President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[RedWingFan]

George Dubbya Bush. Vilator of basic constitutional rights. The only President to preside over two recessions, and the only President this side of Hoover to have a net job LOSS in one, let alone two, terms. An illegal war in Iraq that is the biggest factor in the current recession (which started under Dubbya).

Yeah, he was fucking great. Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat idiot - full of hot hair and a complete lack of facts, data, and evidence to support his outrageous theories. The sixth circle of hell is waiting for that hatemonger.

What's "Vilator" genius?

[conversationpc]

George Dubbya Bush. Vilator of basic constitutional rights.

Vilater? Regardless, this is true. The Patriot Act was/is a sham.

The only President to preside over two recessions...

Not even close to accurate. There have been several Presidents including Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, James K. Polk, Andrew Johnson, Benjamin Harrison, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and George Bush.

...and the only President this side of Hoover to have a net job LOSS in one, let alone two, terms.

I'm not sure about this one but it appears to be true. However, Obama also currently has a huge net job loss.

An illegal war in Iraq that is the biggest factor in the current recession (which started under Dubbya).

Wrong. Even with our military still in Iraq and Afghanistan, defense/wars is third on the list of largest budget items behind medicare/medicaid and social security.

[Saint John]

The Bush years were generally very good to everyone I know.

[7 Wishes]

Conversely, the Hoover years were strikingly BAD to everyone I know who was alive back then.

RWF, for a dumb fuck, you sure have a lot of audacity to point out a spelling error. You're the only poster on this board whose opinions I refuse to abide and who has zero common sense.

[slucero]

George Dubbya Bush. Vilator of basic constitutional rights. The only President to preside over two recessions, and the only President this side of Hoover to have a net job LOSS in one, let alone two, terms. An illegal war in Iraq that is the biggest factor in the current recession (which started under Dubbya).

Yeah, he was fucking great. Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat idiot - full of hot hair and a complete lack of facts, data, and evidence to support his outrageous theories. The sixth circle of hell is waiting for that hatemonger.

Not gonna defend GWB... he's f'd up for sure...

But...

"An illegal war in Iraq that is the biggest factor in the current recession".. care to provide some proof to support that assertion?

[RedWingFan]

Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat idiot - full of hot hair and a complete lack of facts, data, and evidence to support his outrageous theories. The sixth circle of hell is waiting for that hatemonger.

Do you have any examples of this Professor Jones????

To help you out in your search I'll post an example of what a "complete lack of facts, data, and evidence to support" your outright lie. Glad I could help!

So, the fact that I don't come to the forum for 24 hours and don't respond to you "immediately" about something that is a common-knowledge fact means I'm "making stuff up"?

If it's common knowledge fact that Limbaugh was on welfare for 6 years, it should be easy to find the source. So do it Professor Jones.

Still waiting on that link liar!

[conversationpc]

"An illegal war in Iraq that is the biggest factor in the current recession".. care to provide some proof to support that assertion?

There isn't any as I already pointed out.

[Rockindeano]

"An illegal war in Iraq that is the biggest factor in the current recession".. care to provide some proof to support that assertion?

There isn't any as I already pointed out.

There isn't? You just don't want there to be any proof, but there certainly is.

The Iraqi war is illegal, and the point 7 was making I believe was that Obama, unlike Bush, factors the two wars into the budget. Also, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that without the Iraqi war, we would be in a lot better shape financially. That colossal waste of money is real waste. I know you Cons like to say a good deed like health care is a waste, when it actually helps 32 million Americans, but pumping billions upon billions into a wasteland where we don't belong in the first place is the real waste. The numbers of dollars being spent in Iraq are staggering.

Talk your way out of this one Cons.

[conversationpc]

"An illegal war in Iraq that is the biggest factor in the current recession".. care to provide some proof to support that assertion?

There isn't any as I already pointed out.

There isn't? You just don't want there to be any proof, but there certainly is.

The Iraqi war is illegal, and the point 7 was making I believe was that Obama, unlike Bush, factors the two wars into the budget. Also, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that without the Iraqi war, we would be in a lot better shape financially. That colossal waste of money is real waste. I know you Cons like to say a good deed like health care is a waste, when it actually helps 32 million Americans, but pumping billions upon billions into a wasteland where we don't belong in the first place is the real waste. The numbers of dollars being spent in Iraq are staggering.

Talk your way out of this one Cons.

Bullcrap...You're trying to change the argument. I'm not saying the war isn't illegal. I'm also not saying we wouldn't be better off financially. Even WITH the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan factored in, however, medicare/medicaid is still the largest budget item and social security is number two. Defense/wars is third. Deal with it.

Top 4 Budget items - http://www.usdebtclock.org/
1. Medicare/medicaid = $767 billion
2. Social Security = $684 billion
3. Defense/wars (incl. Iraq & Afghanistan) = $665 billion
4. Interest on the debt = $193 billion

The footnote for Defense/wars says...

Total money spent for all branches of the Military including black budgets, equipment, operations, maintenance, personnel and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Source: US DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Eat crow.

[7 Wishes]

There's a huge difference. First of all, the TOTAL COST of the two wars has already exceeded FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS. But unlike the second world war, which helped to stimulate the economy because of the millions of munitions manufacturing jobs it created, there is no "windfall" from the Iraq war (which is an abomination) and the Afghanistan war (which I have always supported). The total cost for Obama care is less than $1 trillion TOTAL, and will REDUCE the defecit (compared to keeping the status quo) in the long term. The 2003 Medicare Act the Republicans forced through (despite the objection of seniors, who were hurt by it, and Democrats) was ENTIRELY debt- and defecit- funded.

[conversationpc]

There's a huge difference. First of all, the TOTAL COST of the two wars has already exceeded FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS. But unlike the second world war, which helped to stimulate the economy because of the millions of munitions manufacturing jobs it created, there is no "windfall" from the Iraq war (which is an abomination) and the Afghanistan war (which I have always supported). The total cost for Obama care is less than $1 trillion TOTAL, and will REDUCE the defecit (compared to keeping the status quo) in the long term. The 2003 Medicare Act the Republicans forced through (despite the objection of seniors, who were hurt by it, and Democrats) was ENTIRELY debt- and defecit- funded.

They are A factor, certainly, but not the biggest. The biggest, in my opinion, would be the housing crisis and banking crisis, along with the irresponsible and out-of-control printing of money, thereby severely devaluing the dollar, that began under Bush.

Also, anyone that believes the lies that Obamacare will only cost less than $1 trillion and also reduce the deficit is fooling themselves. The system in Massachusetts is a similar plan and costs have exceeded their forecasts also. They led the country in per capita costs for healthcare prior to passing their system and STILL lead the country. It hasn't brought costs down a bit nor helped them to reduce the budget. Besides that, government estimates of costs for programs are more often than not inaccurate.

[slucero]

There's a huge difference. First of all, the TOTAL COST of the two wars has already exceeded FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS. But unlike the second world war, which helped to stimulate the economy because of the millions of munitions manufacturing jobs it created, there is no "windfall" from the Iraq war (which is an abomination) and the Afghanistan war (which I have always supported). The total cost for Obama care is less than $1 trillion TOTAL, and will REDUCE the defecit (compared to keeping the status quo) in the long term. The 2003 Medicare Act the Republicans forced through (despite the objection of seniors, who were hurt by it, and Democrats) was ENTIRELY debt- and defecit- funded.

second time I've asked...

... source please that proves: "an illegal war in Iraq that is the biggest factor in the current recession"

[7 Wishes]

Do the math. It's very simple. If we're spending 35% of our GDP on something with zero returns, it pretty much helps explain why things are so terrible now - especially since we have an Administration that actually INCLUDES the two wars (or even one, for that matter) in its annual budget.

[slucero]

Do the math. It's very simple. If we're spending 35% of our GDP on something with zero returns, it pretty much helps explain why things are so terrible now - especially since we have an Administration that actually INCLUDES the two wars (or even one, for that matter) in its annual budget.

again... I've asked you to provide proof, you have not. So far you have only given your opinion (which you are of course entitled to), and it is an an opinion that you have not, or cannot factually support, which makes your opinion a "guess", and that is fine, but not very relevant if you are trying to make a point you want taken as valid..

[Monker]

George Dubbya Bush. Vilator of basic constitutional rights.

Vilater? Regardless, this is true. The Patriot Act was/is a sham.

The only President to preside over two recessions...

Not even close to accurate. There have been several Presidents including Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, James K. Polk, Andrew Johnson, Benjamin Harrison, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and George Bush.

Well, George Bush must have been a HORRIBLE prez to have two recessions in four years.

The truth is that W's economy was NEVER very strong. it always seemed to be teetering on collapse...and the only thing he would do was tax cuts and early rebates...which, according to this thread is also a bad thing nowadays.

[Monker]

Do the math. It's very simple. If we're spending 35% of our GDP on something with zero returns, it pretty much helps explain why things are so terrible now - especially since we have an Administration that actually INCLUDES the two wars (or even one, for that matter) in its annual budget.

That's just not true.

The housing market collapse and the ripple effects to other industries is what caused the recession. People losing their jobs, or worried about losing their jobs, and not having any confidence in their future economically is what causes them to not spend. Business not being able to borrow due to banks not wanting to take risks and lend, made the recessions a LOT worse and last a LOT longer. The entire economy came to a grinding halt because of housing.

Those are the factors that caused this recession. Government wasting money doesn't do that. If that were the case, this nation would ALWAYS be in a recession.

Now it would have helped if we were not in Iraq and instead used that pent up 911 energy to strengthen THIS nation - that would have helped immensely. Instead, Obama has had to catch up 8yrs of economic stupidity in as little time possible. That's hard, if not impossible, to do in 2yrs.

[7 Wishes]

"War always causes recession. Well, if it is a very short war, then it may stimulate the economy in the short-run. But if there is not a quick victory and it drags on, then wars always put the nation waging war into a recession and hurt its economy."
--PhD economist Marc Faber. He goes on to write:

"{In the first five years of the war], the United States has spent more than $522 billion in Iraq alone. This year spending will easily top $160 billion. Yet, as Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes point out in their new book, The Three Trillion Dollar War, the short-term costs pale in comparison with the sum our nation will spend over the long term. Ongoing veterans' health costs, debt payments and the cost of re-equipping the military are some of the reasons for [what will become a] $4 trillion bill. At the same time that the war has imposed a huge burden on taxpayers, it has precipitated one of the largest transfers of wealth and power in modern history. By helping to drive up world oil prices, it has produced a massive redistribution of wealth from working Americans and other oil and gas consumers to a handful of oil producers."

Per Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier of the RAND Institute:

"Redirecting Iraq War funds to education, healthcare, renewable energy and infrastructure would create up to twice as many jobs."

So, I would argue that the wars have DIRECTLY led to the recession. I agree that the housing market collapse and the deregulatory practices of the W Administration were equally, but not more, significant.

[7 Wishes]

For my bud the Lie Finder: have you been whacking off on the Heritage Foundation site again?

If we take a look at real facts instead of Obama-bashing innuendo, President George W. Bush was left with a surplus of $127 billion when he went into office. Bush spent us into huge deficits with two nonbudgeted, unpaid-for wars and overpriced no-bid contracts to companies like Halliburton and Blackwater.

Then there was the unfunded prescription drug plan, an unfunded No Child Left Behind Act, an unfunded bank bailout bill of $700 billion, all under Bush, leaving President Barack Obama on his first day in office with a deficit of $1.3 trillion. And then there was a banking system about to collapse worldwide because of a lack of checks and balances on banks and Wall Street firms.

And, no - that is NOT directly from the CBO. Bush's budgets NEVER included the wars. It was too inconvenient. And it would have made people realize he had ruined the country.

[conversationpc]

Well, George Bush must have been a HORRIBLE prez to have two recessions in four years.

The truth is that W's economy was NEVER very strong. it always seemed to be teetering on collapse...and the only thing he would do was tax cuts and early rebates...which, according to this thread is also a bad thing nowadays.

You're not saying anything that I disagree with.

[conversationpc]

So, I would argue that the wars have DIRECTLY led to the recession. I agree that the housing market collapse and the deregulatory practices of the W Administration were equally, but not more, significant.

They're definitely more significant.

[conversationpc]

Read it and weep...

The new federal health-care law has raised the stakes for hospitals and schools already scrambling to train more doctors.

Experts warn there won't be enough doctors to treat the millions of people newly insured under the law. At current graduation and training rates, the nation could face a shortage of as many as 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.

That shortfall is predicted despite a push by teaching hospitals and medical schools to boost the number of U.S. doctors, which now totals about 954,000.

The greatest demand will be for primary-care physicians. These general practitioners, internists, family physicians and pediatricians will have a larger role under the new law, coordinating care for each patient.

The U.S. has 352,908 primary-care doctors now, and the college association estimates that 45,000 more will be needed by 2020. But the number of medical-school students entering family medicine fell more than a quarter between 2002 and 2007.

A shortage of primary-care and other physicians could mean more-limited access to health care and longer wait times for patients.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... NewsSecond

[7 Wishes]

The events and policies that have pushed deficits to these high levels in the near term were outside the new Administration’s control. If not for the tax cuts (forced through via reconciliation by the Republican-controlled Congress) enacted during the presidency of George W. Bush that Congress did not pay for, the Medicare Act of 2003 (which has cost seniors money), the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were initiated during that period, and the effects of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression (including the cost of steps necessary to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term.

Just two of the many ill-advised and poorly-concieved, Republican Congressional reoncilation-forced policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for almost $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs. These impacts easily dwarf the stimulus and financial rescues. Furthermore, unlike those temporary costs, these inherited policies (especially the tax cuts and the drug benefit) do not fade away as the economy recovers.

[Monker]

And, no - that is NOT directly from the CBO. Bush's budgets NEVER included the wars. It was too inconvenient. And it would have made people realize he had ruined the country.

I don't agree with this either.

He had the votes outside of the normal budgets so the political pressure would be on congress to either vote for the war and our troops, or to be unpatriotic and unfund the troops and put them in danger. It was a political game.

[slucero]

"War always causes recession. Well, if it is a very short war, then it may stimulate the economy in the short-run. But if there is not a quick victory and it drags on, then wars always put the nation waging war into a recession and hurt its economy."
--PhD economist Marc Faber. He goes on to write:

"{In the first five years of the war], the United States has spent more than $522 billion in Iraq alone. This year spending will easily top $160 billion. Yet, as Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes point out in their new book, The Three Trillion Dollar War, the short-term costs pale in comparison with the sum our nation will spend over the long term. Ongoing veterans' health costs, debt payments and the cost of re-equipping the military are some of the reasons for [what will become a] $4 trillion bill. At the same time that the war has imposed a huge burden on taxpayers, it has precipitated one of the largest transfers of wealth and power in modern history. By helping to drive up world oil prices, it has produced a massive redistribution of wealth from working Americans and other oil and gas consumers to a handful of oil producers."

Per Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier of the RAND Institute:

"Redirecting Iraq War funds to education, healthcare, renewable energy and infrastructure would create up to twice as many jobs."

So, I would argue that the wars have DIRECTLY led to the recession. I agree that the housing market collapse and the deregulatory practices of the W Administration were equally, but not more, significant.

Thanks 7..

I took the table from page 8 of that Pollin and Garret-Peltier study (located [url=http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:0_CuKD5l3uoJ:www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/published_study/spending_priorities_PERI.pdf+Robert+Pollin+and+Heidi+Garrett-Peltier&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESioqizSQkW3kP_nXaHCqw3_ZPfxNqG68L2oQ_HesQmUeqLiuOWayuwIQD2hJa_e5682ZZD_1v4iqiwaooz2dHlm1bENOY39xKnCIFvI7lGCThyci1qIfe8EAhHJWpT0s6_qzYtj&sig=AHIEtbQqaNYDoKK0oXvPbEQOzhABDREnMQ[/url]HERE[/url] ) and extrapolated the actual amount of "jobs per $1 Billion" spent, using the $688 Billion they used as their baseline for the Iraq war spend... result below...



Using your logic one could deduce that the recession could have been lessened had some of this money been used as stimulus vs. war funding... my only question is this...

The stimulus bill passed in 2009 was $787 billion ($100 billion MORE than the cost of the war as used in the study), yet the official White House estimate of "jobs created or saved (??) is 2.2M to 2.8M. Hardly the numbers this study touts would have been created...

It appears the study says one thing... but when an actual Billion dollars is spent on job creation the return, as shown by the White House, is significantly LESS...

So who is correct?

[conversationpc]

On another note...

Today here in central Indiana, it's been declared a Knozone Action Day. Temps are to be in the low 80s with low humidity. Seems like political pressure rather than science has pushed the standards down just a little.

[7 Wishes]

I don't think it's fair to compare these numbers - you have to factor in the state of affairs that existed when the stimulus bill went through. The preconditions that existed in 2009 made the creation of jobs much more difficult - and no, it's hardly perfect. When they talk about "job creation" it's referring to the ordinary distribution of wealth and job creation that exists WITHOUT the pretense of two massive, unpaid wars and a failed financial bailout plan.

[7 Wishes]

Here's the problem with you Drudge-report worshipping neo-cons screaming out in unison about the "47% of U.S. households don't pay income tax" issue.

The report was compiled in June of 2009 - using data from the last fiscal year of George W. Bush's presidency. In other words, the "radical socialist agenda" conspiracy of the Democrats that you so haughtily taut is actually a policy that was instituted by a Republican President and Administration. Those particular income tax laws were passed back in 2006 - when the GOP still had control of the House and Congress.

Where's the outrage now?

[conversationpc]

Here's the problem with you Drudge-report worshipping neo-cons screaming out in unison about the "47% of U.S. households don't pay income tax" issue.

The report was compiled in June of 2009 - using data from the last fiscal year of George W. Bush's presidency. In other words, the "radical socialist agenda" conspiracy of the Democrats that you so haughtily taut is actually a policy that was instituted by a Republican President and Administration. Those particular income tax laws were passed back in 2006 - when the GOP still had control of the House and Congress.

Where's the outrage now?

Who gives a flying crap where the numbers came from? There's no gotcha here. Doesn't matter to me in the slightest who's responsible. BFD.

[slucero]

I don't think it's fair to compare these numbers - you have to factor in the state of affairs that existed when the stimulus bill went through. The preconditions that existed in 2009 made the creation of jobs much more difficult - and no, it's hardly perfect. When they talk about "job creation" it's referring to the ordinary distribution of wealth and job creation that exists WITHOUT the pretense of two massive, unpaid wars and a failed financial bailout plan.

Even with the preconditions... the differential in the White House numbers vs. the study is too wide to be simply overlooked.

So.. to be fair... one could say that if this report had been written before the wars were started then their premise could have been correct..

And since this report was written after the wars were started, and their premise for the report was "how many jobs per $1B spent vs. $1B spent on the war"... then the veracity of this report is questionable... especially as an indicator of the cost of the wars being a cause of the recession..

Good read though.

[RedWingFan]

The events and policies that have pushed deficits to these high levels in the near term were outside the new Administration’s control. If not for the tax cuts (forced through via reconciliation by the Republican-controlled Congress) enacted during the presidency of George W. Bush that Congress did not pay for, the Medicare Act of 2003 (which has cost seniors money), the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were initiated during that period, and the effects of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression (including the cost of steps necessary to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term.

Just two of the many ill-advised and poorly-concieved, Republican Congressional reoncilation-forced policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for almost $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs. These impacts easily dwarf the stimulus and financial rescues. Furthermore, unlike those temporary costs, these inherited policies (especially the tax cuts and the drug benefit) do not fade away as the economy recovers.

Would you be so good as to post a link to whoever wrote this? I notice you have flawless punctuation here Professor Jones.