NationStates

How is spending 3.5 trillion dollars a year not considered a spending spree?

"Oh, I didn't increase it quite as much as other Presidents!"

...And? 3.5 trillion is 3.5 trillion no matter how you cut it. Most of all, I love the implicit assumption in the argument that Bush was something other than a spending adict himself. You know your argument is on shaky ground when it rests on the premise that Bush was something other than a prolifgate spender.

Actually, it was congress that went on a spending spree. You know, those 535 folks with no balls, no cojones and no spines. The spending bills have to be approved and appropriated by congress.

Want to blame someone? Blame them.

Gauthier wrote:

Ashmoria wrote:we had a thread on this

but its sad that we so try to block out our memory of the bush administration that we think that obama passed TARP and the auto bailout money in addition to the stimulus.

If people are clueless enough to elect the corporate serial killer in November, everyone will get a brutal refresher course on just what the Jar-Jar Administration did.

the thought if it gives me a little moment of panic.

Fal Dara in Shienar wrote:How is spending 3.5 trillion dollars a year not considered a spending spree?

"Oh, I didn't increase it quite as much as other Presidents!"

...And? 3.5 trillion is 3.5 trillion no matter how you cut it. Most of all, I love the implicit assumption in the argument that Bush was something other than a spending adict himself. You know your argument is on shaky ground when it rests on the premise that Bush was something other than a prolifgate spender.

its a big country.

I'm just gonna throw this down and walk away, while you lot all argue over George Bush and Barry Obama:

While Bush was bad, this report erroneously credits him with spending he did not do, Obama authorized spending that even Bush declined to do. But as the amount was authorized under Bush it went in his column.

Fal Dara in Shienar wrote:How is spending 3.5 trillion dollars a year not considered a spending spree?

"Oh, I didn't increase it quite as much as other Presidents!"

...And? 3.5 trillion is 3.5 trillion no matter how you cut it. Most of all, I love the implicit assumption in the argument that Bush was something other than a spending adict himself. You know your argument is on shaky ground when it rests on the premise that Bush was something other than a prolifgate spender.

Well, he could have cut 1 trillion out of the economy, but even his opponent in the election knows that would be a bad idea in a recession.

NyxNyke wrote:While Bush was bad, this report erroneously credits him with spending he did not do, Obama authorized spending that even Bush declined to do. But as the amount was authorized under Bush it went in his column.

If it's authorized under Bush, it wasn't Obama's spending...

That's basic logic right there.

Wamitoria wrote:

You-Gi-Owe wrote:Presidents Bush (43) and Obama had two common problems, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Are you seriously saying that Bush only ran huge deficits because of the two years the Dems were in control of congress during his tenure.

You can't just blame Bush for the massive spending that happened in his term. Congress was also to blame, regardless of which party was in power.

Same goes for Obama—it wasn't Obama who was responsible for the slowdown in spending, and many sources acknowledge this including PolitiFact and the Washington Post, the latter of which states directly that in their view the Republicans have been the primary reason for the stabilization of government spending and that if Obama had his way spending would have been ramped up to the degree Republicans claim it has been.

They even went so far as to give Nutting's claim three Pinocchios for that reason. It's not that spending has stabilized because of Obama, which was the general claim Nutting made.

Don't inject facts into people's politics, it gets ugly.

Arkinesia wrote:

Wamitoria wrote:Are you seriously saying that Bush only ran huge deficits because of the two years the Dems were in control of congress during his tenure.

You can't just blame Bush for the massive spending that happened in his term. Congress was also to blame, regardless of which party was in power.

Same goes for Obama—it wasn't Obama who was responsible for the slowdown in spending, and many sources acknowledge this including PolitiFact and the Washington Post, the latter of which states directly that in their view the Republicans have been the primary reason for the stabilization of government spending and that if Obama had his way spending would have been ramped up to the degree Republicans claim it has been.

They even went so far as to give Nutting's claim three Pinocchios for that reason. It's not that spending has stabilized because of Obama, which was the general claim Nutting made.

So Obama still, as if McCain, Romney, whatever Republican was in office Republicans would just be throwing away money on anything that caught their fancy. As Republicans only care about spending when they are not in charge.

Revolutopia wrote:

Arkinesia wrote:You can't just blame Bush for the massive spending that happened in his term. Congress was also to blame, regardless of which party was in power.

Same goes for Obama—it wasn't Obama who was responsible for the slowdown in spending, and many sources acknowledge this including PolitiFact and the Washington Post, the latter of which states directly that in their view the Republicans have been the primary reason for the stabilization of government spending and that if Obama had his way spending would have been ramped up to the degree Republicans claim it has been.

They even went so far as to give Nutting's claim three Pinocchios for that reason. It's not that spending has stabilized because of Obama, which was the general claim Nutting made.

So Obama still, as if McCain, Romney, whatever Republican was in office Republicans would just be throwing away money on anything that caught their fancy. As Republicans only care about spending when they are not in charge.

I did not mention any hypothetical scenarios. I only discussed what is presently happening in the real world, not in an alternate history.

Calm the hell down.

Arkinesia wrote:

Revolutopia wrote:So Obama still, as if McCain, Romney, whatever Republican was in office Republicans would just be throwing away money on anything that caught their fancy. As Republicans only care about spending when they are not in charge.

I did not mention any hypothetical scenarios. I only discussed what is presently happening in the real world, not in an alternate history.

Calm the hell down.

And I saying in the real world, all evidence points to Republican opposition to spending only derives from there being a Democrat in office.

And calm down? I was unaware that I was shouting or freaking out by mentioning the reality of the situation.

A Republican Empire State wrote:Our debt is still gigantic...keep trying...

This.

He didnt spent because congress didn't let him and he certainly didn't help the debt

Melkor Unchained wrote:

A Republican Empire State wrote:Our debt is still gigantic...keep trying...

This.

A game moderator didn't even bother reading the rebuttals to a bullshit point?

Wow.

Ashmoria wrote:

Gauthier wrote:
If people are clueless enough to elect the corporate serial killer in November, everyone will get a brutal refresher course on just what the Jar-Jar Administration did.

the thought if it gives me a little moment of panic.

Point of order: any modern president would have passed TARP and the auto bailouts had he been in office at the time. Those were both middle-of-the-road political maneuvers.

As for Romney? I don't like him but I'll probably end up voting for him anyway. I'd just as soon vote for Obama if it meant we could get a legit conservative in the running for 2016, but his court nominees are just too ridiculous. If he wins re-election and another justice or two retires, the courts will be fucked for the rest of my natural life.

Fal Dara in Shienar wrote:How is spending 3.5 trillion dollars a year not considered a spending spree?

"Oh, I didn't increase it quite as much as other Presidents!"

...And? 3.5 trillion is 3.5 trillion no matter how you cut it. Most of all, I love the implicit assumption in the argument that Bush was something other than a spending adict himself. You know your argument is on shaky ground when it rests on the premise that Bush was something other than a prolifgate spender.

I honestly don't get your point. Do you really believe that we should have drastically cut federal spending during the greatest economic downfall since the great depression?

Divair wrote:

Melkor Unchained wrote:This.

A game moderator didn't even bother reading the rebuttals to a bullshit point?

Wow.

I think "Rebuttal" is an overly generous term for how that point was answered.

Melkor Unchained wrote:

Ashmoria wrote:the thought if it gives me a little moment of panic.

Point of order: any modern president would have passed TARP and the auto bailouts had he been in office at the time. Those were both middle-of-the-road political maneuvers.

You mean similar to how any modern president would have equally passed the various spending bills that Obama passed?

Revolutopia wrote:

Melkor Unchained wrote:Point of order: any modern president would have passed TARP and the auto bailouts had he been in office at the time. Those were both middle-of-the-road political maneuvers.

You mean similar to how any modern president would have equally passed the various spending bills that Obama passed?

Yup.

To be honest, I chuckle a bit when I hear conservatives rage about Obama. In 2008 I predicted he would be another business-as-usual president and I was right. My mother can't stand him, and while I'm not exactly a fan myself, I find it hilarious that Republicans suddenly "care" about spending.

Melkor Unchained wrote:

Revolutopia wrote:
You mean similar to how any modern president would have equally passed the various spending bills that Obama passed?

Yup.

To be honest, I chuckle a bit when I hear conservatives rage about Obama. In 2008 I predicted he would be another business-as-usual president and I was right. My mother can't stand him, and while I'm not exactly a fan myself, I find it hilarious that Republicans suddenly "care" about spending.

What about Obama don't you like?

Melkor Unchained wrote:

Revolutopia wrote:
You mean similar to how any modern president would have equally passed the various spending bills that Obama passed?

Yup.

To be honest, I chuckle a bit when I hear conservatives rage about Obama. In 2008 I predicted he would be another business-as-usual president and I was right. My mother can't stand him, and while I'm not exactly a fan myself, I find it hilarious that Republicans suddenly "care" about spending.

Okay, honestly I agree with your point fully (through as a Liberal not as a Conservative).

Revolutopia wrote:

Arkinesia wrote:I did not mention any hypothetical scenarios. I only discussed what is presently happening in the real world, not in an alternate history.

Calm the hell down.

And I saying in the real world, all evidence points to Republican opposition to spending only derives from there being a Democrat in office.

So? Obama still isn't the one responsible for stabilizing spending. The motivations don't change the reality.

Paragade wrote:

A Republican Empire State wrote:
He hasn't reversed it. That's the problem.

You can't cut massive amounts of federal spending in a down economy, that would cause the economy to just slow down more, even Romney acknowledges this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/2 ... 45933.html

This is a capitalist economy. You need to cut spending to help it. Less taxes helps the capitalist economy.

Wirbel wrote:

Paragade wrote:
You can't cut massive amounts of federal spending in a down economy, that would cause the economy to just slow down more, even Romney acknowledges this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/2 ... 45933.html

This is a capitalist economy. You need to cut spending to help it. Less taxes helps the capitalist economy.

Just like when FDR saved the economy by cutting taxes and spending, right?

Oh.
Wait.