TrainNut Loc: Ridin' the rails

And then he comes up with this:

RixPix wrote:
Bush budget deficits DO NOT include the costs of waging the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...the Obama DO include theses costs. Therein lies that wonderful REPUBLICAN MATH...you know that math that makes you feel good but is totally inaccurate!

So I asked:

I wrote "Please give documentation."

No documentation, it is just more lies.

Still no documentation.
He should be a farmer, he can provide his own fertiliser.

ps34109

"WASHINGTON — For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller. The price of more honest bookkeeping: A budget that is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear, according to administration officials.

The new accounting involves spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare reimbursements to physicians and the cost of disaster responses....


As for war costs, Mr. Bush included little or none in his annual military budgets, instead routinely asking Congress for supplemental appropriations during the year. Mr. Obama will include cost projections for every year through the 2019 fiscal year to cover “overseas military contingencies” — nearly $500 billion over 10 years."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html?_r=0

Of course, the dupes will say the NYT is making this up. Even though the NYT was a cheerleader for the Iraq invasion.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

You still don't get it, what the article is referring to is the appropriations process, kinda like what Obama has done with everything else including Medicare, Obamacare, and Fema... For budgetary processes those costs not being reflected make a proposed budget deficit to look smaller than it actually will be at the end of the fiscal year... Those so called "emergency appropriations are recorded in the Off Budget lines of the federal budget reconciliation, that spending does not remain unaccounted for... So when you look at budget historical spending and deficits those items are included. Bottomline when you look at the budget deficits as reported by our government Bush's war spending is included..

Are you people so thick headed that you can not recognize the truth? Do you really believe that Bush could make all that spending disappear? Are you so enamored with this feckless president that you would cast away your own ability to reason in an effort to defend his recklessness?

Samuraiz Loc: Central Florida

Additional information:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323477604579000933006361834.html

I like the quote:

The sequester cuts in annual budgets for the military, education, transportation and other discretionary programs have also been an underappreciated success, with none of the anticipated negative consequences.

I wonder how the president will take credit for this success after his most passionate speeches on the shear deadly danger of the sequester.


Also:

Liberals had hoped that re-electing Mr. Obama, the most pro-spending president since LBJ, would unleash another four years of Great Society government expansion. Instead, spending caps and the sequester are squashing these progressive dreams. Welcome to the new fiscal reality in Washington. All Republicans need to do is enforce the budget laws Mr. Obama has already agreed to. Entitlement reforms will come when liberals realize that the unhappy alternative is to allow every program they cherish to keep shrinking.


If president Obama has decided to use a different accounting method than his many predecessors to divert attention from the issues that he is personally responsible for, I am not surprised. I wonder what prop people will surround him for that theatrical speech.

ps34109

The truth? Anyone who doesn't admit the GOP, or whatever you want to call them, has done nothing for anyone but the wealthy and corporations for the past few decades to the detriment of the rest of us, can't handle the truth.

Samuraiz Loc: Central Florida

Careful with the wide reaching broad brush, partisan statements. You were not clear as to how many decades. Remember the Democrats opposed the civil rights act.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

You may be a nice guy but your thoughts on this thread are completely useless. You come and make a bunch of statements about Bush and the GOP not only to have them challenged but to have them discredited and then this is what you come back with? A broad nonfactual statement that is akin to me calling president Obama a socialist?, holds about the same weight as your statement and is based on about the same amount of demonstrable evidence based on reviews of each of their policies...

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

The Truth? How about some truth, you tell us that conservatives only care about the corporations and the wealthy all the while you show how shallow your intellect is as Dems buy your vote with a runaway entitlement program which the country can't afford, no matter that the Clintons, Obama's Pelosi's of this world and all of their friends gorge themselves at the public trough. How is it that the Obama administration awarded Nancy Pelosi's husband the contract for the high speed rail in California even though his company has a long history of delayed programs and cost overruns on public contracts, how did they then turn around and give him control and commissions on the sale of all the excess inventories of federal buildings in California. How did the relationship between Valery Jarrot and Barack Obama develop? How exactly did she become a multi millionaire? Was it feeding off of all the federal public housing dollars that Obama was able to bring to Chicago... Did she and her management company live up to their contractual obligations or did they just take the 10's of millions of dollars that they were paid and run, leaving the city of Chicago holding an empty bag and ongoing obligations that should never have been theirs? Who were all the big recipients of all that TARP and Green Jobs money that Obama was throwing around a couple of years ago? Who did Obama bailout? Mainstreet or Wall Street? Why did Obama give GM close to $50 billion in taxpayer money that they will never have to repay?

You are either poorly informed or just a liberal parrot.

charlie Loc: Minneapolis, Minnesota

I was quietly sitting in the corner following the varying lines of opinion. I was going to stay out of the fray. But after reading your posts I realized YOU really have nothing substantial to contribute. The purpose of your posts APPEAR to be "unions good, corporations bad". If I'm wrong others will tell me. Have a good day.

Captryan Loc: Massachusetts

Lincoln was a Republican and he freed the slaves.

TrainNut Loc: Ridin' the rails

Do the math, that is 270 billion a year.
It does not add up.

Adjusted to your figures.
Obama Deficits....................Bush Deficits
2014: $744 billion............2008: $728 billion
2013: $973 billion............2007: $431 billion
2012: $1,087 billion
2011: $1.300 billion
2010: $1,294 billion
2009: $1,413 billion

So in Obamas first year it only doubled. :thumbup:

gmcase Loc: Galt's Gulch

I am not defending the Republicans as they are basically one head of the two headed snake known as the US two party system. Same snake just different heads. But I have to ask if our debt and unfriendly business environment is due to too much or too little government? Is our freedom decreasing because we have too little or too much government? One's answers to these two questions will pretty much determine where they stand on most issues.