Posted by Guest (Post 213711)

C'mon, Keedy. Let's be fair with the numbers.

The financial stimulus was passed at the end of the Bush administration and would have almost certainly been necessary regardless of who was President at the moment.

Similarly, the Supplemental Appropriation, which covered only a couple of months of federal spending, was needed to pay for the items also budgeted by the Bush-Cheney administration. How much of that was to fund Iraq and Afghanistan, which Obama included in his budget but Bush did not, is another source of your "socialist spending".

And it's a bit too early to lay a $675 billion bill for the healthcare changes on the Obama doorstep just yet. There's still a lot of negotiating going on in the House to make the proposed bill more "deficit neutral". Then there's the Senate, which will probably have their heels dug in even more than the House on wild-eyed spending.

I think it will only be fair to look at the spending of the Obama administration after a year or two passes. Even then it still wouldn't be totally fair to blame him for spending that was authorized and started by his predecessor.

Posted by Guest (Post 213721)

It does not matter whether all of this spending can be laid at the feet of Bush, Clinton, Obama or the Easter Bunny. They are all guilty to some degree, with one exception (guess which one). The only thing that matters is that it's happening, our representatives (our elected agents!) irresponsibly authorized the spending without any idea what the bill contained, and our agent-representatives are still spending public money (that doesn't even really exist) like intoxicated conventioneers with the Administration's encouragement (and yes, the prior administration also encouraged it).

At some point this money-printing and spending spree has to stop, before the dollar becomes virtually worthless in the world exchange and inflation a-la-Venezuela occurs here.

So, until we get our economy back, creating more public programs without and until creating more taxpayers to help pay for them is utter lunacy. Bankrupting the remaining taxpayers still left in our economy is not the "change" anybody wants.[/QUOTE]

Posted by Guest (Post 213717)

...Hey, hold your horses!!!!! My post is a wake-up call not an Obama bashing...Wow...Didn't realize that I was spitting on your hero...

Posted by Guest (Post 213772)

I voted for President Obama and I like some of what he's accomplished in a short time. But while he's my President, he's far from "my hero". As I explained in an earlier post, it's not likely that he'll even get my vote in 2012. I just think it's fair to give the new President more than 170 days before we decide that he's changed the fundamental system of governance of the country. (I know that Joe Biden says they've only been in charge for 140 days, but sometimes Joe has 'senior moments' and forgets a few days here and there.)

Regarding who's responsible for what, I agree with SteveZ on the culpability of the U.S. Congress. Yes, the President has the bully pulpit and the power of the veto, but the pattern of significantly outspending the revenue stream is and has been the result of a special interest-driven and irresponsible Congress moreso than either of our last two Presidents. I'd be happy to begin with replacing 'the 435' even before I got to the other 100 that make up 'the 535'.

Posted by Guest (Post 213847)

Their candidates won there's not much to argue/debate for them.

If someone new is elected in 2012 a new wave of oppostion will emerge.