Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Obama reckless spending

Posted 3 years ago on Dec. 12, 2011, 6:42 p.m. EST by danmi (66)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Obama has spent more in three years than Bush has spent in 8. Now the interest is upwards to 4 billion per day. He will not get another term and this Country will be lucky to last until the turd gets ejected from office in 2012

60 Comments

60 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 13 points by nucleus (3291) 3 years ago

<sigh> Debunking the BS, again.

[-] 4 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

I like the graphic. It should end the debate over if there is a difference between party policy.

I think I'll steal that link. I'm sure I don't really care if you mind ... ; D

but on to the figures -

am I looking at that right?

  • BUSHITE Tax Cuts:

  • 1.812 Trillion Dollars

is that right? and the fucking repelicans will not sign on?

WTF?

[-] 4 points by forOWS (161) 3 years ago

Thank you nucleus.

[-] -1 points by REALamerican (241) 3 years ago

lol. funny how this can be true yet at the same time its also true that obama has broken deficit records.... twice! total debt:15 trillion. total obama debt: 5 trillion. WOAH! very interesting...

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 3 years ago

The increase in debt is not the result of BO spending as much as it the result of 1/3 less tax revenue in a collapsed economy and efforts to boost the economy with (misdirected) government bailouts.

The next shoe to drop will be state and municipal tax shortfalls, and they will be looking for more bailouts very soon.

Bush doubled the national debt (+$5 trillion) and left the country the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression. Of course it's not ALL his fault, as the polices that led up tho this started with Reagan, who tripled the national debt, but Bush is the only president to start two wars simultaneously with huge tax cuts for the rich. Go figure.

[-] 0 points by REALamerican (241) 3 years ago

Yet he still had a better approval rating in the end... We arent even at the end and Obama is considered by some rankings to already be worse than Carter. now THAT is bad.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 3 years ago

Where do you live? Let me guess - the Limbaugh / FOX alternate universe.

BO's approval rating is around 45% (go figure ...).

Bush went out with approval ratings < 30%.

[-] -2 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

BULLSHIT METER IS PEGGED! STOP LYING!

New policies. Let's talk about what he hasn't stopped or cut.

BTW.... why isn't all the TARP money, as well as the 14+ trillion the Fed has let fly listed as new?

[-] 3 points by TLydon007 (1278) 3 years ago

"BTW.... why isn't all the TARP money, as well as the 14+ trillion the Fed has let fly listed as new?"

Because it isn't new. It's only new to you.

It started in 2007, and all the programs were initiated before 2009. Also, the vast majority was paid back. I'm not saying that excuses anything, but to put loans down as a loss of money would be a fundamental misunderstanding of what an expense is. So if he were to include it (which doesn't make much sense) it would actually go under Bush's column(but it still wouldn't make much sense).

Look it up.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf

[-] -1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

You say this yet, TARP money is listed on Bush's side. Just look up. I'm not defending either of them, they both suck and are not fit to hold the office.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 3 years ago

No, that's actually an earlier estimate of the cost of TARP and other bailouts. Not all of TARP was paid back(or was expected to be). Current estimates for the losses would be about 75Billion maybe. The estimate in the chart is an earlier one. However, if they included all loans, it would have been over 1.5 Trillion. The 15 Trillion number is also very misleading. That's the total amount of money loaned over the course of years. The Maximum amount loaned at any point in time, I think would be about 1.1 Trillion. I'm not saying it's right, but many people are being mislead.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

Who has any idea what the real losses are, the Fed has only been audited ONCE since it's origin in the early 1900's.... and that was only a window of operation of less than 2 years.

Regardless, the chart and it's data are BS.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 3 years ago

I'm sorry, but I can tell from this part of your statement:

"Who has any idea what the real losses are, the Fed has only been audited ONCE since it's origin in the early 1900's"

that you obviously don't understand what I posted 2 comments ago.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf

This IS the Federal Reserve Audit.. That's where the 15 Trillion number was cherrypicked from. This audit was brought to you by... Bernie Sanders.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

Well actually, Bernie finally jumped on the Ron Lawl wagon. Dr Paul has been attempting to gain access to the Fed for years. I saw the audit results the day it was published, thanks anyhow.

I read what you wrote two statements back, the bottom line is that the spending charts posted in this thread are bs and very misleading.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 3 years ago

Let's talk about congress, which routinely passes budgets then exceeds them with spending bills.

[-] -1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

Well your boy has NO PROBLEM writing and signing EXECUTIVE orders into law and damned sure can null and void congress with them anytime he wants to. You do know that all of them are Unconstitutional, doncha?

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 3 years ago

He's not my boy. I'm just debunking pathetic misinformation and ignorance.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

What you've posted does not include all which has happened on his watch. Blame congress if you will, but, he could have stopped it. Have you even reviewed the executive orders he's signed? Emptywheel is a classic.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

That is some of the most skewed shit Ive seen in a while. Obama ramped up the war in Afghan, Iraq is still going on, building four more bases in Africa.

Obamacare is going to cost an arm and a leg. Obama extended Bush tax cuts. Obama continues the wars.

This is the type of uneducated, divisive nonsense that keeps the people screwed.

Im pretty suprised, your posts are usually better than this.

[-] 0 points by nucleus (3291) 3 years ago

Don't confuse the chart with support for BO. He is plainly a corporate tool wrapped in stale chocolate.

"ObamaCare" or "RomneyCare" or the 1992 GOP plan to derail HillaryCare, or whatever you want to call it, still has to get through the Supreme Court. Until it does, the effect on cost is irrelevant. Boehner challenges new CBO estimate that repealing Obamacare will raise deficit. Medicare for all!

FYI Our mission in Afghanistan is to provide security for the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

The pipeline, amoung other things, is correct. The supreme court is bought out, Obamacare will have no problem going through. The insurance cartel will make sure of it.

I was just suprised you posted something as skewed as that.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 3 years ago

It's not skewed, but it does rely on projections. You should keep in mind that BO's first year was on a Bush budget, and that the $700 billion stimulus was drafted by the Bush administration and handed to BO to sign - under duress - upon taking office.

As far as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, I'm not sure which way the court will go. The insurance companies have clearly written the bill to their advantage, but they would be happier if it failed and they were left to continue their current practices unchecked.

I have a hard time seeing a largely originalist court (in theory) at least, cramming this down the public throat. Then again, I would not be at all surprised if they did.

[-] -1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

Do you have an opinion about the Social Security Administration Act of 1992? No wiki shit, real nuts and bolts understanding based opinion.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

No I dont.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

It's a tough nut to crack, but, once you start, there should be some huge red flags even initially stepping foot on the path... try and and see as the United States, and several other nations, are indeed subject to this act via international agreements.

[-] -3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Wheres the QE1 and 2? Thats around 1.2T

Wars arent policy changes. And if they are, the president has the authority to change course whenever he pleases.

Put up a chart of gov spending, and then realize most war stuff isnt even counted on the books anymore.

He loves the war. Why do you think he is going to sign that NDAA bill? Because he loves us?

[-] 9 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 3 years ago

bush bought the car and left obama to pay for it. i try to not let myself get baited into party politics but the spend in republican years and pay for it (like adults) during democratic years has been a trend for 50+ years. washington has never had a trend of paying for soemthing first. it is always the case it gets payed for after the fact. obama came in after the fact. maybe if your buddies in washington would stop with the endless wars, we could get caught up.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 3 years ago

Eurika, I have learned a new language.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 3 years ago

lol. word.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

The fact this chart shows the deficit going down in the next four years shows its bullshit.

[-] -1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

Obama hasn't made any attempt to stop spending of war money which does not exist, despite promising he would. He's done a vulgar and reckless amount of spending.

[-] 4 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

If we made the banks pay rather than bailing them out we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now, but neither wing of the party of the 1%, neither the Republicans or the Democrats, and none of their candidates are willing to do that.

[+] -4 points by Censored (138) 3 years ago

But the banks have largely paid back the "bailout", with a profit for the taxpayer, so now what?

[-] 8 points by Fastman99 (18) from Houston, TX 3 years ago

Not true, they only paid back the TARP, they have NOT paid back the $8 trillion in loans they have received from the Federal Reserve, which is destroying the value of the dollar and creating an inflation tax on ordinary Americans while the bankers get out like bandits.

[-] 0 points by danmi (66) 3 years ago

Why are Chrysler and GM not being occupied?? They both have gotten loans that they have not fully repaid. Tax payers still own 26% of GM and yet they are building a mega plant in China, not to mention that all blue collar employees just got a 5,000 signing bonus for the new contract

[-] -2 points by Censored (138) 3 years ago

That's just wrong. You might want to look into the inflation rate too while you're at, slugger. It's pretty tame. Say, and one more thing: check out the market capitalization of Bank of America and Citicorp. I dunno, but maybe you'd care to compare the value of those companies today to what they were in 2007. Yeah, bandits.

[-] 4 points by Fastman99 (18) from Houston, TX 3 years ago

HAHAHAHA you actually BELIEVE the government's inflation rate. It's all bullshit, just like the reported unemployment rate. Real unemployment is 16% and inflation is way higher than 2% like the government reports. Just ask yourself a few questions. Which direction have healthcare costs and premiums gone in the last few years? Over the last two years, have food and gas prices gone up or down? How much cheaper is it to get a car? How about the cost of college tuition, growing at 5% at year? The only thing that has gone down significantly is housing value, but that isn't really something people buy, that's something people own. That's why the gov is reporting low inflation, but they are being deceptive. Also, market capitalization doesn't really affect the salaries of the top CEO's of these firms, who jumped ship with golden parachutes worth tens of millions of dollars. That's what I mean by getting out like bandits. They've robbed the government and their own banks.

[-] 0 points by Censored (138) 3 years ago

What direction are technology prices, what direction is housing heading? Cars are dramatically better than even 10 years ago, so it's "more" car. Retail margins have been compressed and that's brought down prices. Some things up, other things down... all in, mild inflation.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Neccesities- way up. Useless bullshit, with large profit margins- way down.

When the numbers dont take food and energy into consideration, its a bullshit formula.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 3 years ago

Where do guys like you pull your 'facts' out of?

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 3 years ago

Reckless presidents, Bush and Reagan, invoke reckless solutions.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 3 years ago

Don't worry, whether he gets dumped or not, the person who holds the office next will be taking on the form of Hitler....

See you at the FEMA camp.

[-] 1 points by forOWS (161) 3 years ago

Especially if it is a Republican. It will be like the Bush years all over again only much, much worse.

[-] -3 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 3 years ago

Nope. More like the form of Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot or... You get the idea.

[-] -3 points by danmi (66) 3 years ago

got that right

[-] 0 points by GOP99PERCENY (6) 3 years ago

"Hey guys lets not try and get our selfs out of the shitty economy, Ive got a better idea, lets just blame it on ol 'W." Don't worry about me doubling the national deficit but you should worry about how Bush cost us 6 trillion dollars back in 09" That was THREE years ago. Didnt rosevelt get us out of aDEPRESSION in a term. All obamas ben able to do is "blame it on bush".

[-] 0 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 3 years ago

idiot this Platform not for Republican vs obama

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Obama isnt going anywhere. The bankers have their perfect puppet. Wake up dude.

[-] 0 points by TheMaster (63) 3 years ago

Worst president ever.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 3 years ago

Worst president yet.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 3 years ago

The reality:

OWS is attempting to correlate their collective mindset to that of the Founding Fathers, but they can't... because... all government is economic at its core. And the principles embodied here of increased environmental protection, energy regulation, free housing in the form of government bailouts, guaranteed minimum income (a job for everyone), national healthcare, free higher education, support of all illegals...based entirely on the ability of government to print money backed by the security of our future labor... is entirely, completely, foolishly, naive and 100% antithetical to ANY principle of sound governance.

If we are to place government in the position to so profoundly impact our economic security then the direction should be one of prosperity and not bankruptcy.

IF... America does not adopt a long term, twenty to twenty five year, austerity, to address our debt (which it is powerless to do in light of "demands"), this economy WILL crash within a decade or two.

The house now worth 300k will be worth 20k and it will belong to the banks; there will be no welfare, no social security, no pensions, no Wall Street investment... There will be no transportation, no money for housing, heat, or food, because everything - police, firefighters, schools, employers, resource suppliers... including the American military - will stop dead in its tracks.

We have Russia as the example: everything stopped. And when this country stops, the entire world will stop, because they are all entirely dependent, either directly or indirectly, on our ability to purchase their products.

God as the ultimate authority; it subjugates aristocracy to the will of man... (and I'm not religious; these ARE secular words, a secular understanding)...

Liberty as the freedom to pursue all we desire...

And Free Enterprise as the ability to assess, freely develop, and pursue our own form of economic logic, as the means to acquire all necessary resources, through filling whatever niche...

MUST be worshiped equally; one cannot live without the other... or all WILL perish.

This country is on a path of destruction...

[-] -1 points by Doc4the99 (591) from Washington, DC 3 years ago

Ron Lawl gaining steam in Iowa. Obama is just as bad as the rest. But, Tax cuts for the rich don't work-- Obama is not for tax cuts for the rich. And on the other end, Obama is just owned by his corporate money handlers as well. I do think the dems listen more the the republicans when it comes to OWS, however. Pay roll tax cuts do help middle class people. Counter point-- The universal health care reform stuff is nothing more than policy to make insurance companies more money. The bottom line is that we need to take corporate money out of politics. period.

[-] -1 points by Doc4the99 (591) from Washington, DC 3 years ago

Ron P. rather

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

If Obama wasnt a well spoken, good looking guy, OWS would be demanding his immediate removal.

Judge him by his actions, not his words..

[-] -1 points by fishb8 (62) 3 years ago

doesnt matter who or when it started . . .the progressive march to full socialism has now been brought to a head by this faux president. He must be removed but remember .. .he is not the head of the snake . . .we must get rid of the entire cancer of corruption as well as greed . . . starting with OWS.... and their shadow puppeteers.

[-] -1 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 3 years ago

Oh he WILL be reelected. Count on that. There are lots of posters on this site that are eager to vote for him again.

[-] 1 points by Frizolio (80) 3 years ago

The policy figures are so far off its not even funny. Obummer will never get reelected. Too much of a supreme failure.

[Deleted]

[-] -2 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 3 years ago

Keep laughing. America was stupid enough to elect that ass clown once and they'll be stupid enough to do it again.

[-] -1 points by simplesimon (121) 3 years ago

Can't disagree about 2008. 2012, on the other hand can look back on 4 years of the ass clown's history.