I side with:

[PiggyBank]

Quote from good ole boy:

If it started a war with Pakistan? A meaningless hypothetical.

Speaking as a liberal, Obama gets credit for giving the go ahead. Since he authorized the operation, we must acknowleedge that he authoprized the operation. Its a tautological fact. However, this CIC order was at the tail end of a large multi year operation that had the contributions of 100s and perhaps 1000s of Americans. was the very tail. It's not that liberals were blowing Obama's horn over OBL, it's that conservatives were deeply chagrined that it happened on Abama's watch, so much so they were shedding tears for poor old OBL.

that it is meaningless is your opinion, I would like to know where everyone stands. I mean we didn't have a right to invade Iraq according to some libs, (even though Congress authorized it) so how is it we had a right to violate Pakistan's sovereignty?

Anyway I agree with the raid, I would have agreed to it no matter where it was or who's toes got stepped on. I also have no problem giving obama credit as it happened on his watch. In fact it is the ONLY thing he has done that I agree with. I would just like to point out without Bush's war, obama doesn't get bin laden. He didn't make this possible during his administration. the people and pieces which made it possible were put in place under the last admin.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from DirkDigler:

Whoa, really -- they're two different things?

My only point is why couldn't the flunkies that generated your chart be content with 5.2%? No they had to get creative and find a way to make Obama look like a superstar when he's essentially average by one measure, and in fact quite bad by yet another.

For these comparisons, for one thing, many people are not differentiating discretionary from non-discretionary spending, and for another thing they don't differentiate between the rates of spending (growth, vs. per GDP). The only way to make Obama appear "quite bad", as you say, is to consider only non-discretionary spending, which of course would make any president look bad IF you think they're responsible for non-discretionary spending.

 

[DirkDigler]

Quote from AK Forty Seven:

Yes.One is the economy,the other is federal spending.Obama had no control of Bush tanking the economy,Obama has more control in having less spending growth then Reagan ,Bush 1 and Bush 2

Wow you're simply a fountain of titillating information. Let me take a moment to ponder - an incoming president has no control over what his predecessor did to the economy - brilliant! What's next, tomorrow the sun is going to rise in the east and set in the west.

It really is difficult to have a rational discussion when far left blinders are permanently affixed (same is true for far right obviously).

Lets have a look at yet another measure.

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from Ricter:

For these comparisons, for one thing, many people are not differentiating discretionary from non-discretionary spending, and for another thing they don't differentiate between the rates of spending (growth, vs. per GDP). The only way to make Obama appear "quite bad", as you say, is to consider only non-discretionary spending, which of course would make any president look bad IF you think they're responsible for non-discretionary spending.

I think it only makes the Presidents responsible for the "non-discretionary" spending look bad. Obama joins those bottom tier ranks with obamacare.. he is kinda in a tier of his own with the mandate.

 

[AK Forty Seven]

Quote from DirkDigler:



Lets have a look at yet another measure.

Bush took Clintons 300 billion dollar defense budget and increased it to 700 billion,Reagan drastically increased military spending as well so lets leave out increased military spending to make the republicans look better right ? LOL !!!




Obamas 1.4 % or 5.2 % increased overall spending growth is less then Reagans 8.7 %,less then HW Bushs 5.4 %,less then W Bushs 7.3 % and less then W Bushs 8.1 %

 

[Ricter]

Quote from PiggyBank:

I think it only makes the Presidents responsible for the "non-discretionary" spending look bad. Obama joins those bottom tier ranks with obamacare.. he is kinda in a tier of his own with the mandate.

Maybe, maybe not. We have another thread going somewhere with a discussion of Obamacare and its impact on the deficit and debt, with CBO estimates and revised estimates.

 

[wildchild]

Quote from AK Forty Seven:

Bush took Clintons 300 billion dollar defense budget and increased it to 700 billion,Reagan drastically increased military spending as well so lets leave out increased military spending to make the republicans look better right ? LOL !!!




Obamas 1.4 % or 5.2 % increased overall spending growth is less then Reagans 8.7 %,less then HW Bushs 5.4 %,less then W Bushs 7.3 % and less then W Bushs 8.1 %

I guess if you keep repeating the same debunked lie, it will somehow become true.

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from Ricter:

Maybe, maybe not. We have another thread going somewhere with a discussion of Obamacare and its impact on the deficit and debt, with CBO estimates and revised estimates.

Well let's be honest neither you or I or anyone else on here has read the 1 or 2 thousand page bill. I haven't actually looked at the CBO estimates, but according to Paul Ryan they use 10 years of funding and only 6 years of payouts. If true then that makes the estimates worthless.

What causes me to believe that it is a very obvious increase in spending is this: Everyone is required to purchase health insurance, however some people have no incomes and will not be able to afford it regardless of the law, they also can't afford the associated tax. So how the fuck are they going to have insurance? And that leads us to why obamacare raises taxes.. to pay for the uninsured who can't afford it. That is an increase in spending, not to mention the perpetual waste associated with all bureaucracy.

Now when taxes are lowered by some repub some day, they will get blamed for increasing the deficit, which is bullshit. That is why all modern Presidents seem like big spenders, because of non discretionary, unfunded, Unconstitutional federal entitlements.. the achilles heel of America, and the biggest threat to Western civ.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from PiggyBank:

Well let's be honest neither you or I or anyone else on here has read the 1 or 2 thousand page bill. I haven't actually looked at the CBO estimates, but according to Paul Ryan they use 10 years of funding and only 6 years of payouts. If true then that makes the estimates worthless.

What causes me to believe that it is a very obvious increase in spending is this: Everyone is required to purchase health insurance, however some people have no incomes and will not be able to afford it regardless of the law, they also can't afford the associated tax. So how the fuck are they going to have insurance? And that leads us to why obamacare raises taxes.. to pay for the uninsured who can't afford it. That is an increase in spending, not to mention the perpetual waste associated with all bureaucracy.

Now when taxes are lowered by some repub some day, they will get blamed for increasing the deficit, which is bullshit. That is why all modern Presidents seem like big spenders, because of non discretionary, unfunded, Unconstitutional federal entitlements.. the achilles heel of America, and the biggest threat to Western civ.

Fair concerns, but how does, for example, Canada make it work? They have poor people, too. At one time $40 a month was being deducted from my paycheck to cover Canadian healthcare (I no longer see even that, not sure why), hardly onerous.

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from Ricter:

Fair concerns, but how does, for example, Canada make it work? They have poor people, too. At one time $40 a month was being deducted from my paycheck to cover Canadian healthcare (I no longer see even that, not sure why), hardly onerous.

i don't know dude, but it still has an associated cost, the funding still has to come from somewhere. What I'm saying is these programs should be left to each state to decide. Then theoretically you get 50 chances to do it right. More importantly when it doesn't work, like our illegitimate federal incarnations, you don't add to the problem.. the state declares bankruptcy and restructures. That means individuals lose the associated benefits of the program because it was designed wrong. They get pissed and vote out the party or individuals responsible. it IS going to happen anyway, just like in Greece.