the "need" for much greater government control than normally would be constitutionally allowed.

[Mr. Blue]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/washington/04cnd-budget.html?_r=2&ex=1359867600&en=96a30cd354042e14&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16989248/

So its ok to spend TRILLIONS in other countries but when we try to spend it on our home soil its called Socialism?

It's completely not okay in my books. The problem is fiscal conservatism died along time ago and I'm pretty sure it's not going to get resurrected any time soon.

Basically we have politicians that have different ways they want to waste and spend your money. How people have any loyalty to either of these political parties is beyond me.

[The Professor]

I believe he's operating on two tracks in this.

1) Push through all of the programs that lay the foundations for his "Vision" of what he wants America to be.

2) Destroy the US Dollar, in order to establish a new monetary system; creating the "need" for much greater government control than normally would be constitutionally allowed.

me too

stuff like that

except, unless the american electorate has completely CHANGED who it is

which it hasn't

such actions as the above are the death of the democratic party

for instance, even the mention of sharia law

for instance, even trying to eliminate home interest deduction

cap and trade in time of DEPRESSION

doing away with the DOLLAR

deficit as 12.3% of gdp

etc

just imagine trying to electioneer on THAT

cliff

[doctordog]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/washington/04cnd-budget.html?_r=2&ex=1359867600&en=96a30cd354042e14&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16989248/

So its ok to spend TRILLIONS in other countries but when we try to spend it on our home soil its called Socialism?

:lmao2: :lmao2:

Desperation has revealed itself!:p

[Hog Trash]

The first thing you must remember is, bush was not a conservative.

The second and most important thing is, Obama is now the president.

http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?p=87287#post87287
I just got through checking current events.

I have several excelent sources that confirm,

George W Bush is no longer President of the United States.

I refer you to my signature below! :D

[SeniorChief]

The first thing you must remember is, bush was not a conservative.

The second and most important thing is, Obama is now the president.

http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?p=87287#post87287

Ever since Bush has ridden into the sunset, Libturds have run out of talking points. The only thing exposed is Obama's blatant stupidity!

[The Professor]

yup

they reveal, the overwhelming majority of them, if not all on dcj, that they are built for opposition, ie, cheap politics, and not for leadership

indeed, many are just now, like their big dumb president, becoming aware of the distinction

[Independent Harry]

A couple trillion?
Peanuts.

Asshole-In-Chief has already augmented/spent $11 Trillion.

Show me where a proposed spending budget is the same a money spent...

[Moby]

bush is in the PAST

america always looks FORWARD
Cliff, you're lying again.

In 2000 many Americans did not look at Bush's past but the majority did look at his history and voted for another candidate. A 15 minute look into Bush's career showed that he bankrupted 3 every company that he controlled and that his family profited greatly from bank failures. Today's economy was the obvious outcome from looking at the past.

Just because many Americans do not try to learn from the past and are destined to make the same mistakes over and over again does not mean that Americans in general do not.

Sure many are too lazy to be bothered checking facts and just mindlessly listen and later repeat the opinions of pundits. Maybe they do this because they don't have the IQ to form there own thoughts and have to repeat phrases and slogans over and over again. Maybe they're just mentally lazy or maybe they just don't care enough about their country to do any fact checking and learn from the past.

Many do look back and do learn from the past. In fact, election results after the first Bush being elected show that 4 out of 5 elections did have Americans learning from past mistakes.

You're wrong to make such a general statement when such a statement mainly applies to sheep and not to people that think for themselves.

[Hog Trash]

Sure many are too lazy to be bothered checking facts and just mindlessly listen and later repeat the opinions of pundits.And here we have SirMoby, tirelessly repeating the same dumb old shit for the umpteenth million time. :hi: Maybe they do this because they don't have the IQ to form there own thoughts and have to repeat phrases and slogans over and over again.Hmmm?.....Does anybody think maybe that Moby could possibly be subconsciously referring to himself? :confused: