On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 10:42:35 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

wrote in message news:2fe2218c-c781-44cd-8c83-

Obama added $850bil in new stimulus spending his very first year. So,
don't put all the blame on Bush. Here we are two and a half years after
Bush and Obama's budget is running a deficit of $1.6tril, a level never seen
in the Bush years. Yes, there was too much spending during the Bush years,
but for some reason, that's where the libs memories end. Obama has taken
reckless spending and borrowing to levels never seen before.

You're too smart to *really* believe what you just wrote. "Reckless
spending?" The economy, as handed over by Bush, was in free fall and near
collapse. Stimulus spending, while it might seem reckless to you, cushioned
the blows delivered by Wall Street's ruthless repackaging of America's real
estate wealth into mortgage securities and selling it abroad. Without that
"reckless spending" to help free up frozen credit we would probably be in a
deeper abyss than the first Great Depression.


That's all probably true.
I don't know where trader4 got his "$850bil in new stimulus spending."
Everything I've seen says the bill was $787b.
And $288b was tax cuts.
So that's $499b in spending.
If you don't count tax cuts as spending.
In that case trader4 is 70% off.
If you do count tax cuts in the spending, he's off only 8%.
But then you'd have to call the Bush tax cuts spending too.
I rightly don't know the answer to that.

A point that non-libs seem to forget it that Obama had *nothing to do* with
the collapse. He simply got stuck with the thankless job of fixing the
incredible mess that under-regulated financial markets and reckless spending
wreaked on America. Blaming him for trying to right a sinking ship is more
than a little disingenuous. It's partisan BS taken into the stratosphere.

At least you sort of acknowledge that Bush spent too much on needless wars,
the "junk touching" TSA agency and about a trillion in new and improved
security measures. We've spent at least 100 times and perhaps 1000 times
the total of the actual monetary damage done on 9/11. Would you pay $1
million in insurance premiums to protect against a $40,000 loss? No, of
course not, but that's exactly what the US did because it was so "terrified"
by terrorists. Bush's spending will probably go down in history as the most
wasteful expenditures ever made by the Feds. Yet you're eager to blame
Obama for trying to clean up the mess of Bush spending trillions he/we
couldn't afford.

We've heard your endless criticism of Obama, Chet. Now I'd be interested in
hearing what *you* would have done, President Hayes, had you been Obama in
2008, entering office with the stock market dropping like a paralyzed
falcon, a $700 billion bill for Bush's bailout payments to Wall Street on
your desk, credit markets frozen like Antarctica in winter and major
investment banks and manufacturers staring down the barrel of bankruptcy.
It's easy to find fault - a lot easier than finding solutions.

It would be interesting to see how totally ****ed up this country
would be if the Republicans were in charge.
Might still get a chance to find out. Then the fur will really fly.
Nearly all these pols - D and R alike - are millionaire yuppies,
don't know the importance of manufacturing the products we buy right
here, and think everybody should be educated for "jobs of the
future.".
Right. Like China and India don't produce educated people by the
millions.
****ing morons.

--Vic