jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (71 posts)

Obama spends less than any other president!

  1. profile image0
    Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago

    From Forbes Magazine.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 … ack-obama/

    Quote:

    "So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative? It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

    Yup. Read the article. Reliable source. Bush and Reagan had the biggest budgets and Obama has had the smallest...

    1. Palomides profile image68
      Palomidesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Calling him the "smallest spender" is absurd.  Even assuming you buy the article's representation of the data, he is the "smallest increaser."  He's still spending more than any other president, ever; those numbers just show that he didn't increase spending as much as other presidents have.

      This article, also from Forbes, explains why the article you linked to is a ridiculous misrepresentation of the facts: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar … d-history/

    2. tirelesstraveler profile image86
      tirelesstravelerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You don't think 4 million for a 21 day family vacation is extreme?   Now do I remember correctly wasn't there a majority of democrats in both the house and senate in 08?

      1. profile image0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know who was in the house and the senate in 2008 while Bush was there becasue I wasn't interested n American politics at the time.

        I truly doubt that the $4 million was spent on buying beautiful things or going to the movies. I think it was more likely spent on security.

        http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/29/repor … taxpayers/

        Quote:

        "The Hawaii Reporter calculated the $4 million cost to taxpayers based in part on the price of a round trip flight to the island on Air Force One, the transport of the president’s support equipment, housing of security and staff and the cost of police to local taxpayers."

        This was never a figure released by the White House as far as I know. It says the newspaper worked it out. It costs Airforce One that amount for any president flying that far - not just Obama.

        1. tirelesstraveler profile image86
          tirelesstravelerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Mr. President has been documented by the media as traveling lots.  He was in California campaigning  last spring on four separate occasions.  He just came back from Cambodia and Laos. He was went to Las Vagas just after September 11. This is just a short list of where he has been. He was in PA at the Tinker Toy factory last week. I suppose his greens fees are gratis since he is president.  The man likes to party.  He had a part last Sunday night and honored Dustin Hoffman and I forget who else. These activities have been on the news. I try not to keep track, but its unavoidable.  He is a frequent flyer, and likes good food.  Kobe beef  at $150.00/ pound for was it 200 dinner guests.  $7,500. for meat alone if you figure 1/4 pound per person for a dinner party.
            We don't even have to go into any government work to figure this is an expensive presidency.

    3. tirelesstraveler profile image86
      tirelesstravelerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The senate hasn't passed a budget since he has been in office.  So it is possible to say this.

    4. GNelson profile image84
      GNelsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Obama hasn't been a great president but he did save us from the conservative ideas that got us into this debt hole.  Of course now the conservatives that got us into this mess want to jump to the other side and reduce spending by taking from the people who have very little and giving to the people who have the most.  If more people voted, we wouldn't have to worry about ideas like that.

      1. profile image0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I am always confused by the extreme contraction between this love of being dominant in power and money and claiming it as right because it is self sufficient, and self sufficiency is the be all and end all of everything. What is even more bizarre is that this is the anthesis of Christian teaching, and these are the same people who are fundamentalists.

    5. American View profile image59
      American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, you are so right, Obama has had the smallest budget not just lower than Bush and Reagan, but in US history. It is hard to have a lower budget than ZERO, after all that is what no budget means, ZERO. Obama, only President to not have a budget in any of his years in office. Yea, that is something Obama can be real proud of.

      Do you understand the difference between budget and actual spending? Many do not and that is what liberals count on when they spew these phony stats at people.

      Ask yourself this, who has the purse strings and who OKs the spending. Congress sets the budget and it is sent to the President to sign. The 2009 budget was indeed signed by Bush for Obama’s first year in office, it is the same for all incoming Presidents. The question is, did they follow it, the answer is no. Also remember who was in charge of the House and Senate then when that budget was created. The Democrats were in the majority, they created the budget for the both Bush and Obama to follow.

      Let’s look at the numbers, the Forbes numbers are actual spending numbers and not budget numbers.  For the last year of Bush’s term and first years of Obama’s term, the budget was essentially the same, 2.9 trillion dollars. So who did a better job following the budget, Bush did. His spending for his last year in office he went over budget 85 million dollars. Obama on the other hand went 600 billion dollars over budget. The current spending is at an all time high possibly going over 4 trillion for fiscal 2011, and the gap between that spending and revenues is growing at a rapid pace, well over one trillion dollars a year.

      So whose fault is that, Bush’s? No. in 2009 Bush was no longer in office and had no say on where money was spent. All appropriations came from the House(Pelosi) the Senate(Reid) and of course Obama.  No dollars can be spent without the approval of all three. Hmm, and all three are Democrats.

      Bush may have set the budget, but Obama and the Democrats in charge are the ones that spent way more that budget allotted. The spending during Obama’s term is on the shoulder of Obama.

  2. profile image70
    logic,commonsenseposted 4 years ago

    obama has spent more than all previous presidents combined.  Bush did not force him to do it, he did it of his own free will.  When will people get over Bush and finally hold obama accountable for his own actions.  Time for a reality check.

    1. profile image0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You can't read, can you?

      The budget that supposedly spent was an act of law that was made by Bush. Obama could not change the budget that Bush put in, could he?

      Of course, it appears you are blinded by facts. So be it.

  3. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    1 - Over $400 billion of 2009's spending came directly from Obama, in the form of new law passed during his term(all that stimulus, remember?).

    2 - Obama said that Bush's $400 billion deficit was immoral, and promised to cut it in half. He hasn't had a year under $1 trillion in deficit.

    3 - Every single one of Obama's proposed budgets have asked for MORE spending than what actually was passed.

    4 - The spending in 2008-2009 was supposed to be a one-time outlier of extra spending. By continuing from that outlier, as if it is the new baseline, you are accepting responsibility for that much increase every year.

    You can't get away from it, more debt has been added under Obama than under any other president.

    1. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      This as a stand alone figure is staggering to say the least. The fiscal cliff happened three years ago when the recession started its stranglehold on all of us. There are many that want to put us in a frame of mind that Obama owns this catastrophic economy and wish to forget the deregulation, wars and out of control spending of the Bush years. But there was little Obama could do but try to and keep the economy going with the stimulus monies and supporting some of the industry leaders while the rest of the economy caught up. Record debt is better than record depression as that is where we were historically going to wind up. Had McCain won we would have repeated the Hoover reasoning through the crisis and we all know where that landed us.

      1. profile image0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Essentially, when I was studying history 45 years ago, I was taught that the sins of the former leader come back to haunt the current leader because it takes that long for the effects to be felt.

  4. peoplepower73 profile image86
    peoplepower73posted 4 years ago

    There is a difference between the national debt and the budget.  People seemed to get them confused.  The national debt is the accumulation of debt from the founding of this country.  Each president inherits the national debt of the previous president.  It includes the interest on what our government has borrowed in order to keep the country operating. 

    The budget on the other hand is a yearly metric that is based on the governments income (revenue) versus outgo (expenses). If there is more income than outgo, there is a surplus. If there is less income than revenue, there is a deficit. Clinton had a surplus in the budget, but he still had a national debt. His surplus in part was based on the dot com bubble. 

    The budget is calculated based on what has already been spent.  Obama's budget in his first year in office was based on what Bush had already spent, but needed to be paid for.  The way it is paid for is to borrow more money.  That money is added to the national debt including interest.  Bushes national debt was 10 trillion.  Obama's first term national debt was 16 trillion.  The so called fiscal cliff is political theater, it is the process of paying for what already has been spent. It's like raising the limit on a credit card so that you can borrow more money to pay for what you already spent.

    Bush did not account for Medicare part D, two wars, his tax cuts and 700 million for tarp.  Obama accounted for all of these in his first year in office.  So therefore, that would increase his national debt.  If Romney would have won, he would have inherited 16 trillion in national debt and Obama's budget deficit of 1.27 trillion.

    If people didn't like Obama's stimulus plan, they should give the money back to the government.  This includes the governors that gladly accepted his checks and then railed against him for his stimulus program.

    Here is a link to the national debt clock in real time. http://www.usdebtclock.org/

    1. profile image0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you for explaining that very clearly. Much appreciated.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image86
        peoplepower73posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You are welcome. There is no way any administration is going to balance the budget and make revenue equal to spending without raising taxes. The republicans are holding the country hostage by wanting to not raise taxes on those making over 250K.  That is an increase from 36% to 39% on the first dollar over 250K.  That's a 3% increase.  They want to do it by cutting entitlements on the backs of the middle class and seniors and tax reform. The math just doesn't add up.

        1. profile image0
          Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, of course. I think it would be helpful to change that tag from Republicans to uninformed people who also have a weakness in deductive logic.

        2. American View profile image59
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          People,

          I disagree. I believe we can balance the budget by making cuts. There are more than one way to raise revenue than raise taxes.

          Does it not make sense to make all the cuts you can, and then if it looks like you cannot balance the budget, then look for tax increases?

          Why do you say Bush did not account for the war and Medicare part B. They were paid for but were part of why the budget went into a deficit. Despite all that, Bush only went over budget in his last year by 88 million dollars. Also, when Bush left office, only one quarter of the fiscal year had elapsed, the other 3/4 were all Obama. Go look at the spending by quarter for fiscal 2009 and see where all the spending occurred.

          I am not saying Bush is an angel in this mess, he is just as deep as everyone else. But I am sick and tired of hearing it's all his fault when he was not even in charge of the purse strings, Democrats were.

          1. peoplepower73 profile image86
            peoplepower73posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            If Medicare part D went into the deficit, how could it be paid for?  When  programs are unfunded, they are not paid for. Medicare Part D which is the prescription drug program, two wars, and the Bush tax cuts were all unfunded and did not go on the accounting books..  We borrow money to pay for everything.  If you borrow money to pay for your car, it's not paid for until its paid off. If you don't account for it, then it doesn't show up as an expense in your budget.  The national debt is 16 trillion and raising.  The budget deficit is 1.7 trillion. When they say balance the budget, it is just a bumper sticker slogan.  Each president just kicks the can further down the road. Like I said before, the Fiscal Cliff is just political theater. The purpose of the debt ceiling is to determine how high to raise the credit limit for money that was already borrowed from the previous year.

            1. American View profile image59
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I am sure you are an accountant so I am not going to waste time debating that part. You can download and read the outlays for everything in fiscal year 2007(not sure why I chose that year) as I have. In fact I have read them for the last 8 years. We can get close if not actually balance the budget through cuts. It is a shame people have been so snowed into believing rising taxes are a must or disaster looms ahead. Please, enough or the scare tactics, Halloween has past already this year.
              Raising the debt ceiling has nothing to do with what was borrowed already, it is to give the President access to more money to spend. If they balance the budget, there is not reason to raise the ceiling, there would be no reason to borrow money.

              1. profile image0
                Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                To QUOTE David Suzuki...


                "There are some things in the world we can't change... gravity, entropy, the speed of light, and our biological nature which requires clean air, clean water, clean soil, clean clean energy, and biodiversity for our health and well being. Other things, like capitalism, free enterprise, the economy, currency, the market, are not forces of nature, we invented them. They are not immutable and we can change them. It makes no sense to no sense to elevate economics above the biosphere."

                COMMENT
                For the most part, Republicans are focused on human constructs. They are completely and utterly unable to see the bigger pictures - that human constructs are destroying the things that are essential to our survival as a species. They insist on fighting for the survival of human constructs which are destroying us. They are absolutely correct that in order to maintain those human constructs we have to cut taxes, etc. and more. What they don't get is that by maintaining those human constructs, we will destroy ourselves as a species. In other words, they will win the battle but lose the war.

                Democrats, for the most part, understand that the constructs don't work and we have to find another way.


                http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7442975_f248.jpg

              2. peoplepower73 profile image86
                peoplepower73posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                This is from the LA Times Jan 17, 2012:  "Simply put, the federal government has to borrow more money because of what Congress has done lately. A wide majority of Republicans and Democrats in the House voted in November and December for spending bills that relied on a significant amount of borrowed money. That borrowing isn't affected by President Obama's 2009 stimulus bill or by "bailouts"; those dollars have already been spent. In other words, they're part of the accumulated debt, not new debt. And a congressman blaming Obama for ever-larger government is like a father blaming his son for having too large an allowance. Obama may be all for big government, but Congress has ultimate control over the federal purse strings."  Here is the link to the entire article: http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/20 … means.html

                And no, I'm not an account, I just do a lot of research and analysis.

          2. profile image0
            Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I'd really like to understand something.

            What is so terrible about people who have billions paying a little bit more tax? Surely they have some generosity of spirit that would like to help others and contribute to their country in a very real sense.

            I keep hearing that comment that they don't want their taxes raised because they don't want to pay for all the people who are not working because they're lazy.

            Well, even if they were lazy,so what?  What does it matter. Did Jesus judge and say, "Don't give money to people who are lazy?" I don't see that in the bible. In fact, when he fed the hungry with all the loaves and fishes, he absolutely did not differentiate between who deserved to be fed and who did not. He fed everybody.

            The other thing is that most people need government services because they aren't being paid enough. Many of them are holding down three or four jobs.

            So, again, if people are working that hard, why not pay extra tax when one already has millions/billions in the bank?

            I don't understand that kind of greed that is so devoid of helping their fellow man. And if they were really helping their fellow man then these people wouldn't be struggling so much.

            Also, incidentally, in the bible, Paul says that if one person has two fields and another has none, then the man with two fields must give the other to the one without the field. Paul doesn't say he must prove that he's a hard worker. It's unconditional. Those that have wealth must share it with others. Tax is jjust another opportunity for rich men to share. I find their selfishness vulgar.

            1. tirelesstraveler profile image86
              tirelesstravelerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Nothing, but how much is a little more.
              If the government took all the money the top 1%  in a year. It would keep the government going for about 8 days
              When is it become time to tighten up,eliminate government duplicity, check up on the recipients of government aid to see if they really need it.
              New York just increased the poverty level for a family of 4 to $40,000/year. (With medical)

              When is it time to say to the Federal Department of Education, "The money you use to add regulations to teachers and run fancy buildings in Washington DC should go to the students in the states the money comes from"? When is it time for parents to look at text books and say to the government, "My child should not be carrying books around that are what teachers editions from the past were", The books are too heavy for children.  College text books aren't as big as some of the elementary books that include hundreds of state standards. 
              When is a little more all you have, but the government will take care of you sort of?

            2. American View profile image59
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Vulgar? Really? Is that what Jesus taught you, be vulgar, was he when he was betrayed? Religion has no place in politics and it should remain separate.
              If one man has two fields and one has none, instead of giving one away, how about that man with two set the other up and let him work the land into prosperity instead of just giving the farm away, no pun intended. It appears you are a strong liberal, not knocking you, just making a point. An extreme liberal family, the Rockefellers, did just that. They were petroleum tycoons and wanted to grow their product, but how? They needed more gas stations and fuel oil companies to buy from them. So they went out across the nation, set up people in their own businesses so they would purchase their product from the Rockefellers. In the book about their life story, they were asked how did they become billionaires. They replied “because we found many hard working individuals with drive and desire, and made them millionaires.” No truer words we ever spoken, no better example of why trickledown economics works. 
              Now you say: “I don't understand that kind of greed that is so devoid of helping their fellow man.” If you mean like Obama, Biden, Kerry, I agree. They do not believe in giving anything back to their fellow man. But people like the Rockefeller’s, the Vanderbilt’s,  and many more give generously not only to charites but create foundations that do good, build then donate hospital wings, libraries, churches. Most of the time it is done with little or no fanfare, so it goes unnoticed. Check out the list of the top 50 donate from last year, click their names, see how much they give away and where it goes. Also note for all the talk about redistribution from they wealthy liberals want you to hear, they talk the talk but do not walk the walk. There are only 4 liberals on that top 50 list, not even warren buffet is on it, the guy who says the rich need to give a little more. I guess he meant everyone else but himself.
              http://philanthropy.com/article/A-Look- … us/130498/

              You said: “I keep hearing that comment that they don't want their taxes raised because they don't want to pay for all the people who are not working because they're lazy.” It’s true you do keep hearing it, from the left trying to make you believe that is what the right is saying. The right does not want to eliminate entitlements, the want to reform them, eliminate waste fraud and abuse. They are not looking to cut benefits one penny. What’s wrong with that?
              The welfare reform the right made under Clinton is what they want to do now, help people to improve their situation. Back then the program got people off welfare or less dependent. It moved people from poverty to middleclass, it moved middleclass to upper middleclass, and upper middleclass to wealthy. What is wrong with that? People reaping the rewards of hard work, living the American dream. But what happened, society changed, it ridiculed those who succeeded, suddenly success was a bad word. People backed off, others did not look for advancement. Now we have people just looking for handouts, taking away from those who truly need our help. The more that strain the system means less that can be helped. If those who can take care of themselves is given the chance to, the succeed and stand on their own, is one less person the government has to pay for and frees up  ore funds to help those who need it. Would you not agree that is a better system, one thathelps everyone at a higher level?
              Consider this, you made the comment about Jesus feeding everyone, if people got lazy, did not work, and the government has to feed them all, where is the money going to come from to pay for it? If people get lazy and do not work, who will plants as well as harvest the crops to feed everyone?

              1. profile image0
                Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You really do miss the point, don't you? Not even worth responding. Sorry.

              2. Repairguy47 profile image60
                Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Not sure why you want to waste your time being logical/factual, these people have a deep seated hatred and jealousy that they will never get over. Its always going to be someone elses fault that they can't succeed.

                1. American View profile image59
                  American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Repairguy,

                  I know. Funny part is made a bet that Sophia was going to respond by blowing it off and say something along the lines of not responding. I won the bet.

                  1. profile image0
                    Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, of course, I'm going to blow it off. I've been hearing this argument for ten years. I've pointed out the fallacies over and over again. Do you honestly think that I haven't heard what you're saying.

                    You just don't get it.

                    You want to save a system that doesn't work.
                    You want to save a system that destroys  people
                    You're trying to make a system work that is destroying human civilzation.

                    Absolutely, the system will work if one does the things you say. Yes, the system will work, but nothing else will. Most human beings will die.

                    That is what you don't get.

                    So, yes, of course, I'm going to blow it off. I replied for years. Now I'm sick of it. Too much energy. You keep getting the wrong end of the stick.

                2. profile image0
                  Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  There is no hatred or jealousy. It has to do with what I posted earlier... that you're putting human constructs ahead of human survival and well being. Sure you can save the economy, but by saving the economy you destroy the species. And you just don't get that.

                  If you honestly believe you have something to be jealous of, youre deluding yourself. We don't hate you. Yes, we're frustrated that you are so involved with human constructs that you  can't see the wood for the trees, but that's about it.
                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7443201_f248.jpg


                  Read what David Suzuki says... And that is the REAL issue, and THAT is the one you don't get.

                  1. Repairguy47 profile image60
                    Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    There is nothing BUT hatred and jealousy! The democrats preach it and expect their followers to practice it. One thing that may help you succeed is that you should look out for you and your family and quit worrying about things you cannot change! If everyone followed that rule then we would all succeed, which is what you are after isn't it? Of course I know the answer is NO, you want to succeed and if you don't its someone elses fault.

                  2. GNelson profile image84
                    GNelsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Maybe, when they have to buy clean air to breath in a bottle, they will get it.

        3. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You think 3% adds up?

          3% more on the 1% equals $9 billion in revenue.

          You're saying that it's impossible to balanced a $1.1 trillion deficit without taking an extra 0.009 trillion from the top 1%?

          Not to mention, the increased revenue would actually be less than that due to the graduated system, and due to the fact that so many wealthy make their money from capital gains.

          EDIT: Actually more like $20-$25 billion in revenue. 0.020 trillion in revenue is the 'make or break'? Really?

  5. getitrite profile image81
    getitriteposted 4 years ago

    http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e83/jjsmooth15/Wall-Street-sign.jpg

  6. Repairguy47 profile image60
    Repairguy47posted 4 years ago
    1. peoplepower73 profile image86
      peoplepower73posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Obviously, you didn't read the entire article.  First it was published in June, second, it received several Pinocchios ,which are long noses for lying, from fact checker, because it was a ratio against GDP.  The graph shows it was not what he spent, but a ratio of Gross Domestic Product versus spending.  That article states this is not a good way to present spending because it distorts the numbers.  The problem with the internet is that you can find whatever you want to support your argument, especially if you don't read or understand what is being presented. ..Conclusion...False!

      1. Repairguy47 profile image60
        Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "PolitiFact.com, a Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-finding project of the Tampa Bay Times, took a hard look at the chart and found that Obama's number was based on him taking office on Jan. 20, 2010, a year later than his actual inauguration date."

        http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012 … presidents

        Fact check, you're funny!

        1. peoplepower73 profile image86
          peoplepower73posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I'm sorry, but I can't get to the link. It won't open.

          1. Repairguy47 profile image60
            Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Opens for me.

        2. profile image0
          Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That's because the budget of the previous year was made by Bush.

          1. Repairguy47 profile image60
            Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            lollollollollollollollol

            1. peoplepower73 profile image86
              peoplepower73posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I got it to open, I'm getting tired of repeating this.  There is a difference between the national debt and the deficit. Your article is about the national debt.  The national debt is all the debt that has been accumulated by each president since George Washington.  The deficit is part of the yearly budget that indicates that more money was borrowed than revenue taken in. Clinton had a surplus in the budget because of the dot com bubble, but he still had a national debt.  By the way, I could open the link until I paid off my debt.

              1. Repairguy47 profile image60
                Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Not sure why you repeat yourself, article is factual and will always be. Obama has added to the debt more than the last 5 presidents in half the time. He is a failure, sorry you can't accept that.

                1. profile image70
                  logic,commonsenseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  He has added more debt than all the previous presidents combined, thru part way the first term of the hated G.W. Bush.
                  He has no intention of reducing his spending, he just wants more revenue to cover his tracks.
                  If people would look deeper into what he is demanding, they would see it is far more than just raising the tax rates on the successful.  He wants to raise estate taxes after the current rate expires.  He wants control of the debt limit.  He wants rates raised regardless of how much revenue they bring in.
                  He wants to be like Morsi in Egypt.  Total control.  If we let him, he will become a dictator not unlike many 3rd world dictators.  I know Jamie Foxx and others think he is the lord and saviour, but he is really just an insecure, vindictive, tiny little twerp with a messiah complex.

                  1. Repairguy47 profile image60
                    Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No, he has not added more debt than all previous presidents! Only the last 5! The rest I agree with.

                  2. peoplepower73 profile image86
                    peoplepower73posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Logic, commonsese:  Wow, you are really using logic and common sense, just like your name implies...and the sun may not come up tomorrow morning as well! So your premise is he added more debt than all the previous president combined, therefore, he will be a dictator, like Morsi of Egypt.  Your premise is wrong, therefore your conclusion is wrong. It's obvious because you don't the difference between the national debt and the budget.

          2. American View profile image59
            American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry Sophia, see that is just not true. Congress makes the budget, the President just signs or vetos the budget. The House and Senate were both under 100% control of Democrats, they made the budget. As I said earlier, the 2009 budget was almost identical to the 2008 budget, the difference, who was President over each of those budgets. Results, under Bush, he went 85 million dollars over budget, Obama went 640 billion dollars over budget.

            Bush had nothing other than the first fiscal quarter to do with the 2009 budget, he was not around to sign or OK any of the appropriations that Congress approved to go over budget.

  7. Uninvited Writer profile image81
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    Wow, Forbes should be listening to you guys rather than experts in the field roll

    1. Repairguy47 profile image60
      Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I agree.

  8. Xenonlit profile image60
    Xenonlitposted 4 years ago

    The truth is best in it's simplest form:

    Republicans lie. They lie every day. They lie in a continuous loop of lies. They lie to the public and they lie to each other.

    When they are confronted about their lies, they change the subject or they have a tantrum.

    Republicans lie about their lying. They make up lies to embellish their lies. They lie before breakfast and they lie in their dreams.

    Republicans lie to everyone, they lie now and will be lied about as they are being put to their final rest. The final lie being that "This person was a good and honest Republican."

    1. profile image0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That's no lie..."When they are confronted about their lies, they change the subject or they have a tantrum."

      The moment you expose the errors of what they say, they come at you from another angle.

      Really, I think their brains are miswired.

      1. Repairguy47 profile image60
        Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        lollollollollollol

        "I did not have sex with that woman..Ms Lewinsky"

      2. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I think you both are wrong to categorize an entire group of people in such a negative way.  Shouldn't we try to rise above that?

        1. profile image0
          Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Pretty Panther, I have not seen one conservative member have values that rise above the stone age. As the GOP will never be in power again - not in its current incarnation, anyway - I'm just forgetting about it. These dinosaurs will die out. The demographics in the USA are changing. That will increase the liberal vote more than anything else.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I am married to a conservative Republican who is kind, ethical, and sane.  Yes, a certain element has risen to the forefront of the party in the United States, but you are not helping the discourse by tossing the good out with the bad.

            1. profile image0
              Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              PP, I am the most patient of people, but I've been here nearly two years, and I never hear anything but this poppycock that all people are born with equal drive, DNA, and more. Therefore, because all men are born with exactly the same ability, they can all overcome the same difficulties that the current aging male population overcame 30 years ago, and if they can't, then they must be lazy, stupid, and they are draining the state of money.

              Ironically, some conservative people have told me that I have very conservative values, and in many ways, I do. I'm actually not a liberal. My stance is simply one of common sense, the common good, etc.

              Let me ask you something, if not all the members of the GOP have dinosaurian values, then why aren't the rest of you speaking up?

    2. Repairguy47 profile image60
      Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      A little bunged up aintcha?

  9. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago

    First, I am a liberal Democrat, not a Republican.  Second, in case you haven't noticed, Barack Obama was elected President by quite a nice margin.  Part of that is because he received some votes from conservatives, including from my husband, for the second time.  That is how regular people speak up.  You should know that.

    For you to categorically classify all Republicans as dinosaurs who believe all those things you just said is ridiculous and I know you're smart enough to know it.  You're behaving no better than the worst of those who claim all liberals want to confiscate wealth and give it to the state.

 
working