Debt under Obama increases $5 billion per day -- 3 times the Bush rate...

[keggerz]

Yea - perfect analogy. Let's try to reduce crime by doing more raping and murdering - that will for sure reduce the crime rate.

:sarcasm: Hmmm Rape and murder the rapists and murderers :/sarcasm:

[wiegie]

You also know damn well the reason we went from a surplus to a deficit was 9/11.

Anybody who "knows" that knows something that just ain't true.

[dmarc117]

Posty is so negative he can actually depress DMarc

 

 

if the truth is mean, let it speak

[borge007]

Shocker. This is what you get when you have an politically inexperienced person assume the role of Commander and Chief with a bunch of democrats in congress leading the charge. Democrats = large government = massive spending. When will people learn.

WE want Dubya-We want Dubya. Let's go back to the Republicants

[i_am_the_swammi]

Again - so you are satisfied withe Obama and the Dem comgress doing more of the same wreckless spending - ramping it up even? The biggest problem with Obama and the Dems is that they are too much like Bush and the GOP congress - spendthrift Good Day, Sunshines with exactly ZERO sensible ideas about how to run a country.

What Dem said they are satisfied witht he spending? Not me? I wish to go we did't have to spend so much to right htis country.

 

 

You libs might want to find something else to hang your hat on than comparing the Obamunist to W. on the deficit. That is and always will be a loser for you.

 

Bush Surplus/Deficit Fiscal Years 2001-2008 (billions of dollars)

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Statistics

2001 128.2

2002 -157.8

2003 -377.6

2004 -412.7

2005 -318.3

2006 -248.2

2007 -160.7

2008 -454.8

TARP -750.0

Total -2751.9

 

[bushwacked]

Obama isn't smart enough or courageous enough to pull out - more of being Bush 44.

 

 

This is just flat out inaccurate.

 

 

 

Gen. Ray Odierno met President Obama this week, delivering what a White House spokesman described as a “positive assessment” of the situation in Iraq and the prospects for American withdrawal. On Thursday, General Odierno seemed to make it official, releasing a letter to United States troops here that set Sept. 1 as a milestone.

 

 

“The time is right; the Iraqi Security Forces are ready to assume full responsibility for their internal defense,” he wrote in the letter dated June 1.

 

There are fewer than 90,000 American troops still in Iraq. By the end of the summer the number will fall to 50,000. Given the troops’ low profile in Iraqi cities since last summer, the shift may not be all that tangible to residents here. But as has often been the case in Iraq, dates take on a political significance in the United States, and General Odierno’s letter was perhaps the clearest sign yet that, however unsettled Iraq’s deadlocked politics may remain, the withdrawal will proceed on schedule.

 

Edited June 6, 2010 by bushwacked

[SEC=UGA]

Don't know where those figures came from...but here are the actual numbers. I am looking forward to the days that the Obamunist cuts his deficit in half. You also know damn well the reason we went from a surplus to a deficit was 9/11. You libs might want to find something else to hang your hat on than comparing the Obamunist to W. on the deficit. That is and always will be a loser for you. You are better off saying that he is a lot better at offering entitlements than Bush. At least that flies.

 

Bush Surplus/Deficit Fiscal Years 2001-2008 (billions of dollars)

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Statistics

2001 128.2

2002 -157.8

2003 -377.6

2004 -412.7

2005 -318.3

2006 -248.2

2007 -160.7

2008 -454.8

TARP -750.0

Total -2751.9

 

Obama Budget Deficit FY 2009/10*

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Statistics

2010 -1750

2011 -1117

Total -2867

 

This is interesting to look at and definitely captures the cost of 9/11, the wars in Iraq/Afghghanistan (whether right or wrong), the establishment of new government agencies in the war on terrorism, new business complaince laws, the patriot act, the medicare prescription drug bill, etc... that was fostered by the Bush admin. I find it extremely interesting that since 2004, arguably, after thnigs became more "under control", that our deficit began to come down until the TARP money started being thrown out there.

 

If you look at the current deficit, it is more than 10 times what it was in 2007 and over 4 times the highest deficit under the Bush admin, even at a time when we were expending huge sums on foreign wars and counter-terrorism initiatives (I'm sure similar spending is still occurring under the current admin). I would be interested to find out, since it appears TARP is included in the Bush total, how the deficit soared so high. It is more than likely due in large part to decreased revenue from taxes, but the tax structure is much the same as it was under the Bush admin when we began to see the deficit decrease. I would like to see something that breaks out total spending by the two admins as well as something that shows goverment revenues. I think this may give us a clearer indication of what is driving this deficit.

[Jimmy Neutron]

This is just flat out inaccurate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A NYT blog that says there will still be roughly 50,000 troops in Iraq means we've pulled out? No wonder the "pull out" method isn't very effective.

[bushwacked]

A NYT blog that says there will still be roughly 50,000 troops in Iraq means we've pulled out? No wonder the "pull out" method isn't very effective.

 

The info is based on an official memorandum from General Odierno, along with just being on a blog.

 

Before Obama was president, he stated he would effectively end the combat mission in late summer 2010, starting a 16-month drawdown while keeping 35,000 to 50,000 military personnel in Iraq through 2011. So far he appears to be doing exactly what he said he would do, and if you have a problem with that then fine. Saying Obama won't withdrawal troops and continue on the same path as Bush 44 isn't at all accurate and nothing more than you knee-jerking. I've always figured you to be above blatant backpedaling when you get something wrong.

Edited June 7, 2010 by bushwacked

[Jimmy Neutron]

The info is based on an official memorandum from General Odierno, along with just being on a blog.

 

Before Obama was president, he stated he would effectively end the combat mission in late summer 2010, starting a 16-month drawdown while keeping 35,000 to 50,000 military personnel in Iraq through 2011. So far he appears to be doing exactly what he said he would do, and if you have a problem with that then fine. Saying Obama won't withdrawal troops and continue on the same path as Bush 44 isn't at all accurate and nothing more than you knee-jerking. I've always figured you to be above blatant backpedaling when you get something wrong.

 

Obama campaigned on the promise to get out of Iraq by 2009. Of course he changed that position as he got more info from his aides as he got close to the Oval Office. Once he'd been in office for a few months, he adopted what was essentially the Bush plan - a slow "drawn down" (sorry, Perch!) based on goals being met by the Iraqi forces. He is Bush 44 in too many ways.

 

Just one example of hundreds about changing his stance in Iraq

 

They all need to be shot - that's all I really sayin' here.

[bushwacked]

Obama campaigned on the promise to get out of Iraq by 2009. Of course he changed that position as he got more info from his aides as he got close to the Oval Office. Once he'd been in office for a few months, he adopted what was essentially the Bush plan - a slow "drawn down" (sorry, Perch!) based on goals being met by the Iraqi forces. He is Bush 44 in too many ways.

 

Just one example of hundreds about changing his stance in Iraq

 

They all need to be shot - that's all I really sayin' here.

 

 

 

Okay, so Obama appears to be living up to his withdrawl plan he made after consulting with military officials in his first few days in office. A plan that was not in place up until the Bush administration was over and the Obama administration began.And therefore, we aren't withdrawing troops, just like it was under Bush, I think I got it now.

Edited June 7, 2010 by bushwacked