President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Rockindeano]

LOL Fact Finder. Did it ever occur to you that the Obama budget is higher because they unlike Bush, are actually factoring in the TWO FUCKING WARS?

[AlteredDNA]

How much did the two wars cost from 2003 to the end of 2008?

[7 Wishes]

I've already made innumerable posts about Bush's budgets, how they didn't include paying for the two wars and the Medicare prescription plan, as well as many other Republican budgetary "oversights"...and how the 2009 was based upon fiscal policy pushed through by the Dubbya Administration...how it's not fair (nor historically accurate) to hold a President accountable to his first year in office, feduciarily speaking...sigh.

[slucero]

Interesting new poll from the Washington Post:


Discontent grows as voters divide
Seven in 10 independent voters say they are inclined to look around for someone new to vote for in this year's congressional elections -- another new high in Post-ABC polling -- reflecting the growing dissatisfaction with those in power, regardless of party.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05453.html

[Lula]

How much did the two wars cost from 2003 to the end of 2008?

TOTAL IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN war cost ,Afghanistan 2001-2 US$20.8 Billion,2003 US$ 14.3 Billion,2004 US$14.5 Billion,2005 US$20.0 Billion, 2006US$19.0 Billion 2007US$36.9Billion,2008 US$ 36.5Billion,2009 US$15.1 Billion total US$177.5 billion. In Iraq cost of war 2003 US$ 53.0 Billion, 2004 US$ 75.9 billion,2005 US$ 85.5 billion,2006 US$ 101.7 BILLION,2007 US$ 133.6Billion,2008 US$ 158.0 billion,2009 US$ 53.4 billion, Total US$ 661.1 billion . The total war costs could grow to $3.5 trillion by 2017, the committee estimated .the committee estimated $1.3 trillion in war costs by the end of 2008 for Iraq, and the remainder for Afghanistan. http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy ... mental_war.

https://forums.yaleglobal.yale.edu/thre ... eadID=1592

[ohsherrie]

How much did the two wars cost from 2003 to the end of 2008?

TOTAL IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN war cost ,Afghanistan 2001-2 US$20.8 Billion,2003 US$ 14.3 Billion,2004 US$14.5 Billion,2005 US$20.0 Billion, 2006US$19.0 Billion 2007US$36.9Billion,2008 US$ 36.5Billion,2009 US$15.1 Billion total US$177.5 billion. In Iraq cost of war 2003 US$ 53.0 Billion, 2004 US$ 75.9 billion,2005 US$ 85.5 billion,2006 US$ 101.7 BILLION,2007 US$ 133.6Billion,2008 US$ 158.0 billion,2009 US$ 53.4 billion, Total US$ 661.1 billion . The total war costs could grow to $3.5 trillion by 2017, the committee estimated .the committee estimated $1.3 trillion in war costs by the end of 2008 for Iraq, and the remainder for Afghanistan. http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy ... mental_war.

https://forums.yaleglobal.yale.edu/thre ... eadID=1592

But the rethugs don't want to talk about that. They consider money spent killing people as a noble and worthy expenditure. Like the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and the corporations that they want extended. It's only money spent to help middle class and poor people that they consider at waste that creates to much of a deficit.

[AlteredDNA]

How much did the two wars cost from 2003 to the end of 2008?

TOTAL IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN war cost ,Afghanistan 2001-2 US$20.8 Billion,2003 US$ 14.3 Billion,2004 US$14.5 Billion,2005 US$20.0 Billion, 2006US$19.0 Billion 2007US$36.9Billion,2008 US$ 36.5Billion,2009 US$15.1 Billion total US$177.5 billion. In Iraq cost of war 2003 US$ 53.0 Billion, 2004 US$ 75.9 billion,2005 US$ 85.5 billion,2006 US$ 101.7 BILLION,2007 US$ 133.6Billion,2008 US$ 158.0 billion,2009 US$ 53.4 billion, Total US$ 661.1 billion . The total war costs could grow to $3.5 trillion by 2017, the committee estimated .the committee estimated $1.3 trillion in war costs by the end of 2008 for Iraq, and the remainder for Afghanistan. http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy ... mental_war.

https://forums.yaleglobal.yale.edu/thre ... eadID=1592

So from 2001-2009 - 838.5 billion...

8 years - 104.75 billion per year...

Hope my math is correct...

Thanks...

[slucero]

Interesting thing about "Emergency Appropriations" (thats how Iraq/Afghanistan spending was passed through Congress) is that it is a commonly used method by Congress... not just for wars.. Hurricane Katrina expenditures as an example were paid via emergency appropriations.... the real question is .. "what's an emergency"?

Budgetary treatment of Iraq & Afghanistan war expenses

Much of the costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have not been funded through regular appropriations bills, but through emergency supplemental appropriations bills. As such, most of these expenses were not included in the budget deficit calculation prior to FY2010. Some budget experts argue that emergency supplemental appropriations bills do not receive the same level of legislative care as regular appropriations bills. In addition, emergency supplemental appropriations are not subject to the same budget enforcement mechanisms imposed on regular appropriations. Funding for the first stages of the Vietnam War was provided by supplemental appropriations, although President Johnson eventually acceded to Congressional demands to fund that war through the regular appropriations process.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the President's FY2009 budget proposals would provide $188 billion in budget authority for FY2008. [40] CBO estimates that appropriations for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001 through February 2008 total $752 billion.[41] That would be approximately 4% of federal spending over the period.

Budget authority is legal authority to obligate the federal government. For many war-related activities there may be a long lag between the time when budget authority is granted and when payments (outlays) are made by the U.S. Treasury. In particular, spending on reconstruction activities in Iraq and Afghanistan has lagged behind available budget authority. In other cases, the military uses contracts that are payable upon completion, which can create long lags between appropriations and outlays.

In principle, the Department of Defense (DoD) separates war funding from base funding. In most cases, however, funds for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan use the same accounts as other DoD accounts. This raises challenges to attempts to achieve a precise separation of expenditures on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan from the base defense operations.

[slucero]

This is pretty fair to both Bush and Obama:

Don’t Blame Obama for Bush’s 2009 Deficit

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/ ... 9-deficit/

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

Some critics are lambasting President Obama for record deficits. This is not a productive line of attack, largely because it puts the focus on the wrong variable. America’s fiscal problem is excessive government spending, and deficits are merely a symptom of that underlying disease. Moreover, if deficits are perceived as the problem, that means both spending restraint and higher taxes are solutions. The political class, needless to say, will choose the latter approach 99 percent of the time. A higher tax burden, however, simply means that debt-financed spending is replaced by tax-financed spending, which is akin to jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire, or vice-versa.

In addition to being theoretically misguided, critics sometimes blame Obama for things that are not his fault. Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year. This assertion is understandable, since the deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009. As this chart illustrates, with the Bush years in green, it appears as if Obama’s policies have led to an explosion of debt.



But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House. So is we update the chart to show the Bush fiscal years in green, we can see that Obama is partly right in claiming that he inherited a mess (though Obama actually deserves a small share of the blame for Bush’s last deficit since earlier this year he pushed through both an “omnibus” spending bill and the so-called stimulus bill that increased FY2009 spending).



It should go without saying that this post is not an argument for Obama’s fiscal policy. The current President promised change, but he is continuing the wasteful and profligate policies of his big-spending predecessor. That is where critics should be focusing their attention.

I still contend that NEITHER part has any interest in doing what is right for the People... but that's just my opinion...

Get ready for a VAT tax folks (on TOP of current taxes)... because at the current run rate thats the only way to reduce the deficit and the national debt...

[conversationpc]

But the rethugs don't want to talk about that.

I like it...I think we should all hereby refer to both major parties as rethugs and democrooks.

[RedWingFan]

But the rethugs don't want to talk about that.

I like it...I think we should all hereby refer to both major parties as rethugs and democrooks.

That makes absolutely no sense. The Democrats are as pure and clean as the wind driven snow!

Bill Clinton
Al Gore
Barney Frank
William Jefferson
Frank Dodd...etc...etc...etc.

[conversationpc]

But the rethugs don't want to talk about that.

I like it...I think we should all hereby refer to both major parties as rethugs and democrooks.

That makes absolutely no sense. The Democrats are as pure and clean as the wind driven snow!

Bill Clinton
Al Gore
Barney Frank
William Jefferson
Frank Dodd...etc...etc...etc.

It still amazes me to no end that there are party loyalists on either side. A large majority of the dummies from either party are either corrupt or out for only their own interests.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Get ready for a VAT tax folks (on TOP of current taxes)... because at the current run rate thats the only way to reduce the deficit and the national debt...

Never gonna happen.

[slucero]

Get ready for a VAT tax folks (on TOP of current taxes)... because at the current run rate thats the only way to reduce the deficit and the national debt...

Never gonna happen.

Its "on the table" with the Presidents fiscal commission and Volker and Bernanke are advocates of it... and the reality is the US has no way of reducing the deficit or long term debt without raising taxes... Geithner has even said so...

Yer gonna have to do better than "never happen" because thats what was said about healthcare..

[ohsherrie]

A large majority of the dummies from either party are either corrupt or out for only their own interests.

That's true, but the only ones who are even trying to do anything for the working people of this country are the Democrats. All any of the rethugs want to do is make this administration fail at any and all costs. I'm not particularly loyal to any party, in fact, I don't even agree with the "party" system. The only thing I'm steadfast on is keeping the morons and thugs that are currently following the Limbaugh and Beck led republican party out of power.

They destroyed the economy and the world standing of this country and they're still advocating the same economic philosophy that has failed so miserably.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Its "on the table" with the Presidents fiscal commission and Volker and Bernanke are advocates of it... and the reality is the US has no way of reducing the deficit or long term debt without raising taxes... Geithner has even said so...

Doesn't matter. The Dems aren't going to touch the idea - its political suicide - and the GOP is ideologically against any form of tax, regardless of whether its in the nation's fiscal interest.

Yer gonna have to do better than "never happen" because thats what was said about healthcare..

Except that it wasn't. Obama actually ran on passing healthcare and his party favored it. There is ZERO political will to pass a VAT. The Dems are already on the ropes because of the looming mid-terms. The last thing they are going to do is validate the stereotype of being "big tax and spenders." Additionally, the fact that a VAT inordinately impacts the poor makes it a non-starter for hardcore Pelosi-type lefties. Blue Dogs also won't vote for a new tax-period. As for the loyal opposition? Well, the last time a GOPer actually proposed raising taxes to reduce the deficit was Bush Sr. (breaking his famous "read my lips" campaign promise). What did he get in return for this act of true fisal conservatism? Oh right. The right wing base turned on him and he was voted out. Like I said, there is no politically feasible way of this happening.

[slucero]

thats a much better explanation.. thanks!

[The_Noble_Cause]

thats a much better explanation.. thanks!

I actually agree, a temporary VAT (with some exemptions on things like food) is probably what is needed. Bruce Bartlett, a brilliant economist who served under Reagan, has been saying the same thing for about a year now. Politically? I just don't see it happening.

[slucero]

thats a much better explanation.. thanks!

I actually agree, a temporary VAT (with some exemptions on things like food) is probably what is needed. Bruce Bartlett, a brilliant economist who served under Reagan, has been saying the same thing for about a year now. Politically? I just don't see it happening.

I'm no fan of taxes at all..

The Canadian form, GST.. with its income based credits could be at likely candidate.

[7 Wishes]

As the divide between the rich and middle class (and poverty-stricken) continues to rise...as opportunities for the less forunate to reverse their fortunes abate...as more and more families not only need two full-time workers but also at least one second part-time job, and the fabric of the family continues to unravel...I find it ironic that the "family first" Gingrich disciples continue to advocate reducing taxes on the rich. It's a system guaranteed to fail - that trickle-down economics do not work is no longer open to debate. It's really an amazing double standard.

[Rockindeano]

As the divide between the rich and middle class (and poverty-stricken) continues to rise...as opportunities for the less forunate to reverse their fortunes abate...as more and more families not only need two full-time workers but also at least one second part-time job, and the fabric of the family continues to unravel...I find it ironic that the "family first" Gingrich disciples continue to advocate reducing taxes on the rich. It's a system guaranteed to fail - that trickle-down economics do not work is no longer open to debate. It's really an amazing double standard.

Spot on post. I would love for any conservtive/republican here to respond to this and try to refute it. Seriously, I would love to hear it.

[RedWingFan]

As the divide between the rich and middle class (and poverty-stricken) continues to rise...as opportunities for the less forunate to reverse their fortunes abate...as more and more families not only need two full-time workers but also at least one second part-time job, and the fabric of the family continues to unravel...I find it ironic that the "family first" Gingrich disciples continue to advocate reducing taxes on the rich. It's a system guaranteed to fail - that trickle-down economics do not work is no longer open to debate. It's really an amazing double standard.

Spot on post. I would love for any conservtive/republican here to respond to this and try to refute it. Seriously, I would love to hear it.

You ain't seen nothing yet. Wait til Bush's "tax cuts for the rich" end on Jan. 1st. Child tax credit cut in half, marriage penalty back in place. Watch the thrashing the middle class and the rest of the country takes then. Sure you guys will blame Bush for that too, because he couldn't make them permanent...ignoring the fact that Obama and the dems could.

[7 Wishes]

The GOP has been thrashing the middle class since the 70's. Don't try the bait and switch tactics, RWF.

[Rockindeano]

As the divide between the rich and middle class (and poverty-stricken) continues to rise...as opportunities for the less forunate to reverse their fortunes abate...as more and more families not only need two full-time workers but also at least one second part-time job, and the fabric of the family continues to unravel...I find it ironic that the "family first" Gingrich disciples continue to advocate reducing taxes on the rich. It's a system guaranteed to fail - that trickle-down economics do not work is no longer open to debate. It's really an amazing double standard.

Spot on post. I would love for any conservtive/republican here to respond to this and try to refute it. Seriously, I would love to hear it.

You ain't seen nothing yet. Wait til Bush's "tax cuts for the rich" end on Jan. 1st. Child tax credit cut in half, marriage penalty back in place. Watch the thrashing the middle class and the rest of the country takes then. Sure you guys will blame Bush for that too, because he couldn't make them permanent...ignoring the fact that Obama and the dems could.

Way to answer the question. I didn't think you could anyway. By the way, the Bush tax cuts were horrible for the country. It's not even up for debate.

[donnaplease]

As the divide between the rich and middle class (and poverty-stricken) continues to rise...as opportunities for the less forunate to reverse their fortunes abate...as more and more families not only need two full-time workers but also at least one second part-time job, and the fabric of the family continues to unravel...I find it ironic that the "family first" Gingrich disciples continue to advocate reducing taxes on the rich. It's a system guaranteed to fail - that trickle-down economics do not work is no longer open to debate. It's really an amazing double standard.

Spot on post. I would love for any conservtive/republican here to respond to this and try to refute it. Seriously, I would love to hear it.

I'm gonna speak to one part of it. IMO that divide may continue to grow as more and more people become dependent on government programs to meet their needs. The incentive to work harder than the next guy to achieve that "american dream" has been part of what has made this country grow and thrive in the past.

I don't have the answers to make things a-ok for everyone, but I do feel like we're going down the wrong road. Social promotion in schools, welfare, universal healthcare... I just don't feel we have the accountability that we once had and it's making a negative impact on our society. Talk about a system guaranteed to fail.

[Rockindeano]

As the divide between the rich and middle class (and poverty-stricken) continues to rise...as opportunities for the less forunate to reverse their fortunes abate...as more and more families not only need two full-time workers but also at least one second part-time job, and the fabric of the family continues to unravel...I find it ironic that the "family first" Gingrich disciples continue to advocate reducing taxes on the rich. It's a system guaranteed to fail - that trickle-down economics do not work is no longer open to debate. It's really an amazing double standard.

Spot on post. I would love for any conservtive/republican here to respond to this and try to refute it. Seriously, I would love to hear it.

I'm gonna speak to one part of it. IMO that divide may continue to grow as more and more people become dependent on government programs to meet their needs. The incentive to work harder than the next guy to achieve that "american dream" has been part of what has made this country grow and thrive in the past.

I don't have the answers to make things a-ok for everyone, but I do feel like we're going down the wrong road. Social promotion in schools, welfare, universal healthcare... I just don't feel we have the accountability that we once had and it's making a negative impact on our society. Talk about a system guaranteed to fail.

I just knew you would cite "Universal Healthcare" as a problem with the divide in this country, lol. Too much. Let's not help 32 million of our brothers and sisters....what a ridiculous thing to do. Nevermind the question. You Cons just sadden me with your thought process.

[Angel]

I just knew you would cite "Universal Healthcare" as a problem with the divide in this country, lol. Too much. Let's not help 32 million of our brothers and sisters....what a ridiculous thing to do. Nevermind the question. You Cons just sadden me with your thought process.

Clearly you don't understands the ramifications of Universal Healthcare well enough to continue the debate. You Libs sadden me with your rose-colored glasses view of Universal Healthcare.

[donnaplease]

I just knew you would cite "universl Healthcare" as a problem with the divide in this country, lol. Too much. Let's not help 32 million of our brothers and sisters....what a ridiculous thing to do. Nevermind the question. You Cons just sadden me with your thought process.

You asked for a response and I gave you one. As a citizen AND a healthcare worker I think I am entitled to my opinion on the topic of universal healthcare. You libs make me laugh with your illusion that our citizens are going to be healthier as a result of this law. It simply ain't gonna happen. You'll just be able to walk into your local emergency room without having to worry about who's gonna pay the bill. Because it won't be you, it'll be your 'rich' neighbor down the road.

[7 Wishes]

Angel, that's not what I think - and I believe Deano and I are basically on the same page.

This bill falls very short of being good - but it's better than staying on course. I have an MBA and I worked as a Healthcare Administrator for many years, and had to deal with so many insurance companies refusing to pay for life-saving procedures and necessary tests that I KNOW change is needed.

It's a start, IMHO.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Clearly you don't understands the ramifications of Universal Healthcare well enough to continue the debate.

Enlighten us please.