The economic "crisis" then was nothing compared to what it was now. Couple that with Bush starting two wars and the economy was really put on the backburner during his terms in office. And listen, I'm not a Bush basher. I think he was dealt a pretty raw hand in terms of events during his presidency. I think he made a lot of mistakes in office, but in general terms, he wasn't a monster like some want you to believe.

 

Bush inherited a budget surplus and effectively squandered in on wars. But the dotcom bubble had collapsed, to his credit. The economy wasn't in great shape, but Bush had much less to complain about than Obama.

 

The recession was not the nationwide magnitude it was when Obama took office, but to say it was "much less" oversimplifies the problem. In the 90's the country shifted most of its newly created investment dollars and entire populations that were dedicated to the NASDAQ. When the DotCom bubble burst, there was no general, time-consuming falter like there has been here, there was an immediate, no-holds-barred collapse the likes of which was not seen since the S&L failure of the early 80's. Legions upon legions of young professionals and there families lost everything, immediately. There is STILL real estate in the Silicon Valley that was taken at 10% by foreclosure and has not been re-sold. The NASDAQ has only recently recovered to its pre-burst levels. The economy was very, very bad.

The economic "crisis" then was nothing compared to what it was now. Couple that with Bush starting two wars and the economy was really put on the backburner during his terms in office. And listen, I'm not a Bush basher. I think he was dealt a pretty raw hand in terms of events during his presidency. I think he made a lot of mistakes in office, but in general terms, he wasn't a monster like some want you to believe.

 

Bush inherited a budget surplus and effectively squandered in on wars. But the dotcom bubble had collapsed, to his credit. The economy wasn't in great shape, but Bush had much less to complain about than Obama.

The difference I see between Bush and Obama on spending is Bush spent like a drunken sailor, Obama spends like a drunken navy.

The difference I see between Bush and Obama on spending is Bush spent like a drunken sailor, Obama spends like a drunken navy.

 

Where is all of this Obama spending, I asked previously?

 

Stimulus - already done

Wars - you can't just cut and run

 

What else other than hyperbole is he spending on.

Where is all of this Obama spending, I asked previously?

 

Stimulus - already done

Wars - you can't just cut and run

 

What else other than hyperbole is he spending on.

Cheney commented that the economy was heading south during the 2000 campaign and he was villified in the press. His comments were protrayed as unfounded, irresponsible statements designed to damage consumer confidence for partisan poltical gain. They also happened to be true.

Where is all of this Obama spending, I asked previously?

 

Stimulus - already done

Wars - you can't just cut and run

 

What else other than hyperbole is he spending on.

Have you actually taken time to look at the budget and spending? There is almost no department in the federal government that hasn't seen an increase in spending since Obama took office.

 

Dude, you can't use charts and graphs, that's not fair.

Dude, you can't use charts and graphs, that's not fair.

That's ok, it's all war spending anyway and that's Bush's fault.

Where is all of this Obama spending, I asked previously?

 

Stimulus - already done

Wars - you can't just cut and run

 

What else other than hyperbole is he spending on.

 

I wish you could. Thankfully, we're getting out of Iraq. And Afghanistan is morphing into the Vietnam of the 21st century.

 

Just when most everybody on this board thought you were the most liberal member on here...

what is the link to this. First, on the left is actual and on the right it is PROJECTED. There is no way the side is including the spending on the wars, and I will be that the right does. To this point, outside of the stimulus there has been no exorbitant spending.

 

dang it, I tried to cancel this and I tried to post with the chart copied and got it on neither one, sorry.

Dude, you can't use charts and graphs, that's not fair.

 

What is the link to this? First, on the left is actual and on the right it is PROJECTED. There is no way the side is including the spending on the wars, and I will be that the right does. To this point, outside of the stimulus there has been no exorbitant spending.

What is the link to this? First, on the left is actual and on the right it is PROJECTED. There is no way the side is including the spending on the wars, and I will be that the right does. To this point, outside of the stimulus there has been no exorbitant spending.

 

What part of "actual" don't you understand?

Um, since the chart isn't labeled, it could be spending on hot dogs for all we know. BUT, the discussion was on federal government spending. Since I'm guessing that government spending has not been negative, I would postulate that this is not a graph of government spending. Hearsay may think it isn't fair to use graphs, but I would suggest that if you want to use graphs you should at least label the axes, ltitle the graph and make sure that it is even relevant to the discussion. But, on the other hand, the red is pretty.

Um, since the chart isn't labeled, it could be spending on hot dogs for all we know. BUT, the discussion was on federal government spending. Since I'm guessing that government spending has not been negative, I would postulate that this is not a graph of government spending. Hearsay may think it isn't fair to use graphs, but I would suggest that if you want to use graphs you should at least label the axes, ltitle the graph and make sure that it is even relevant to the discussion. But, on the other hand, the red is pretty.

You can see it with those glasses on?

Um, since the chart isn't labeled, it could be spending on hot dogs for all we know. BUT, the discussion was on federal government spending. Since I'm guessing that government spending has not been negative, I would postulate that this is not a graph of government spending. Hearsay may think it isn't fair to use graphs, but I would suggest that if you want to use graphs you should at least label the axes, ltitle the graph and make sure that it is even relevant to the discussion. But, on the other hand, the red is pretty.

 

I'm not the smartest person in the world, not even close to smartest in Ky but I am pretty sure the chart shows deficit.