Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama takes Sequester pay cut

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by likeitfast55 View Post
    Bush spent 5 trillion dollars in new incurred costs while he was president. Obama has to this point spent around 1.5 trillion dollars in new incurred costs. If just looking at expenditure, Obama is currently pretty close to the total spending of Bush's 8 years, but a lot of that is because of programs he inherited, such as the wars and the TARP bailout. A lot of stimulus money was enacted when Bush was president and paid out while Obama was president.

    So in short, you can make a case for either view. As with all politics, it depends on what filter you're looking at it through.
    i picture a bunch of heads exploding
    THE BAD HOMBRE

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by naynay View Post
      you dont need an entourage.. although i know you wish you did. we all do. but we dont. well i do, but YOLO.
      I don't dislike you, but I will stab you in the neck with a chicken bone for using YOLO.....

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by naynay View Post
        you dont need an entourage.. although i know you wish you did. we all do. but we dont. well i do, but YOLO.
        I was perfectly fine driving over 4200 miles by myself to Alaska.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by naynay View Post
          jelly? if you were potus, lemme guess, you would just go to schlitterbahn and rent a cabin on the brazos?

          Not quite, but I also wouldn't act like I were entitled to do whatever I want.

          Does it not upset you that it's your money too?

          Some humility could serve that family well.


          When Calvin Coolidge was president in the glitzy 1920s, he took the republican ideal so seriously that he ended up in a series of tiffs with the White House housekeeper, Elizabeth Jaffray, over the cost of state dinners, and took to admonishing the executive branch for using too many pencils.
          In the 1930s, Eleanor Roosevelt tried to refuse Secret Service protection but was overruled. Nonetheless, for fear that “their presence made her look more like a Queen flanked by an Imperial Guard,” she refused to let the agents who tailed her make themselves known to the public
          Like many of his predecessors, President Coolidge recognized that Americans looked up to the president as the only nationally elected politician, and he sought to behave accordingly. His example has been forgotten

          I get that it's more of a "modern times" thing and not an Obama specific thing

          I was in Washington, D.C., once when George W. Bush’s presidential motorcade came past. It was like watching a Michael Bay movie about traffic, but with more special effects. “Imperial Guard” doesn’t do it justice.

          but damn...

          I think this sums it up best:



          "Too many in our government have forgotten which way around this is supposed to work. Here in America, it’s supposed to be small government, Big People. This is the New World, not the Old. And yet, if you could sew Marie Antoinette’s head back on and bring her back to life, she would look around at today’s White House and nod approvingly."
          Last edited by Strychnine; 04-04-2013, 01:40 PM.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by DallasSleeper View Post
            Nice spin,
            of our $16 Trillion Debt at the end of Obama's FIRST term he contributed $5.073 Trillion

            Bush (W) contributed $3.294 (in 2 terms)

            Obviously the English language wasn't a strong point in your 6 years of school.

            If you can read and comprehend, re-read my post. "New" means what to you?

            Carry-over means what to you?

            With those simple premises covered, say what to who?

            Comment


            • #51
              What does he care what money he gives, he more than makes up for it with the amount of money he swindles from the the taxpayers daily.

              Comment


              • #52
                Republicans often blame Obama for the huge deficit. We often hear rhetoric like "Obama has run up more debt in 4 years than Bush did in 8 years." Democrats tend to blame Bush. These arguments are intellectually bankrupt and they reveal a failure to understand basic economics, math, or our system of budgeting.

                Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. The deficit was caused by a combination of three factors:

                1. Bush's policy changes

                Let's quickly dispense with the impact of the Bush wars, Medicare prescription drug benefit, and tax cuts. None of these things were paid for. The Bush tax cuts cost $160 billion per year, the prescription drug benefit costs about $80 billion per year, and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars cost about $200 billion per year. That adds up to $440 billion per year in deficit impact.

                2. Bush's reaction to the economic collapse.

                Bush's 2008 stimulus added well over $100 billion to the yearly deficit (since many of the policies remained in effect). It added more than $200 billion to the 2008 deficit, but let's leave that aside for now. Bush's financial rescue efforts (the bailouts) added up to about $130 billion per year in deficit impacts. When you add all of that up, you get a total of $230 billion.

                All told, Bush's policies created about $670 of the $1.3 trillion deficit that Obama inherited. I'm not here to throw stones at Bush. I supported some of those policies!

                3. The economic downturn

                In 2009, economists estimated that the economic downturn increased the deficit by about $426 billion in 2009. This assumption is based on two factors: (1) the loss of revenue after an economic collapse and (2) an increase in automatic payments as more people are forced onto unemployment insurance and other forms of government assistance.

                That adds up to about $1.1 trillion in deficit spending that had nothing to do with Obama. Aside from bailouts (which sharply decreased in impact in 2010 and beyond), these impacts were unchanging.

                For example: the impact of the economic downturn persists. The economy continued to decline after Obama came into office, leading to more revenue losses and more automatic government payments through assistance programs.

                Obama's stimulus policies have added more than $1 trillion to the national debt (since some of the tax cuts have been continued). But the alternative approach wouldn't have differed much in its impact on the deficit. Republicans would have passed a stimulus with a larger share of tax cuts. And perhaps it would have been a bit smaller. But the difference is minimal.

                In addition to the stimulus, Obama's health care plan has cut the deficit ever so slightly. The policy changes in his budgets have increased the deficit by a bit as well.

                My point is not to blame at Bush or anyone else for the deficit. It's not to divert blame from Obama. I don't want to rehash those arguments, because there is too much nuance. My point is that people should start thinking more critically when throwing around rhetoric like "Obama caused more debt than Bush" or when simplistically blaming Bush for the deficits. I'm sick of having to explain this rather elementary point. The deficit was caused by the economic downturn. We share collective blame for that problem.

                You may believe that our national debt is a tragedy, and it may make you feel better to pin that blame for that tragedy on your political opponents. But some tragedies don't have obvious culprits. Sometimes bad things happen for a dozens of complex and contradictory reasons. It's always easier to scapegoat some villain in order to make sense of it all. Try to resist that urge.

                Comment


                • #53
                  So forgive me if this has been pointed out already but he wants the public to know he is willing to give up 5% of his $400000 salary ? Wow, that is mighty kind of him , NOT . Thats $20 grand . How many retards in this country do you think are going to praise him for this ? Obviously too many ! What needs to happen is to cut wastefull spending on his campaign style trips that he continues to take on our dime and his family as well . Then we might start thinking he gives a rats a** , otherwise it is pretty obvious he is either the dumbest president in history or the most sinister , or both !

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    From Wiki ,, he should be held to this and allowed to spend not another taxpayer dime on himself or his family .

                    The president earns a $400,000 annual salary, along with a $50,000 annual expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account and $19,000 for entertainment.[77][78] The most recent raise in salary was approved by Congress and President Bill Clinton in 1999 and went into effect in 2001.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Typical liberal bullshit. Give back 5% while his bulldog and seeds spend 110%

                      Comment


                      • #56

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by jryotas View Post

                          The president earns a $400,000 annual salary, along with a $50,000 annual expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account and $19,000 for entertainment.[77][78] The most recent raise in salary was approved by Congress and President Bill Clinton in 1999 and went into effect in 2001.
                          Sure, that makes sense...........

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Hell, I probably spent 19k last year in entertainment. Those strippers aren't going to tip themselves!!

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by likeitfast55 View Post
                              Obviously the English language wasn't a strong point in your 6 years of school.

                              If you can read and comprehend, re-read my post. "New" means what to you?

                              Carry-over means what to you?

                              With those simple premises covered, say what to who?
                              Like I previously said, Nice spin.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by likeitfast55 View Post
                                Obviously the English language wasn't a strong point in your 6 years of school.

                                If you can read and comprehend, re-read my post. "New" means what to you?

                                Carry-over means what to you?

                                With those simple premises covered, say what to who?
                                Ah, a subscriber to Nancy Pelosi's numbers, lol.

                                As a percentage of GDP, Bush in his 8 years in office increased the debt by 91%. In the first 2 years, 3 months of Obama's presidency, he increased the debt by 60%.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X