Even democrats are losing faith in the obama

[quietmike]

That chart doesn't include the last 2 years of the ongoing wars because it's based on a report that's 2 years old. Let's add in 2 more years of the costs of the wars, more details (breaking down "entitlements") and then it would possibly be worth looking at.

So you think a continuation of a war is more expensive that the initial surge?
Feel free to post that data.

[timcsaw]

Fix the Bush debacle in three years? LOL!

It's almost certain it will take 20 years to recover from the Bush tax mismanagement and unfunded wars.

It's also QUITE possible that we will NEVER completely recover from the Bush fiasco. Instead, we'll just sink into a new place as a troubled and bankrupt nation as we pull back from our corporate and military outposts around the world and struggle to survive.

Have you already forgotten the graph I posted which shows that the Bush WH was moving in the right direction to reduce the Deficit until the Democrats took over congress and BALLOONED it back up? Have you forgotten that Obama himself voted FOR almost everything that you on the left say he "inherited"? Have you forgotten those years when the Republicans could have gone on vacation because the Democratic congress AND President could have done ANYTHING they pleased? Have you forgotten that the Democrats haven't passed a budget in over 1000 days? Have you also forgotten that the Obama budget proposals have gone DOWN IN FLAMES and even the Democrats wouldn't vote for them?

How soon we forget... and evidently one's own forgetfullness is also Bush's fault.

[Fanglekai]

So you think a continuation of a war is more expensive that the initial surge?
Feel free to post that data.

Is that what I said? No, it was not. It seems you are either misinterpreting what I said or attempting to put words in my mouth. I said that the chart does not include the past 2 years of expenditures pertaining to the ongoing wars. Since that chart is 2 years old, it does not reflect current government expenditures. If the chart included the past 2 years of expenditures pertaining to the ongoing wars then it could be worth looking at. Since it is lacking vital data it is, obviously, not a worthwhile summation of data. For it to be worthwhile it would need to include the costs of the wars up to the present time. If it actually included that data, the chart would, by necessity, look different, and it would provide a more accurate picture from which to make assertions regarding government spending.

Do you think wars suddenly stop costing money because the chart is 2 years old? I should hope not.

[quietmike]

Is that what I said? No, it was not. It seems you are either misinterpreting what I said or attempting to put words in my mouth. I said that the chart does not include the past 2 years of expenditures pertaining to the ongoing wars. Since that chart is 2 years old, it does not reflect current government expenditures. If the chart included the past 2 years of expenditures pertaining to the ongoing wars then it could be worth looking at. Since it is lacking vital data it is, obviously, not a worthwhile summation of data. For it to be worthwhile it would need to include the costs of the wars up to the present time. If it actually included that data, the chart would, by necessity, look different, and it would provide a more accurate picture from which to make assertions regarding government spending.

Do you think wars suddenly stop costing money because the chart is 2 years old? I should hope not.

The chart is two years old because unionized government workers aren't renouned for their speed and efficiency.
The wars today probably cost about the same, or less, since they are winding down, than they did two years ago.

Either way post conflicting data if you can.

[timcsaw]

The chart is two years old because unionized government workers aren't renouned for their speed and efficiency.
The wars today probably cost about the same, or less, since they are winding down, than they did two years ago.

Either way post conflicting data if you can.

Should be ZERO shouldn't it? After all, didn't Obama end all the wars (Even the one HE got us into)?

[quietmike]

Should be ZERO shouldn't it? After all, didn't Obama end all the wars (Even the one HE got us into)?

The ONE?

Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, and Uganda, by my count.

[timcsaw]

The ONE?

Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, and Uganda, by my count.

I was thinking Libya... in reality, it and those others you mention are just lil' ol' "kinetic military actions" not really "wars". Bush did "wars", Obama only bows and scrapes, does kinetic military actions, and asks world leaders to give him a break until after the election (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)... You know, "diplomacy".

[philwar]

If it actually included that data, the chart would, by necessity, look different, and it would provide a more accurate picture from which to make assertions regarding government spending.

Do you think wars suddenly stop costing money because the chart is 2 years old? I should hope not.

It would still include that majority chunk of entitlements. There's no getting around that. If it was 2/3 of total spending over a decade (and about 5x as much as total defense PLUS Iraq and Afghanistan), then the picture could not possibly change much unless all of a sudden the cost of just the two wars had increased to about $600,000,000,000 - A YEAR. Not very likely is it?

[BG42EDGE]

just lil' ol' "kinetic military actions...

I suppose that's a great comfort to the families of the innocent dead.

They probably feel ok about it and won't become a new generation of people who hate America.

[timcsaw]

I suppose that's a great comfort to the families of the innocent dead.

They probably feel ok about it and won't become a new generation of people who hate America.

Tell it to the Obama.

[skyhorse]

I suppose that's a great comfort to the families of the innocent dead.

They probably feel ok about it and won't become a new generation of people who hate America.

The innocent dead are our brave soldiers that lost they're lives trying to free people of oppressive tyrants.I know two such families and they don't hate America.

[timcsaw]

The innocent dead are our brave soldiers that lost they're lives trying to free people of oppressive tyrants.I know two such families and they don't hate America.

Well said, just ask the French... well... maybe not today's French, but ask the older French people who fought along side the allies in their fight against oppression. Even though they died by the thousands in the invasion to free them, they understood that the loss was worth their freedom. No price for freedom.

[BG42EDGE]

The innocent dead are our brave soldiers that lost they're lives trying to free people of oppressive tyrants.I know two such families and they don't hate America.

Or maybe the innocent dead are the drones that have crashed trying to kill innocent people.

Father forgive them for they know not what they do.

[timcsaw]

Or maybe the innocent dead are the drones that have crashed trying to kill innocent people.

Father forgive them for they know not what they do.

Yes, those drone operators often say "Hey LOOK! A little kid flying a kite... I'm SURE that SHE is innocent, let's light HER up!.... Ignore that guy with the RPG, let's intentionally KILL THAT INNOCENT LITTLE GIRL!!"

[Triton]

No, it will take 20 years to recover from the Bush tax mismanagement and unfunded wars.

Indeed......it's also possible that we will never completely recover from the Bush fiasco......we'll just sink into a new place as a troubled and bankrupt nation as we pull back from our corporate and military outposts around the world and struggle to survive.

So basically you are saying that despite his promises to fix the economy there's really nothing that the obama can do to fix the economy. Further you are willing to give him (and I assume his successors) a complete pass on the economy because Bush screwed it up so bad?

[Triton]

That chart doesn't include the last 2 years of the ongoing wars because it's based on a report that's 2 years old. Let's add in 2 more years of the costs of the wars, more details (breaking down "entitlements") and then it would possibly be worth looking at.

No worries, we will have to add in two more years of entitlement spending as well though won't we?

[jdm61]

Bush and those wily Greeks have screwed up everything for the next 100 years. President Obama can no longer blame everything on Bush and the Koch brothers, so now he is saying that the current economic malaise is caused in part by the situation in Europe. But wait a minute!!! I thought that the Europeans had all of those wonderful Social Democratic ideas that we should be emulating? I guess that those evil White German Fascist Nazi Austerity Slavemaster Capitalists have betrayed the revolution over there too and that's why Greece, Italy and Spain are teetering on the edge of economic collapse and Belgium hasn't had a functioning government in two years, right?

So basically you are saying that despite his promises to fix the economy there's really nothing that the obama can do to fix the economy. Further you are willing to give him (and I assume his successors) a complete pass on the economy because Bush screwed it up so bad?

[BG42EDGE]

So basically you are saying that despite his promises to fix the economy there's really nothing that the obama can do to fix the economy. Further you are willing to give him (and I assume his successors) a complete pass on the economy because Bush screwed it up so bad?

Well, Bush indeed did "screw it up so bad." That's clear.

But Obama CAN do things to fix the problem and indeed, HAS taken some actions that get us going in the right direction.

He can do more in his second term if he carries some legislators into office with him......and that is probably going to happen.

He may have saved us from going into a depression by doing the bailout......that was the primary concern and he dealt with it.

Now comes the 20-year climb back to the healthy economy we had in the Clinton years.......and that will be a long, slow journey with Republicans obstructing progress at every step of the way.

[BG42EDGE]

President Obama can no longer blame everything on Bush and the Koch brothers, so now he is saying that the current economic malaise is caused in part by the situation in Europe.

So you don't think the Bush mismanagement caused the meltdown in Europe? Weren't they doing fine until the Big Bush Recession hit?

[timcsaw]

Well, Bush indeed did "screw it up so bad." That's clear.

But Obama CAN do things to fix the problem and indeed, HAS taken some actions that get us going in the right direction.

He can do more in his second term if he carries some legislators into office with him......and that is probably going to happen.

He may have saved us from going into a depression by doing the bailout......that was the primary concern and he dealt with it.

Now comes the 20-year climb back to the healthy economy we had in the Clinton years.......and that will be a long, slow journey with Republicans obstructing progress at every step of the way.

Again, as I've shown, Bush DID screw it up, started to turn things around, and then the democrats took over and ROYALLY SCREWED IT UP. Deficit spending ballooned when they took over in the last years of the Bush administration. And let's not forget that then "Senator Obama" voted "Yea" (or "Present") for almost EVERYTHING that he "inherited". The Dems had 2 years where they could have done ANYTHING and the Republicans couldn't have stopped them.... and the Democrats haven't passed a budget in over 1000 days and even THEY won't vote to pass Obama's own proposed budgets...

Yes, the "worm has turned".