A Devastating and Depressing Portrait of Obama

134 replies [Last post]
Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009

A Devastating and Depressing Portrait of Obama

It is quite revealing that this most profligate of presidents — whose spending is nearly limitless when it comes to health care, stimulus packages, bailouts, and non-defense discretionary program — has found his inner Barry Goldwater when it comes to spending on defense matters.

I look forward to November when this gutless, irresponsible, socialist hack is neutered politically. At least we can begin triage on the damage he has caused and stop the bleeding.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Idiots who voted for Obama

Here's a great video that highlights some of the complete morons that voted Barry into office whilst chanting the mindless mantra of hope and change.....

Idiots who voted for Obama

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
This video proves

that if you spend an outrageous amount of money on clothes and your daughter gets pregnant; you'll have higher name recognition than those politicians who actually try to work for the citizens of our country. Thanks Kawfi! LOL!!!!

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Mom delusional

Any chance to take a cheap shot at Palin still shows the Dem's fear of a independent woman who is way off the dem's reservation/plantation. If by some chance you are implying that Obama and Biden are among "those politicians who actually try to work for the citizens of our country" you are really delusional, not paying attention or perhaps not very smart. Please answer this question DM - in the context where "trying to work" means actual accomplishments as opposed to sound bites and campaign rhetoric - What in the world have these 2 clowns actually done in the last 2 years? Or expanding that - what has anyone in Washington actually done in the past 2 years? Careful now, it is not a trick question, but remember the Dem's are in charge of House, Senate and White House.

And for sure some of the voters in Kawfi's video will be back to vote in November and even in 2012, but for every one of those fools, there will be 2 or 3 voters who have actually been paying attention to how Obama and his team of inexperienced eggheads and political hacks have ruined this country. You may or may not agree with Beck, Hannity or Limbaugh, but if you look at the size of their audiences every single day, you can't possibly deny that there is amore knowledgable electorate out there now than there was 2 years ago. And judging from attendance at tea parties and Beck's thing in Washington, these people will be turning out to vote - big time. Finally. Thank God.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Morgan

I don't agree with most of DM's philosophy, but you are wrong!

The paid audience that the aforementioned right wingers you named have tied-up the ignorant sort of our population. They know what to say to them in order to garner their multi-millions and trophy wives.

What has Obama and Biden done in the last 20 months?
Well not nearly as much as did Bush and his "henchmen", wall street, and banks, did for eight years!

We are broke, have high unemployment, and banks are failing right and left and we have tens of thousands of foreclosures, homes and commercial.
Obama didn't create any of that in 20 months! You can blame part of it on the republicans in the senate and house for those eight years and some on the democrats, but not Obama---no matter what you think he is.

Without the one large bill he got approved trying to help the helpless, we would be in a DEPRESSION right now.

Other than the TEAS, no one is any longer falling for your kind of rhetoric.

I don't care who gets defeated or wins in the 2012 elections, but they will still have the job of getting us back to where we were in 2000! It is that bad.

I assume you didn't want any kind of health care cost change? Nor any wars ended?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Paid Audience????

I spent almost $600.00 of my own money to go and another $400.00 on lodging.
The hundred of thousands that attended paid out of their pockets as well.

You are absolutely CLUELESS as to the environment we are in right now.

We shall see in November who has been paying attention. I suspect you PROGRESSIVES are in for a shock.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, now that statement

OofU, now that statement leaves me with mixed emotions.

Quote:

I spent almost $600.00 of my own money to go and another $400.00 on lodging.

On the one hand I want to say, ‘Thanks for spending money in the recovering economy.’

On the other hand I want to say, ‘A fool and his money are soon parted.’

Quote:

you PROGRESSIVES are in for a shock.

The harder you squeeze the more we will slip through your fingers.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Gort we shall see

but take a little advise. Get your resumes up to date. I hear Cuba might be looking for a few old Socialist.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, thank you for the

OofU, thank you for the advice but forget about it. Besides, do you know how much it would cost to go to Cuba? I bet it would take:

Quote:

... almost $600.00 of my own money to go and another $400.00 on lodging.

Nope, I’m staying right here in the good old USA. I’m voting too!

Hey, just the other day, wasn’t it you bragging about Raul Castro laying off a million workers in Cuba? That sounds an awful lot like John Boehner’s “Plague To America,” doesn’t it?

Maybe it’s you that should go to Cuba? You can get a job water boarding at Gitmo when the Repub’s take over.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Just remember my vote will cancel out your vote

and that makes me smile.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, not if you vote

OofU, not if you vote “Libertarian” and that makes me smile.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
I would rather lose with my principles intact

then vote with you progressives with none and that makes me smile.

As you have seen with the Tparty the more you guys swing left the faster America snaps it back. You are about to see the ending of the beginning and a whole new era of Principled Politicians that know what America is and restore the Honor we have lost along the way.

America has given you your chance and you blew it. So now give us back the keys sit down and hang on.

http://www.bankruptingamerica.org/2010/09/15/tv-ad-facts-%E2%80%9Cstop-d...

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, oh, yeah, that Teaparty

OofU, oh, yeah, that Teaparty of yours is one bad political machine. You are legends in your own mind but I still think you will overplay your hand.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Anything is possible

but and that's a huge but we are made up of everyday average Joes. Without all the Special Interest that makes up the other parties. No Unions, No Community Organizers, No agitators. Just common folks that are tired of the taxes and Big Government. The Corruption and the paybacks.

What I find funny, strange and alarming is how big Liberals/Progressives (you?) actually think that the current form of Government is the right form.

Billions of dollars are being wasted/Lost. Money that is just disappearing.

Do you pay taxes? If so, then why are you for either of these two parties? Both are lining their pockets with our money and you defend this?

Now if you are on the handouts and have no tax liability then I can see why you want the status quo. Is that your issue? Are you just another receiptiant? If not then let's change the Government together.

You think we want to force God on people? That's talking points and BS. All we want is a responsible Government. Responsible to us all of us.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OufU, are you telling me the

OufU, are you telling me the Teaparty doesn't receive funding and material support from special interest? I don't think so.

What do you do at Teaparty meetings if you’re not making back room deals? Having a few beers and taking turns riding on the Billy-goat?

I don't have a gripe with our current form of government. I do have a gripe with special interests that have too much influence on our political process. That doesn’t mean I want to abolish them. They have a right to participate and be heard but right now they seam able to call every tune. That’s not the way it’s supposed to be.

You would think we would have some common ground on special interest issue but we don’t. From what I see, the only special interests the Republican's and Teaparty want to get rid of are the ones that oppose their point of view.

Yes, I pay taxes and nobody wants to waste money but your idea of waste may be different than mine. You give lip service to blaming both parties but in the end you will vote the Republican line.

You say you want a government that is responsible to “all of us.” Yet you demonize anyone that doesn’t agree with you on every issue. Your idea of, “all of us,” is not the same as mine.

In my opinion, if the Teaparty is successful at the polls, they will bring to government the moral equivalent of what Frank Lorenzo brought to Eastern Airlines.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Gort I am sure the tparty worries you

as a Progressive you should be. Your idea of America is in any way shape or form Unsustainable.
America is not a Socialist Country and that is a fact. Progressivism by it's very nature is Socialistic.
You believe in Wealth fairness. AKA Re-distribution of Wealth. You may claim you don't but as a progressive your party does.
You also believe in Social Justice not Equal Justice. You may claim you don't but your party does.
You want Government to take control of our lives i.e. Universal Healthcare because life is hard. You may claim you don't but your party does.

Nothing you stand for can I find any agreement with. So if I stand against your beliefs and you wish to characterize that as "demonizing" you then I can accept that.

I will never waiver from my values or my principles and that my dear gort is a fact.

btw- You said "My idea of waste may different then yours".

How about Stimulus monies for studies on why Pig Crap stinks, or Wine trains in California, or teaching Computers to tell jokes, or cricket sex studies and on and on and on..

Just what is your idea of waste?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, two things I consider a

OofU, two things I consider a waste, is you telling me what I believe and the roll of the Teaparty in American politics.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Note I did not say you believe it

I think I did say MAY.. Meaning - perhaps, maybe. But asking a progressive to understand small nuance's like that is like asking the Government to stop spending money. A true WASTE of time.

btw- it's role not roll Government educated I see.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, I’ve been watching your

OofU, I’ve been watching your Teaparty’s angry mob performance for quite a while and I’m very familiar with all your “small nuances.”

Before I push Save, let me take a minute to thank you for pointing out my grammatical error. It is entirely my fault and has nothing to do with my government sponsored education. Someday I hope I can, (retaliate, no that is too harsh a word, lets say,) reciprocate in kind. See you in the funny papers!

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Angry "MOB" performance

oh you must have meant the G-8 summit riots. Those were not Righties they were lefties.

Just how many arrest has come from that "Angry Mob" btw?

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
CHR$

As usual, you gloss over the part where your precious Dems controlled the senate and the house the last two years of Bush's presidency, your mantra is never blame a Dem, and yet you call yourself an independent. In actual fact you're just a lying sack of __________, fill in the blank here.

skyspy
skyspy's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/08/2005
Morgan: Let's not Forget

The dems. have been in charge of congress for the last 4yrs. They are just as much at fault as Bush for our failing economy. Bush is at fault for not vetoing everyone of their outrageous spending bills. The dems. including the wildly rabid liberal sen. obumbles created our debt, and his only plan to cure the debt is to keep spending.

obumbles can blame Bush and the republicans all he wants to but, the dems. have been in control for 4yrs and we are all worse off because of it.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
THE REALITY

We can argue and guesstimate all we want to - the facts:

The Bush era Republicans/Democrats left us in a mess. The Obama era Democrats/Republicans have been slow to get us out - but we didn't sink to the bottom/and we regained world respect; health care; regulation of the financial world . . .so far.
If we, as citizens, don't come out and vote in November - we will deserve what we get (whatever that may be). Those who choose to sit home and let the other guy do it (corporations/wall street/big donors) - are fools. This game of Bush vs. Obama is just that - a game. . . to involve those who don't take the time to research/understand the issues so to feel knowledgeable and involved in the 'cute' rhetoric. There are ethical people out there who WILL NOT SIGN the Republican 'creed' to go along with the 'party' on all issues (some Teas won't sign) - and they may be elected. (But unfortunately not enough to break the power hold of the long-term politicians that are in both parties)
The point of discussions like this is not to change the opinions of the participants - but to expose others to different perspectives/opinions. The evening of November 2nd will tell the story. . . .and the economic condition of the country in November of 2011 will help to determine the outcome of the 2012 election.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
World respect??

You are delusional, David's Mongrel. Ahmadinejad was in NY yesterday spitting right in the face of Obama and his failed 'leadership'.
The world doesn't respect him - neither do his constituents. Obama was reduced to nothing but a weak, sputtering fool during his fundraiser.

It's not Bush vs. Obama - you libs just can't get it right and Obama is in perpetual campaign mode - still blaming Bush.
It's Obama vs. America, and he is obviously out to defeat us with his failed socialist policies.

Barack Obama is the Great Black Dope.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
There It Is!!

Joe Kawfi - the intelligent, well-educated, product of the United States. The pride of Fayette County. The debater extraordinaire. The individual who never resorts to racist remarks. Thank you for your enlightened contributions to this discussion.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Joe

The little man from Iran was spitting in all of our faces. He has the leverage of peace/war in the Middle East. . .and he has the moral ethics of a snake. Forget the campaign - and McCain's loss. The little man from Iran will defeat a divided United States. Whose side are you on?

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
DM

I'm on the side that desires a strong America. Potus and his minions have weakened America and will continue to do so until they are voted out of office.

I am on the side that wants a strong America that Ahmadinejad fears. We don't need his respect, but we do want him to fear us. It's obvious that due to the failed appeasement foreign policy of Obama that he does not fear us.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Joe

If he didn't fear us and Jordon and Egypt and Israel - the Middle East would be involved in a nuclear disaster right now. The world cannot stomach/afford another Hiroshima. If we (the global leaders) let this 'leader' launch a nuclear attack on Israel - we will feel the pain on every continent on this planet. What will that accomplish? Our strength needs the support of allies. Diplomacy is tantamount to 'peace'. Stop listening to those who will profit from an all out war.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
JOE: fear

Iran and it's rulers, including the supreme religious ones, know very well that if they released any kind of nuclear or poison bombs on anyone in the middle east that they would without doubt exist no more within a day or two!
They are not that dumb.
Israel would probably beat us to the punch before they shot them off however.

We have enough warheads (accurate) in submarines alone, not counting our new missile cruisers and destroyers, to drop sufficient bombs on them immediately if they tried something like that! We wouldn't even have to use the land-based ones.

That is why we need not let the terrorists in the middle-east road bomb us to death for ten years! Let them blow up each other. We can handle what few of them get here and bomb us here or poison our water, etc. The new HS department and the new FBI, and the New CIA, among other special forces and secret organizations will keep that sort of thing to a minimum without us losing more lives than they do.

Yes, they have fear, but can get a little something every time they threaten. Right now Iran wants free technology for uranium for "peaceful uses." My goodness Iran couldn't even defeat Iraq in a ten year war!

We have a lot of "False fear" for oil and political purposes that we need to refine.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Why did the "Little man" meet with Farrakhan?

I guess the New Black Panthers and Iran are close buddies.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Observerofu

Napoleon complex?

Little men meeting with the little man?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
That's the problem with

those that have a deficiency issue. They always think they are larger then they really are

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Some real facts on deficits and surpluses

BUDGET DEFICIT: DEMOCRATS VS. REPUBLICANS (graph, historical data)

http://factreal.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/budget-deficit-democrats-vs-rep...

As Joe Friday said: Just the Facts

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Observerofu

Please don't confuse some people on this string with facts.

They can't produce data to refute you and you'll upset them and they will call you names!

Let's see, we could always start with some old stand bys....unfeeling clout, or cold, or reactionary, or oh yes, racist, or they could simply deflect, like you don't punctuate right, or you hate artists, or you don't spell correctly, or you're a right wing nut. I could go on and on.

You had better stop posting this "stuff".

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Facts are stubborn things

hard to refute but easy to ignore.

Unfortunately too many "Party" wonks are just to mired in ideology to get a glimpse of what is really happening in this Country.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Don't worry PTCO

Facts don't matter anymore. People here still claim that Clinton didn't generate budget surpluses in spite of the fact that he provably did and at the same time they post claims that Clinton's surpluses were the result of the Republican Congress even though the Republicans added to Clinton's budget every year.

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
Nice Spin Jeff...

...But please explain that since the national deficit was not reduced throughout Clinton's presidency, what happened to those 'probable' surpluses.

But, as yiou say, "Facts don't matter anymore."

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Mike K: Clinton Surpluses

Mike, of course when more money came into the treasury than was spent, it decreased the National Debt! First times in many, many years! I don't think anyone stole it!
A surplus doesn't mean the total debt disappears.

The top 1.2% of taxpayers had a small tax increase also, and less money was spent, which helped. It was repealed in his second administration, I think. It also did not cause a recession as some now say would happen with an increase on the top earners.

Economic theories are crap when they are deterred by smart crooks!
There is NO theory of economics that can guarantee economic progress.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Where's the spin Mike?

Yes it's true that gross national debt rose under Clinton because future obligations to Social Security and especially Medicaid grew. Since trust funds debt is intra-government debt and doesn't affect the economy, economist focus on publically held debt,

The National Taxpayers Union, which can hardly be described as a liberal group by any stretch of the imagination, explicitly states the difference:

"The $13 trillion statistic is the gross national debt, a somewhat misleading measure of debt because it includes money that the government owes itself (such as assets in the Social Security trust fund). Publicly held national debt, which is just under $8.5 trillion, is what we care about because it is a measure of how much the U.S. owes both Americans and the rest of the world."

The article can be seen here:

National Taxpayers Union

Clinton reduced the publically held debt in four of his eight years.

The facts are that during Democratic presidential terms the economy always does better. Per capita income rises faster, government deficits rise more slowly, the stock market rises faster and more jobs are created. Control of Congress is irrelevant.

You would be hard pressed to find any economic trend in which the Republican administrations beat the Democratic administrations over an extended period of time.

Here's a chart for the last 40 years:

US National Debt by Presidential Term

Republicans are lousy at economics but great at lying about it and great at PR.

Those are the actual numbers. Those are the facts. Where's the spin?

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Hey JeffC

I hope your dad is OK.

MajorMike
MajorMike's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/20/2005
JeffC

Ditto

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Jeff C

We were away from all technology - but when we read the paper we joined millions of others throughout the world in praying for your father's speedy recovery. (Who said effective prayer is 'old hat'?)

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
DM

About 300,000 people per year get a stomach virus. Most suffer at home a day or two until the body eliminates it. Some need a shot.

I do not understand this thing of saying I will pray for you for your hangnail!

If you really like Mr. Carter, then support that fine man!

It is like saying, "good to see you," to someone whom you detest. A habit
and a way to not have to think of something useful to say. Praise him, not pray for him! He does that.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
CHRS

You have your belief system, I have mine. Effective prayer has been a cornerstone of many in this country. You're entitled to your opinion. Talk about what you know - keep silent about what you don't understand.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
DM

What is a "belief system?"

I assume belief means faith. (yours--not others), but a "system" indicates many things are combined to perform in the same way for some use! Like a computer, a motor.

Personally I think such actions are a substitute for social intermingling.

Asking if you personally can do anything for a person's problems indicates more sincere desire to help, than to ask God or Jesus to do it!

Some you would be able to do that for, some others not.

I have never seen such crap as the TV evangelists stating that if you send money to his address that God will reward you 100 fold without failure---providing you have a belief system! It seems not many do.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
CHRS - I repeat

Talk about what you know - keep silent about what you don't understand.

Thanks for sharing.

MajorMike
MajorMike's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/20/2005
JeffC - Clinton sure had a way with the budget

Yep Jeff, Clinton sure had a way with the budget.

Despite the fact that Clinton was widely rumored to have been a long time CIA spook, he virtually crippled CIA spy recruitment by setting standards so high that they could not be met.

During eight years, Clinton decimated America's military. Our forces were cut almost in half under his stewardship.

Research and development on all new weapons systems were brought almost to a halt as other nations continued to build. Clinton destroyed nearly our entire arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons. Monsters like Saddam flourished as Clinton bombed aspirin factories, tent cities in Afghanistan and worthless radar stations in the Iraqi desert.

These are open facts, easily verifiable.

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
Jeff,

Just learned of your dad's hospitalization. I hope that all is well.

You are correct concerning debt due to spending revenues generated for Social Security that all of us sat idly by and allowed to happen. This is neither a Democrat nor Republican responsibility alone, they are both to blame and anyone that has been in Congress for the last ten years or more is to blame.

Personally, I see it as nigh time for a good tar and feathering of our elected officials.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
MIKE & Spy

I don't think there is anyone who doesn't want less taxes and less spending.

Most also do not want the Pentagon budget cut,. They are fussing terribly at this moment about Gates' proposed cuts.

I don't think there is a congress who would cut Social Security--it is poverty retirement now for laboring people who lived on near nothing while working. If not for Medicare they would go broke instantly due to Hospital and doctor bills.

As I said earlier about 80-85% of the budget currently is for the items above and other dedicated expenses. (like 7-8% for interest on the debt, etc.)

If you know how to cut enough from the 15%, the list needs to be sent to Congress and the President.

Most of the cash sent to the states for schools, roads, municipalities, Counties, etc., is now borrowed money. That wouldn't help the spending any.

Two wars at a trillion or more and another trillion eventually to treat the casualties and replace our military must be done.
NASA could be shut down and all laid off but that would raise the unemployment substantially counting all the sub-contractors and military involved.

Our schools are pitiful and Department of Education could be shut down (more unemployment) but the states would never pick it up by raising their taxes.
All parks and the Engineering Corps could be shut down, etc. Same.

We could let our infrastructure concerning water, erosion, dams, bridges, roads, power sources, and energy resources just go further to hell if you want.

Show me the list! I already know about the welfare list. A few billion.

Talking a good game doesn't cut the mustard. Even Sarah would know that, wouldn't she.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
MIKE K

The Social Security Account has a written promise from the Federal government to supply any or all of the money borrowed as needed! If SS needs it and the government can't pay it won't matter since all will be be gone to hell with all of the economy.
Also, SS is drawing interest on the loan. The wars do not pay interest.

The Note is located in a vault, in a building, on the Ohio River, near the W. VA line at Parkersburg and Marietta, Ohio!

By the way, I have no objection to all members of congress who have served one full term being defeated. I am for limited terms anyway.

We need to see what Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell, the crazy from Arizona, Ronald Paul, (no he would have to leave), and a few others can do to make it better. Oh, and Mr. Deal. Wonderful forgetful manager!

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
The numbers No spin zone time

Control of Congress Budget Balanced? Deficit/Surplus

President Dwight Eisnehower (Left office Jan. 20, 1961)
1960 Democrat YES $301 million
1961 Democrat No --$3.3 billion

President John F. Kennedy (Assassinated Nov. 22, 1963)
1962 Democrat No --$7.1 billion
1963 Democrat No --$4.8 billion
1964 Democrat No --$5.9 billion

President Lyndon B. Johnson (Left office Jan. 20, 1969)
1965 Democrat No --$1.4 billion
1966 Democrat No --$3.7 billion
1967 Democrat No --$8.6 billion
1968 Democrat No --$25.2 billion
1969 Democrat YES $3.2 billion

President Richard M. Nixon (Resigned Aug. 9, 1974)
1970 Democrat No --$2.8 billion
1971 Democrat No --$23.0 billion
1972 Democrat No --$23.4 billion
1973 Democrat No --$14.9 billion
1974 Democrat No --$6.1 billion
1975 Democrat No --$53.2 billion

President Gerald Ford (Left office Jan. 20, 1977)
1976 Democrat No --$73.7 billion
1977 Democrat No --$53.7 billion

President Jimmy Carter (Left office Jan. 20, 1981)
1978 Democrat No --$59.1 billion
1979 Democrat No --$40.7 billion
1980 Democrat No --$73.8 billion
1981 Democrat No --$78.9 billion

President Ronald W. Reagan (Left office Jan. 20, 1989)
1982 Split No -$127.9 billion
1983 Split No --$207.8 billion
1984 Split No --$185.3 billion
1985 Split No --$212.3 billion
1986 Split No --$221.2 billion
1987 Split No --$149.7 billion
1988 Democrat No --$155.1 billion
1989 Democrat No --$152.6 billion

President George H.W. Bush (Left office Jan. 20, 1993)
1990 Democrat No --$221.0 billion
1991 Democrat No --$269.2 billion
1992 Democrat No --$290.3 billion
1993 Democrat No --$255.0 billion

President William J. Clinton (Left office Jan. 20, 2001)
1994 Democrat No --$203.2 billion
1995 Democrat No --$163.9 billion
1996 Republican No --$107.4 billion
1997 Republican No --$21.9 billion
1998 Republican YES $69.2 billion
1999 Republican YES $125.6 billion
2000 Republican YES $236.2 billion
2001 Republican YES $128.2 billion

President George W. Bush (Left office Jan. 20, 2009)
2002 Split No --$157.8 billion
2003 Split No --$377.6 billion
2004 Republican No --$412.7 billion
2005 Republican No --$318.3 billion
2006 Republican No --$248.2 billion
2007 Democrat No --$160.7 billion
2008 Democrat No --$458.6 billion
2009 Democrat No --$1.41 trillion

President Barack Obama
2010 Democrat No --$1.55 trillion

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Yes OOU but...

You seem to think there is some correlation between control of Congress and the budget deficits as if the Republicans were somehow responsible for Clinton's surpluses. Since the Republicans added to his budget every single year, over 3% in 2000, I fail to see how they can claim any credit for anything except increasing Clinton's budget.

If they had actually cut anything, it would be a different story. I'm actually looking forward to the next budget under the Republican House.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Numbers don't lie.. People lie

those numbers are clear. When the budget was balanced who was in control? The Congress where spending originates has the most to do with deficits or balanced budgets.

The old lie is Democrats created the surplus. Another old lie is Republicans are worse for the budget.

Look to today and the last 4 years. Highest deficit ever and who controls congress?

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Get real OOU

For all practical purposes, the President submits a budget and Congress changes a minute part. The legislation is submitted in the House by someone in the President's political party to comply with the Constitution but it's still the administration's budget.

"The old lie is Democrats created the surplus. Another old lie is Republicans are worse for the budget."

Look at your own numbers. Since 1976, Ds have increased the deficit by $1739.7 trillion, $1550 of that under Obama. Rs have increased the deficit by $5951.3 trillion.

Claiming credit for Clinton's surpluses which resulted from budgets Clinton submitted and which the Republican Congress increased is just propaganda.

Next year, under the Republican controlled House, the budget is going to again be over a trillion in deficit. Under your logic, we can then conclude that the Tea Party controlled Congress is the biggest spending Congress in history.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
JeffC - spending

You are correct on this, both parties are guilty of fiscal corruption, I wouldn't put either party in charge of running a 7/11 store. They are spending this country into ruin. This bunch of Democrats have simply taken it to an extreme.

A plague on both their houses.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
PTC O

We agree except for that 7/11 part. I'd shop at a 7/11 run by the Ds or the Rs. I expect that I'd only have to pay for 65% of the price of the products, the Chinese would pick up the deficit.

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
Both National Parties SPEND

and then SPEND some more. No point in arguing about it.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
JeffC - Clinton

I am neither Republican or Democrat, but I think that President Clinton did one good thing that the current President is now trying to reverse. That is he changed welfare as we "knew it". Mr. Obama is going the other way.

Clinton's budget had the benefit of significantly reduced defense spending as a result of the collapes of the Soviet Union, which of course he had nothing to do with at all.

Jeff the problem is that both parties try to position themselves as spending less than the other, when they should be focused on how to actually significantly downsize the government. However, once in power neither want to do this as it does not serve their interest. That interest is Power itself.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Sky

sen. obumbles created our debt

I don't think so - and neither do most economists. A war that was never 'budgeted' - and borrowing from China, etc. CREATED debt. After Clinton - we had a surplus - remember?

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
DM

Would you please name a conflict in which we were involved that was budgeted? Surely the Congress anticipated Pearl Harbor, The Lusitania(sp) sinking, and 9/11 and appropriated the necessary funds.

Are you implying that Clinton reduced the national deficit, or was it that he presided within the monetary restraints imposed by Congress?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Mike King

This is a sobering account of what happened with the mis-managment of taxpayer money for the Iraq war. Military spending (war) is a large part of our US budget - and has been for years. There were budgeted funds for military action for Pearl Harbor, etc. Take the time to note how much money is UNACCOUNTED FOR!!

For your quick reading, Key statistics about the Iraq War and occupation, taken primarily from data analyzed by various think tanks, including The Brookings Institution's Iraq Index, and from mainstream media sources. Data is presented as of August 23, 2010, except as indicated.

U.S. SPENDING IN IRAQ
Spent & Approved War-Spending - About $900 billion of US taxpayers' funds spent or approved for spending through Sept 2010.
Lost & Unaccounted for in Iraq - $9 billion of US taxpayers' money and $549.7 milion in spare parts shipped in 2004 to US contractors. Also, per ABC News, 190,000 guns, including 110,000 AK-47 rifles.
Missing - $1 billion in tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces. (Per CBS News on Dec 6, 2007.)
Mismanaged & Wasted in Iraq - $10 billion, per Feb 2007 Congressional hearings
Halliburton Overcharges Classified by the Pentagon as Unreasonable and Unsupported - $1.4 billion
Amount paid to KBR, a former Halliburton division, to supply U.S. military in Iraq with food, fuel, housing and other items - $20 billion
Portion of the $20 billion paid to KBR that Pentagon auditors deem "questionable or supportable" - $3.2 billion
U.S. 2009 Monthly Spending in Iraq - $7.3 billion as of Oct 2009
U.S. 2008 Monthly Spending in Iraq - $12 billion
U.S. Spending per Second - $5,000 in 2008 (per Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on May 5, 2008)
Cost of deploying one U.S. soldier for one year in Iraq - $390,000 (Congressional Research Service)
TROOPS IN IRAQ
Troops in Iraq - Total 49,700 U.S. troops as of August 23, 2010. All other nations have withdrawn their troops.
U.S. Troop Casualties - 4,420 US troops; 98% male. 91% non-officers; 82% active duty, 11% National Guard; 74% Caucasian, 9% African-American, 11% Latino. 19% killed by non-hostile causes. 54% of US casualties were under 25 years old. 72% were from the US Army
Non-U.S. Troop Casualties - Total 316, with 179 from the UK
US Troops Wounded - 31,926, 20% of which are serious brain or spinal injuries. (Total excludes psychological injuries.)
US Troops with Serious Mental Health Problems - 30% of US troops develop serious mental health problems within 3 to 4 months of returning home
US Military Helicopters Downed in Iraq - 75 total, at least 36 by enemy fire
IRAQI TROOPS, CIVILIANS & OTHERS IN IRAQ
Private Contractors in Iraq, Working in Support of US Army Troops - More than 180,000 in August 2007, per The Nation/LA Times.
Journalists killed - 141, 94 by murder and 47 by acts of war
Journalists killed by US Forces - 14
Iraqi Police and Soldiers Killed - 9,654
Iraqi Civilians Killed, Estimated - A UN issued report dated Sept 20, 2006 stating that Iraqi civilian casualties have been significantly under-reported. Casualties are reported at 50,000 to over 100,000, but may be much higher. Some informed estimates place Iraqi civilian casualities at over 600,000.
Iraqi Insurgents Killed, Roughly Estimated - 55,000
Non-Iraqi Contractors and Civilian Workers Killed - 571
Non-Iraqi Kidnapped - 306, including 57 killed, 147 released, 4 escaped, 6 rescued and 89 status unknown.
Daily Insurgent Attacks, Feb 2004 - 14
Daily Insurgent Attacks, July 2005 - 70
Daily Insurgent Attacks, May 2007 - 163
Estimated Insurgency Strength, Nov 2003 - 15,000
Estimated Insurgency Strength, Oct 2006 - 20,000 - 30,000
Estimated Insurgency Strength, June 2007 - 70,000
QUALITY OF LIFE INDICATORS
Iraqis Displaced Inside Iraq, by Iraq War, as of May 2007 - 2,255,000
Iraqi Refugees in Syria & Jordan - 2.1 million to 2.25 million
Iraqi Unemployment Rate - 27 to 60%, where curfew not in effect
Consumer Price Inflation in 2006 - 50%
Iraqi Children Suffering from Chronic Malnutrition - 28% in June 2007 (Per CNN.com, July 30, 2007)
Percent of professionals who have left Iraq since 2003 - 40%
Iraqi Physicians Before 2003 Invasion - 34,000
Iraqi Physicians Who Have Left Iraq Since 2005 Invasion - 12,000
Iraqi Physicians Murdered Since 2003 Invasion - 2,000
Average Daily Hours Iraqi Homes Have Electricity - 1 to 2 hours, per Ryan Crocker, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (Per Los Angeles Times, July 27, 2007)
Average Daily Hours Iraqi Homes Have Electricity - 10.9 in May 2007
Average Daily Hours Baghdad Homes Have Electricity - 5.6 in May 2007
Pre-War Daily Hours Baghdad Homes Have Electricity - 16 to 24
Number of Iraqi Homes Connected to Sewer Systems - 37%
Iraqis without access to adequate water supplies - 70% (Per CNN.com, July 30, 2007)
Water Treatment Plants Rehabilitated - 22%

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Dm

You said "There were budgeted funds for military action for Pearl Harbor, etc." Please tell me how much was budgeted for the Pearl Harbor attack, did we spend it all?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Military/Security - hutch866

Look at the national budget. This country - any country has a budget that considers/includes the cost of protecting itself. The planes that were sitting at Pearl Harbor WERE IN THE MILITARY BUDGET!!

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Dm

Very big difference in a peacetime military and an at war military, except of course when YOU are splitting hairs.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Hutch/Kawfi/Mike King/and others

Don't hide your face in the sand. Take a look at the UNACCOUNTED FUNDS in the Iraq war. This isn't splitting hairs - it's a lesson for all of us NOT TO GIVE A BLANK CHECK without guidelines and regulations regarding the expenditure of taxpayer funds. The guidelines and regulations were there - just not followed. I had relatives that made their own metal protection for their vehicles in Iraq - while security forces paid for by Halliburton had superior equipment. We are proud of our war-readiness - and our peacetime budget that has a large military expense item reflects that. WE WERE NOT PREPARED TO PAY FOR A PRIVATE SECURITY FORCE - WHICH HAD UNACCOUNTED- FOR EXPENDITURES! We should have been buying war-bonds; war stamps, etc. to assist in paying for war. We used to be a war-based economy - until 'private enterprise' got into the wartime security business. Fiscal conservatives should have been screaming about this - and many were, regardless of 'party'. Excuse me - I guess it's unpatriotic to discuss this among conservatives. Certainly didn't mean to offend anyone - but WAKE UP - what is going on here is far more than ranting against a president who doesn't look like 'other' presidents. The United States no longer profits from war - private enterprise does - and any good businessman doesn't want to see his profits diminish. The American people cannot be accused of profiting from a war economy this time! . . .and Halliburton is now headquartered in Dubai - away from federal taxes. Geez. Prove me incorrect. It will make for good discussion. Obama has lost ground because he hasn't brought about the change that would stop this type of 'government/big business' behavior - and it wouldn't matter the color of the family in the White House - change that will cost certain private enterprises a loss will be fought tooth and nail. The American public had better wake up and elect enough individuals who have the GUTS to buck the status quo - regardless of PARTY.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Dm

YOU are splitting hairs when you compare a peacetime military budget and a wartime budget, there is no comparison and no war is budgeted before it starts, you can change the parameters of your statement, but the fact remains you were wrong.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Hutch866

You can run around Robin's barn all you want on this issue. We don't have the largest fighting force in the world because we do not prepare for 'war'. Hopefully we will execute a 'peacetime' military budget - but we haven't for almost ten years. What do you have to say about the unaccounted for 'budgeted'/non-budgeted funds that went to private enterprise in the Iraq War budget?

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Dm

I'm not running anywhere, in fact if anyone is dodging it is you. Your first claim was budgeted war, now after the fact, I agree, war can be budgeted, but not before it starts, but go ahead and dance around it. I never mentioned the unaccounted funds, all I talked about was your bogus claim about wars being budgeted before hand. The fact is, you misspoke and won't admit it, yet one more time. All in all, who cares, I just like to see you dance.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Hutch866

See Cyclist's comment. He explains your comment better than you do! We are the most prepared country on this planet to defend ourselves in case of WAR. (I hope!) That is what the MILITARY BUDGET is all about. Sorry that you don't understand that. (It's called preparation for war - and it's in the budget.) You don't have the necessary rhythm to make me dance - but it's cute watching you try. :-)

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
DM & Hutch

Please get off this subject!

You both know that the first year of a war is NOT in any budget that was prepared the year before!

However if action is taken with the next budget for that ongoing war to include money to fight it then it is budgeted.

If it is not mentioned in the budget but charged off to the loans taken out, then it is off budget, as is our current wars.

Then wars can be paid for quickly by raising taxes, selling bonds, or other means if it is possible or wished by the congress. That is basically
what happened in WW2!

Somebody admit they did not know what they were talking about and quit!

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Dm,

Be that as it may, you CAN'T defend you're comment, or statement, in fact you don't even try. But that's ok, your condescension is cute too.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Hutch/CHR

Done. Night! LOL!!

MajorMike
MajorMike's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/20/2005
DM - Military budget re Pearl Harbor

On the 7th of December 1941, there were 223 army aircraft based in Hawaii. Of these 223, only 77 were combat ready. Of that 77, only 57 were fighter or pursuit aircraft. At the time, the Brewster Buffalo was already a true antique and the P-40 (all models) was considered woefully inadequate to engage the Japanese Zero escort aircraft. Naval combat aircraft (from Ford Island) totaled 24. Even so, American pilots gave a good accounting of themselves, many losing their lives in the bargain.

Airplane Total Destroyed Damaged Combat Ready
B-17D _____12 _______4 _______4 _______4
B-18 A 33 _______12_______10_______11
A-20 A 12 _______2 _______5 _______5
P-40 C 12 _______5 _______5 _______2
P-40 B 87 _______37_______25_______25
P-36 A 39 _______4 _______19_______16
P-26 14 _______0 _______0 _______14
Total 223 ______64_______82_______77

Curtiss P-36A Mohawk pursuit, 1937
Curtiss P-40B Tomahawk pursuit, 1940
Curtiss P-40C Kittyhawk pursuit, 1941
Brewster F2A-3 Buffalo fighter, 1939
Grumman F4F-3 Wildcat fighter, 1940
Grumman F4F-3A Wildcat fighter, 1941

Yep, we were really budgeted and prepared.

As usual Dm, you don't know what you are talking about.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
MajorMike

You expect DM to understand whether or not those aircraft you mentioned were adequate or not?

Most people over 60 know by experience that we weren't prepared for a major war in 1941. We weren't even ready for Korea or Viet Nam with equipment.

Those who read a lot about that war also know much of that but usually haven't the ability to determine a budget comparison to arms.

As I said before, it is neither here nor there what the budget is when war is started, it is important to indicate the war bills and new budget at the next budget setting.

We did however have a fair young officer corps then and a "draft" to use.
We knew how to train quickly also.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Hutch

Did we spend it all?

Look it up. You would be amazed at what you find out through 'research'.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Dm

I don't think so, it's not my job to prove your bogus claims are true, that's the same response I got from you when you said 70% of white people voted for Obama. If you're going to state something as fact at least be able to prove it. If you can.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Dm

Still waiting on that 'research' of yours.

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
OK Guys...

It's late and I've got a tee time early tomorrow. Good night!

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Mike K

Whatis your handicaps?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Hutch866

Others have answered your question/concern. I don't have to repeat their contribution. You have difficulty comprehending mine. That's OK. Enjoy the day!

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Dm

Still waiting.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Still waiting

and waiting

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Hutch and wartime budgets
hutch866 wrote:

You said "There were budgeted funds for military action for Pearl Harbor, etc." Please tell me how much was budgeted for the Pearl Harbor attack, did we spend it all?

Hutch old buddy, I think you're being a tad disingenous here.

America has been involved in numerous wars since its founding.

In every single instance prior to 9/11, the country instituted a "pay as you go" policy to pay for wars. They weren't "budgeted" per se but the bills were paid as they came in, via a wide variety of (often unpopular) measures such as taxes and tariffs. The first income tax was enacted to pay for the Civil War. War bonds and hiking the personal income tax rate to 90% in WW2 also comes to mind, as does the "telephone tax" during the Vietnam war.

The overall thinking throughout American history seemed to be not to burden our children with the cost of our military actions.

George W. Bush changed all that.

The Wartime Deserter basically put his voluntary war on the nation's credit card, thereby sticking the bill to our children and grandchildren.

To further compound his error, he actually lowered taxes on the richest 2% of America, a singularly remarkable lack of fiscal discipline in the annals of warfare.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Pearl Harbor - Budgeted Military Expense
Chris P. Bacon wrote:
hutch866 wrote:

You said "There were budgeted funds for military action for Pearl Harbor, etc." Please tell me how much was budgeted for the Pearl Harbor attack, did we spend it all?

They weren't "budgeted" per se.......

And that was what hutch was trying to get a response for. There were no budgeted appropriations in FY '38-40 to placed money specifically for military action at Pearl Harbor. The Pacific fleet was moved there from San Diego as a show of force to the Japanese.

As for Bush '43 and budgets under his watch, David Stockman was right. We piled on both war and social spending without minding the hole we were digging ourselves into. Perhaps we can get our "WIN" badges out of retirement. We are going to need them.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Oops - Cyclist

The Pacific fleet was moved there from San Diego as a show of force to the Japanese.

Excuse me - I thought that was 'military action'. What is the correct nomenclature for such action? Thanks. (Part of a budget item called 'security')

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Davids mom

Fleet redeployment. US war planners were aware of possible objectives of the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) since the US had shut off the flow of oil after Japan ceased French Indo China after the fall of France. To replace this oil it would be necessary for the IJN to take the oil fields in the Dutch Asian territories.

Redeployment of the US fleet to Pearl Harbor was felt as a means of projecting strength. After all, no one believed that the IJN could carry out a raid at Pearl Harbor so the decision was made to place almost all of the pacific fleet assets at one location......dumb move.

Anyways, this wasn't budgeted.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Cyclist

You are a good and loyal friend to Hutch - but come on now. First, there were reports that the Japanese were headed for Pearl Harbor - but that's another discussion about 'dumb' decisions. Those planes, and the fleet were there to look cute? Those service men and women were there for peacetime activities only? Then why the training for war-time maneuvers? Now wouldn't that be a waste of 'budget'? What wasn't budgeted was the attack on New York - 9/11. Now we have Homeland Security. But anytime we use our service men and women in WAR - that has been budgeted. I guess it's a way of looking at the reason for expenditures. I just don't think we spend that much on a military force because we don't believe we will need it in time of war. We budget for the possibility and the protection. It may not say Pearl Harbor or Indonesia or Viet Nam or Grenada - but it is a budgeted item for our defense - right?

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Davids mom

Seriously, there were reports? Careful, you are treading on the conspiracy side.

Anyways, the US knew the IJN was not in port and the assumption was made that the fleet was moving south. War was near but the US could not conceive what was about to happen.

Those assets were moved on the money that was already appropriated.

Anyways the original comment was:

There were budgeted funds for military action for Pearl Harbor, etc.

I had a hard time understanding the though behind the comment. It would probably be a little more precise to say fleet redeployment to Pearl Harbor was part of the operating budget previously approved.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Cy

OK. Your wording is accepted. 'fleet deployment=military action' in my thought - but I'm just a civilian. Thanks for your clarifying input. RAIN!! :-)

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
CPB - really

pay as you go? You're kidding right?

The government hasn't had a balanced budget since Andrew Jackson.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Bacon. Bas, Locke, whoever

First, lets be clear, we ain't old buddies, in fact, if we go back several of your incarnations, we're not really even friendly. But to the matter at hand, Dm was talking about budgeted funds for the defense of Pearl Harbor, now as much as I love how smart you and Mom are, and let's make this clear, you and her are dancing around this. We are talking about BEFORE, I repeat BEFORE, hostilities break out. You, Mom and CHR$, can change the question, the parameters, whatever, but the fact is, you, nor Mom, nor $, can tell me before a war breaks out, how much was budgeted for that war.
BTW,I didn't say "There were budgeted funds for military action for Pearl Harbor, etc." . That was Mom, but feel free to dance with that partner.