[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Iraq War - $1 trillion unpaid for

To be fair, wars end. Social programs are far harder to put a stop to (budget-wise) if you later decide they were a mistake. I'm as liberal as they get when it comes to arguing that spending $T healing people is orders of magnitude better (morally speaking) than spending $T killing them, but even I have to set my teeth on edge when I consider that there is no exit strategy for socialized medical insurance.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

1980 - Nationalization of Chrysler (Carter)

Yes, it was a mistake back then, and a mistake this year.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

1984 - Nationalization of Continental Illinois Bank and Trust (Reagan)

While they should have let it fail, the bailout of ONE bank is an entirely different thing than the whole banking industry. Still ,both is wrong and doesn't help, and only sets the stage for later bigger bailouts.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

2001 - Nationalization of US Airlines (Bush)

Huh? Did you just make this up?
The airlines were NOT nationalized, they went through bankruptcy.

-t

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Iraq War is a $3 trillion sunk cost.

Luckily no democrats voted for the war...Oh, no wait...they just denied they voted for it...

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

TARP bill gets repaid back with interest. It was an investment.

Even the missing, and unaccounted for money?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

To be fair, wars end. Social programs are far harder to put a stop to (budget-wise) if you later decide they were a mistake. I'm as liberal as they get when it comes to arguing that spending $T healing people is orders of magnitude better (morally speaking) than spending $T killing them, but even I have to set my teeth on edge when I consider that there is no exit strategy for socialized medical insurance.

That is the scariest thing about this mess and why I am so vehemently against it.

There is no exit strategy. There is no track record or successful model for which to use.

And you know the scariest thing of all? The people voting on this aren't even reading the bill and now there is question as to whether they should or not. Are you kidding me?!??!???!?

We can't undo this. If this fails our country fails. I don't understand why people are behind this being shoved through congress without being read. It is extremely alarming. I would be far more open to this type of proposal if it were done properly, but every instinct I have regarding human nature questions their intentions when this is being pushed through so quickly, so recklessly, and without any of the major questions being answered.

To my liberal counter-parts. You are my fellow American. I am willing to listen and hear your voice to build a greater tomorrow together. This bill cannot be the answer, however, unless all questions are answered (good or bad). Before the questions are answered the bill must be read by those entrusted to represent us. That is not happening. It has become beyond the point of liberal v democrat and the question of tomorrow will undoubtedly be people v government, unless we can get together and figure this predicament out. I cannot stress enough how important it is to our country that we make ourselves heard enough to get the questions answered before we throw this country down the shitter.

[hyteckit]

Conservatives - deficits only matter under a Democratic President

washingtonpost.com: Reagan Policies Gave Green Light to Red Ink



Reagan - Deficit spender. Not so great President
Bush 1 - Deficit spender. Bad President
Bush 2 - Deficit spender. Awful President. One of the worst.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yes, it was a mistake back then, and a mistake this year.



While they should have let it fail, the bailout of ONE bank is an entirely different thing than the whole banking industry. Still ,both is wrong and doesn't help, and only sets the stage for later bigger bailouts.

1 bank? More like 747 different savings and loan associations.

The US Government paid $124.6 billion for Savings and Loan bailout.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Huh? Did you just make this up?
The airlines were NOT nationalized, they went through bankruptcy.

-t

GM and Chrysler is going through bankruptcy right now also. Your point?

[Big Mac]

I wonder why besson stopped posting to this thread. It was after I showed him my old threads bashing Bush's spending, the type of thread he claimed did not exist. Strange.

[The Final Dakar]

Bashing Bush's spending? The core of both your threads seems to be Entitlement = Bad, and that really didn't have much to do with Bush.

[hyteckit]

Bush bashing? Sound sexually perverted.

How about some Reagan bashing?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I wonder why besson stopped posting to this thread. It was after I showed him my old threads bashing Bush's spending, the type of thread he claimed did not exist. Strange.

I'm busy! As much as it flatters to me knowing that you are sitting there refreshing the page waiting for my response, you'll have to wait

For the record, I was making a generalization about *most* Republicans in here being silent during the Bush years. My log of who said what is only a mental log, and I'm stupid, so I cannot and will not assign names to my spotty recollection.

Hopefully that will be enough to tide you over until I find more free time? Until then, hold your horses.

P.S. speaking of horses, I recently tried a sugar cube for the first time in my life. It was pretty cool!

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

GM and Chrysler is going through bankruptcy right now also. Your point?

Billions of tax dollars "enabling" them to going through bankruptcy.

While, on the way, the senior creditors were f***ed, and the more junior creditors (unions) got almost 100 cents on the dollar.

In short, decades of bankruptcy laws were completely and willi-nilly disregarded.

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Billions of tax dollars "enabling" them to going through bankruptcy.

While, on the way, the senior creditors were f***ed, and the more junior creditors (unions) got almost 100 cents on the dollar.

In short, decades of bankruptcy laws were completely and willi-nilly disregarded.

-t

You mean $15 billion dollars of federal money given to US Airlines "enabling" them to go through bankruptcy?

How the US airlines got their $15 billion bailout

History of U.S. Gov’t Bailouts - ProPublica

BAILOUTS

1980
Chrysler: $4 billion

1984
Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company - $9.5 billion

1989
Savings & Loan - $293.3 billion

2001
Airline Industry - $18.6 billion

2008
Bear Stearns - $30 billion
Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac - $400 billion
American International Group (A.I.G.) - $180 billion
Auto Industry - $25 billion
TARP - $700 billion
Citigroup - $280 billion
BofA - $142.2 billion

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Bashing Bush's spending? The core of both your threads seems to be Entitlement = Bad, and that really didn't have much to do with Bush.

And Bush expanded Medicare and failed to deliver Social Security reform. Of course, the Dems blocked his Social Security reform attempt, and they also would have blocked any true Medicare reforms, so I couldn't really blame him from that standpoint. I was, however, against the Medicare Prescription Drug entitlement expansion. I was against Bush's expansion of discretionary funding for all the departments he chose to expand. As you point out, my main beef is Entitlements because they are the biggest threat, but I'm sure I can find examples from other past posts criticizing Bush's other spending sprees.

Was I supportive of the war in Iraq? Generally, yes. I believe in terminating as many Arab/Islamic terrorists as possible, over there where they live, instead of waiting for them to strike us where we live. I believe ending the dictatorship of Hussein was a net positive. Yes, it was and still is a costly endeavor, and Bush failed in his pledge not to dispatch the military as nation builders. But I think America and the world are much better off without Hussein and without the thousands of terrorists who are no longer amongst the living (either by their own hand through suicide attacks or Uncle Sam's).

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Conservatives - deficits only matter under a Democratic President

washingtonpost.com: Reagan Policies Gave Green Light to Red Ink



Reagan - Increased Tax revenues out spent by Democrat controlled Congress.. Brought down the Berlin Wall and the USSR (with the help of John Paul II)
Bush 1 - Believed Democrat promise not to use tax increase in next election . Kicked Saddam out of Kuwait
Bush 2 - Lowered taxes and averted major recession. Had WTC attack to deal with, freed Iraq of Saddam .

Recent Figures These do not include Obacare.

As a percentage of GDP

[Shaddim]

I can't believe I'm saying it, but I wish we had Bill back.

[besson3c]

Bill Clinton seems pretty supportive of Obama's economic policies thus far, including the stimulus package.

[Shaddim]

Of course he'd say that ****, he's a party man.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Recent Figures These do not include Obacare.

As a percentage of GDP

Those are funny charts.

Reagan - Deficit big spender
Bush 1 - Deficit big spender
Bush 2 - Deficit big spender

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures � The Foundry

2009 deficit is mostly from Bush's 2008 bailouts.

Heritage of course says 2009 should be shared by Pres. Obama.

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)
....
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.

Let just let set aside the $2.6 trillion debt under Pres. Bush for Pres. Obama. Haha..

Why don't you transfer the $2.6 trillion debt back to Pres. Bush, the person who is President in 2008. That would give Pres. Bush a -7% and Pres. Obama a -3%.


Wow, Reagan was such an awful President.

Republicans - Big deficit spenders.

[hyteckit]

Look at the graph above for 2007 and 2008. Does it include any of the 2008 BAILOUTS? No?

Under Pres. Bush

Last 2 years

2007
Receipts: $2,568.2 billion
Outlays: $2,728.9 billion
Deficit: $160.7 billion

2008
Receipts: $2,524.3 billion
Outlays: $2,982.9 billion
Deficit: $458.6 billion

2008 BAILOUTS
Bear Stearns - $30 billion
Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac - $400 billion
American International Group (A.I.G.) - $180 billion
Auto Industry - $25 billion
TARP - $700 billion
Citigroup - $280 billion
BofA - $142.2 billion
----------------------
$1,757.2 Billion


$1.75 Trillion is shown in 2009. Haha... bailout belongs to Pres. Obama, even though all $1.75 trillion in bailouts was passed under Pres. Bush.


http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/browse.html


George W. Bush
Fiscal Year 2009
Fiscal Year 2008
Fiscal Year 2007
Fiscal Year 2006
Fiscal Year 2005
Fiscal Year 2004
Fiscal Year 2003
Fiscal Year 2002


Under Pres. Bush

Deficit: $3,975.1 billion


Pres. Bush rack up $3.98 Trillion dollars in deficits!

[hyteckit]

Heritage.org thinks national debt is $5.8 trillion in 2008?

Heritage.org says

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)

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09...y4486228.shtml

CBS says

On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The latest number from the Treasury Department shows the national debt now stands at more than $9.849 trillion. That’s a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush’s watch.

http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/ne...ebt-clock.html

In September 2008, the digital dollar sign was eliminated to make way for an extra digit—the "1" in $10 trillion (the national debt is currently $10.2 trillion). Now, a new clock is in the works that will make room for a quadrillion dollars of debt, according to the Associated Press.
....
According to the Treasury, the national debt has grown more than $500 billion each year since fiscal year 2003. The $700 billion government bailout could send the national debt to more than $11 trillion, says the AP.

[hyteckit]

Don’t Blame Obama for Bush’s 2009 Deficit | Cato @ Liberty

In addition to being theoretically misguided, critics sometimes blame Obama for things that are not his fault. Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year. This assertion is understandable, since the deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009. As this chart illustrates, with the Bush years in green, it appears as if Obama’s policies have led to an explosion of debt.



But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House. So is we update the chart to show the Bush fiscal years in green, we can see that Obama is partly right in claiming that he inherited a mess (though Obama actually deserves a small share of the blame for Bush’s last deficit since earlier this year he pushed through both an “omnibus” spending bill and the so-called stimulus bill that increased FY2009 spending).

Just so you know, Cato Institute is a conservative, libertarian think tank.