Global Nightmare: America on the brink of....

Only Congress can approve funds. Only Congress approved funds for the war. Only Congress continues to approve funds for the war.

Kinda hard to "slander" anonymous.

Again.

 

If that were true, it would imply that the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan stopped after Bush left office(not sure where they manufactured the rest of the shortfall in Obama's numbers). It would also imply Obama did not instigate his unprovoked attack against Libya. Obviously the Iraq war is still going on, Afghanistan has been dramatically escalated by Obama, and Obama did attack Libya, so your theory seems to be wishful thinking.

 

That is actually interesting. Before the last election people actually believed that Obama will end the war on both fronts. It was a wishful thinking, but it was there and it was one of the main reasons people voted for him. 2.5 years later, it aint happening. And I rather doubt that it will happen in next 1.5 years. Or may happen right before the election.

 

I'm back...Ha Ha - I keep saying, "I don't have time for this!" (and then keep posting). lol. Anyway, I'm not sure specifically what Breeze is referring to, but I do think Bush handled the funding of the wars differently. He used supplemental appropriations. Obama criticized that when he took office. "This is the last planned war supplemental. Moving forward, the President is committed to honest budgeting and fiscal discipline in which these costs are accounted for in the budget -- and are clear for all to see. After seven years of war, the American people deserve an honest accounting of the cost of our involvement in our ongoing military operations. Source: WhiteHouse.gov"

I'll be the first to admit, budgeting, the economy, is really not my best subject, but I've been following this conversation, and have wondered if Bush funding the wars using supplemental appropriations might have made any difference at all in the numbers being presented in this thread.

 

Not really, the numbers are about Who accumulated how much debt, it is irrelevant how they used the money.. Even if Bush funded the war indirectly, it doesn't increase the over all debt he accumulated. It will just change the structure of budget figures. The same way Obama's direct funding can not lower the total debt he accumulated.

 

I see. Obama puts out a press release chastising the use of supplemental budgets for war funding and we are supposed to believe he is doing things differently. Perhaps this is the change we were supposed to believe in. Unfortunately, like most things Obama related, the reality is quite a bit different.

Am I the only one who finds it humorous that the supposedly "unbiased" politifact still gives him a promise kept, despite their own admission that he continued to usesupplemental budgets to fund his "overseas contingency operation"? They even went so far as to qualify and walk his promise back a bit for him. I especially loved the excuse, "we talked to a few budget experts who say there is nothing mischievous about using supplementals". LMAO! Then why blast the practice as evil when Bush did it?!! I'm surprised they didn't throw in some excuse  like, "the cat ate his homework". 

Anyway, the argument is  irrelevant. Supplemental money may not appear on the annual budget, but it is still money that gets spent by the federal government and, therefore, counts towards the debt numbers you can find at the treasury link I supplied. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to spend money you don't have and not have it count towards your debt, so long as you didn't list it on your annual budget? Perhaps in Brreezewood's world, things actually work that way.

 

Thanks Webby.

I found this too, it looks like supplemental appropriations are calculated into the gross debt but not the deficit.

@Obamanation - I guess that I agree with the liberal you posted in your article when they said:

At least it sounds like he's trying to put it in the budget, and using supplemental appropriations for unforeseen circumstances.

 

Anyway, the argument is  irrelevant. Supplemental money may not appear on the annual budget, but it is still money that gets spent by the federal government and, therefore, counts towards the debt numbers...



Supplemental money is not supported by tax revenue and is therefore a debit expenditure and why the article attributed the 6.1 trillion deficit to Bush as the Iraqi war was not financed as a part of the Congressionally mandated budget (offset by revenue) and therefore was an unfunded expense.
........

The quote above was the stance taken by the Administration to maintain the economic recovery from stalling or being reversed by a withdraw of revenue that is in support of economic expansion. The present House Leadership has not legislated or enacted any law to stimulate the economy since taking office.
........


Grow up Mia, This forum may allow your behavior but for your own sake try and become an adult. 

 

The problem is Breeze, that article wasn't attributing total deficit, it was attributing total debt. You can not add supplemental appropriations twice just to make some figures up. It's already added into the Gross Debt.

 

Webby, that is correct the supplemental is added to reach total debt.

Your "Source" (wars & tax cuts) were combined to deerived their number. The war under Bush alone lasted twice as long as WWII and was funded wholly by the American taxpayers supplemental (void of) collectable revenue that itself was lowered by the Bush Administration.

 

LoL. Either that or he was just using it to create create political unrest against the party in power. The idea that Obama could not have anticipated in October, the costs associated with his  decision to surge 30,000 troops  into Afghanistan in December defies history and reality. The public found out about the McChrystal's surge recommendation in July of 2009, 3 months before the budget. Obama probably new about it months prior. Obama sat on the surge decision for nearly 6 months, causing many people to wonder if he was capable of making a decision. Either way, I'm sure Bush fans could conjure up a variety of equally credible excuses for why supplemental funding was used for war expenses in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they would be equally full of sh*t.  Partisans always seem to want to have it both ways.

If my wife were to run her $10,000 emergency credit card to the limit and have me pay it off on a monthly basis  for several years in a row, I can't see how moving that credit card to the monthly budget and getting her a new $3000 card for "emergencies" which she promptly uses, helps me in the slightest.


At the end of the day, that bottom line debt number just keeps on rising, despite the fact the tax receipts are higher than ever.

 

I'm surprised to see that Russia has a BBB rating.

 

I'm not even sure what you're saying here. It sounds like first you're saying Obama wasn't sincere in his criticism of supplemental appropriations, he just wanted to make Bush? look bad. I'm not sure when he first mentioned it, but I only heard about it after he was President. Then you appear to be saying he planned the surge before the budget, but he intentionally didn't put it in, didn't that kind of piss off a lot of his supporters? Exactly what would be his payoff for doing that? Then, you're saying he sat on the surge decision for six months. Either implying he couldn't make the decision or everyone just thought he couldn't. Not sure. Then you appear to be saying anyone who excuses Obama for requesting a supplemental appropriations in these circumstances must be full of shit (which I guess includes me). Ha Ha. Then, you're going off about your wife, at first I thought you were married to President Bush, but then I realized my mistake when you said the bill was being paid regularly... All I'm saying here is that at least I do appreciate Obama's attempt (although imperfect) to put war expenses in the budget. Oh well. Goodnight. lol.

I didn't know that. If true, that's a shame. I wish we would all start doing better.

 

It was rather wordy. Perhaps too many points lumped in.  I'll bullet point it.

a) Obama's complaints about use of supplementary funds for war funding was clearly just "politics", kind of like voting against raising the debt ceiling as a Senator, then calling those who would vote against raising the debt ceiling "Terrorists".
b) When I say "politics" I mean make the party in power(Bush) look bad.
c) When I say "politics" I mean he probably wasn't sincere.
d) When I say he acts as a president in discord with his complaints about the presidency as a senator, I am calling him a hypocrite.
e) His indecision on the surge was off topic. I only brought it up to point out he knew he may have to fund 30k troops additional troops in July(40k requested). He could have easily added money contingent in his budget for such an action.
f) The motives for his indecision on the surge we are left to guess at. I'd say he is unable to make tough decisions. As you point out, there is no other apparent ulterior motive.
g) I said partisans are full of excuses for their pet pigs.
h) I said partisan excuses those excuses are full of sh*t regardless of which side they are made for. There is no excuse for poor performance, and excuses just feed the nanny state mentality we are being taught to embrace.
i) I said the same set of rules/excuses could be equally applied on either side of the partisan divide
j) The wife/credit card story was simply a metaphor for Obama's movement of war spending from the supplementary to the regular budget. Whether you call the spending supplementary or budgeted, it comes from the same pool of taxpayer dollars and borrowing. Perhaps having it on the budget is more honest, and perhaps having it on the budget allows you to spend much more by spending the newly approved war budget and continuing to pull money from supplementary spending.

While I don't consider you a partisan, and I think of your excuses for our president to be well meaning, I obviously differ with you on how much leniency this arrogant idiot needs to be shown while he bumbles and lies his way through what may be the most difficult job on the planet. What can I say, he applied for the job and all that comes with it. I'll be more than happy to show him a bit of leniency when he is out of office, assuming that, unlike Carter, he doesn't keep coming back to haunt us with more idiocy.

Its the world series, and no matter how much you may like him as an individual or feel bad for him as a person, he is losing us the game. Its time to send Bo-Bo the clown to the bleachers. Personally, I don't even like him as an individual any more. Its a pet peeve I have about continually being lied to. The man thinks we are a nation of idiots, and treats us accordingly.

 

To avoid confusion:

Obamanation: Bold
Rebecca: Italics


It was rather wordy. Perhaps too many points lumped in. I'll bullet point it.

a) Obama's complaints about use of supplementary funds for war funding was clearly just "politics", kind of like voting against raising the debt ceiling as a Senator, then calling those who would vote against raising the debt ceiling "Terrorists".

- This is obviously an opinion. it really wasn't "clear" to his supporters.

b) When I say "politics" I mean make the party in power(Bush) look bad.

- I don't remember supplemental appropriations even coming up in his campaign. Not to say it didn't, but after 2 terms of Bush, all he really needed to say was "I'm not Bush!"

c) When I say "politics" I mean he probably wasn't sincere.

- No, really? I'm so glad you made that easier for me to understand with your special bullet system.

d) When I say he acts as a president in discord with his complaints about the presidency as a senator, I am calling him a hypocrite.

Okay.

e) His indecision on the surge was off topic. I only brought it up to point out he knew he may have to fund 30k troops additional troops in July(40k requested). He could have easily added money contingent in his budget for such an action.

It kind of was on-topic. That's because you're suggesting many different theories (other than the one I believe is most probable).

f) The motives for his indecision on the surge we are left to guess at. I'd say he is unable to make tough decisions. As you point out, there is no other apparent ulterior motive.

Hopefully, he'll display his "real" birth certificate soon.

g) I said partisans are full of excuses for their pet pigs.

Good one.

h) I said partisan excuses those excuses are full of sh*t regardless of which side they are made for. There is no excuse for poor performance, and excuses just feed the nanny state mentality we are being taught to embrace.

Lots of partisan excuses going around.

i) I said the same set of rules/excuses could be equally applied on either side of the partisan divide

You did.

j) The wife/credit card story was simply a metaphor for Obama's movement of war spending from the supplementary to the regular budget. Whether you call the spending supplementary or budgeted, it comes from the same pool of taxpayer dollars and borrowing. Perhaps having it on the budget is more honest, and perhaps having it on the budget allows you to spend much more by spending the newly approved war budget and continuing to pull money from supplementary spending.

It does sound better. As Obama said, "...in which these costs are accounted for in the budget -- and are clear for all to see. After seven years of war, the American people deserve an honest accounting of the cost of our involvement in our ongoing military operations."


While I don't consider you a partisan, and I think of your excuses for our president to be well meaning, I obviously differ with you on how much leniency...

Thanks for that.

Its the world series, and no matter how much you may like him as an individual or feel bad for him as a person, he is losing us the game. Its time to send Bo-Bo the clown to the bleachers. Personally, I don't even like him as an individual any more. Its a pet peeve I have about continually being lied to. The man thinks we are a nation of idiots, and treats us accordingly.

I'm going to be very frank. I used to like the Republican party much more than I do today. I clearly remember the day Obama was elected. Oh. my. All the whining, raging, and crying! I thought to myself this will pass. But it never did. Republicans have morphed into something much less unrecognizable. Of course, even with Bush it had changed. He was anti-fiscally responsible, and anti-small government (2 terms of this). I don't talk about it much (nor will I), but over time I've started to believe aspects of the Iraq war was a lie - I mean, if you want to talk about lies, hey. Back to the present, so we now have 3 years of crying Republicans. It doesn't seem like the goal is the betterment of our country. Instead, it seems the main goals are do whatever Obama doesn't want to do, make Obama look bad, and make him a one-term President. I would expect behaviour like this from grade school children, but it's not as much fun when these are the people running the government. Oh, and do Republicans even have a great candidate? No. They've been to busy whining and crying. And, this whole debt ceiling fiasco is just the icing on the cake. Republicans voted it up 7 times for Bush, I think like, what 17 times for Reagan? But, no, it's a Democrat President, so let's just be as shitty as we possibly can be. Let's risk default and disaster! Republicans won. Congratulations!

 

I backed the opinion with credible evidence. Everyone is entitled to their own way of absorbing the facts, which is why our news agencies have evolved into propaganda outfits. Repeating the evidence here certainly wont help anything.  

Feel free to share your theory on why he waited 6 months to act on McChrystal's recommendation while our troops were dying. I think most people would have considered a month sufficient time for careful consideration of such a large decision.

Really?

Rebecca, it seems you have become more testy and more partisan since your squabbling with Corwin.  Let me just concede the off topic points that Bush may have lied about Iraq and that Bush was fiscally irresponsible right now. People talk about the Tea Party being a response to Obama, but the reality is, the Tea Party was a response to Bush. The whole accusation of "whining and crying", whether it be about the debt crisis or Obama's election to office is also just an opinion, and a talking point being pushed heavily by several media outlets. I'm a little fearful you might say next that Obama may be being treated "special" because of his minority status. Name calling, whether it be calling me a birther, or calling the Republicans "whiners" does nothing to further the conversation. Even the comparisons to Bush, while highly debatable, are not relevant to the topic at hand. 

Fact: We are now at 100% Debt to GDP.  Fact: Obama fights tooth and nail to resist any shrinking of Government. Fact: In the middle of the "worst financial cirsis since the great deperession", Obama introduced a Trillion and a half dollars of permanent, new government spending with Obama-care. It certainly wasn't a necessary step to help "stimulate" the economy or deal with our nation's debt. It was an act of pure opportunism because his party controlled the legislative and executive branches of government. Fact: The bottom line debt number holds every president accountable to the direct debt created during his presidency. Fact: The Times of India article sandbagged the numbers.

If you don't like the Republicans, join the club. I personally want to see Bo-Bo out of office, but I'm hard pressed to say I want a Republican in the white house, especially if they take the senate, which looks probable. Having one party in power is largely responsible for the problems under Bush, and it is certainly to blame for the problems under Obama. Our government was designed to be a system of checks and balances (or what you call whining). The disorganization you see in the Republican party is the result of the Tea Party's acting as a check against them in the primary elections. Republicans are acting more like Republicans today than they have in a long time.

Get off the touchy feelly talking points, focus on the issue at hand, and give me a hug.

 

No.

I'm sorry.

Now that you mention it, debating Corwin did make me like Obama a bit more.

I don't support ObamaCare, though, I do support consumer protection laws in certain areas (for example, relating to pre-existing conditions). However, I find it hypocritical when Republicans complain about health care, welfare, entitlements, while they fiercely protect Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and tax loopholes for corporations. That's not intended as name-calling. I don't think of you that way. I'm just speaking in a general sense.

*HUG*

 

There is the Rebecca I know.

Now SHOW ME THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!!!

 

Numbers can be presented in many different ways.  Webby presented an initial set of debt numbers and the GOP defenders claimed very different numbers.

Obama entered office in a way similar to that of Franklin Delano Roosevelt;  the nation was in severe financial straits and the actions of government had to take that into consideration.  Enormous growth in debt since late January 2009 when Obama took office is significantly the result of 3 big issues:

1.  The Bush tax cuts instituted at the beginning of the 2000's.  
2.  The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
3.  The recession which dramatically cut back govt revenues through taxation.

While the defenders of the GOP don't like to reference that....why the hell was debt increasing like crazy during 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008????    What do they want you to believe:  that debt was invented with Obama.  It came out of nowhere.   That he is a crazy fanatical spender and the previous administration were penny pinchers?

That is nuts.   Its politcal whackiness and far removed from the truth.

Add to that Obama spent big on a stimulus program....about $800 billion including a big piece of tax cuts.

The stimulus program of spending would not have been necessary or even contemplated were we not facing the worst financial crisis since the great depression.

So when one analyzes debt one must recognize that much of the debt creation during the Obama administration is a function of Bush and GOP policies before it.

As to the recently last minute resolved debt ceiling crisis....it saw the 2nd straight time in which a minority of extremists on the far right put a gun to the head of the US government, its people, and said do it my way or I'll screw up everything.

The first time they did this it was at the potential end of extending unemployment benefits to the long term unemployed.   The ultra right wing timed the end of the Bush tax cuts with that serious issue and extended benefits to those who big businesses who have shown no interest in hiring Americans after slashing payrolls during 2008 and 2009.

A gun was put to the heads of the American govt essentially saying if you want poor Americans to eat gruel rather than nothing for the next year....make sure the wealthiest of the wealthy continue to pay relatively low taxes.

Blackmail against the poorest of the poor.  How Robin Hoodish of them!!! 

Most recently the extremist right wing said we aren't going to raise the debt limit.  Even though this has pretty consistently and non controversially been raised on a consistent basis since 1917.  Even though Ronald Reagan saw the debt ceiling raised up to 18 times during his term in office and when facing a crisis concerning questions wrote this letter to then Republican Majority Leader Howard Baker:

 

As Webby identified this piece of blackmail would have tanked the entire world economy.  Not that the blackmailers seemed to give a sh1t. 

The last minute agreement on the debt ceiling deal still leaves endless room for debate and issues and seemingly only delays the next attempt at blackmail till after the 2012 elections.  No hard cuts were made.  Only triggers were set in place in the event that the politicians in Congress can't agree on specifics.  (I'd say odds are 10-1 that they won't be able to agree on specifics.)

Its incredibly startling that a minority of fanatical pledge signers believe more in their cult fanatacism than the good of the country.

Reminds me a lot of fundamental terrorists. 

 

....lol.

I hadn't really been paying attention at the time, but recently had wondered why the Bush tax cuts had been extended beyond expiration. That's awful.