PDA

View Full Version : Forbes: Smallest Govt spender since Eisenhower? Obama.



Locke
05-25-2012, 05:25 PM
It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.

Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama (http://www.forbes.com/profile/barack-obama/) being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch (http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor) is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Who knew?



http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/)

:snack:

tylerdolphin
05-25-2012, 05:45 PM
So if Im understanding this correctly (and I very well may not be), they are basing the spending numbers on a baseline that the previous president set. So basically Obama spent less over the previous guy than any other president. Considering the moron he followed, Im not sure thats a feather in his cap. You dont solve a spending problem by spending just a little more than the other guy.

LANGER72
05-25-2012, 06:02 PM
:lol:


Richard "Rick" Ungar (born in Youngstown, Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown,_Ohio) in 1950) is a contributor to Forbes.com and the Washington Monthly where he writes on American health care policy and politics. He additionally appears weekly as the liberal voice of the "Forbes on Fox" television show and as a political pundit on other television and radio programs. Ungar moved into the world of journalism after a long career as a creative writer and executive producer in television.


Enough said.

Locke
05-25-2012, 06:09 PM
I knew it was going to happen. Without fail, someone comes in and blasts the author and ignores the facts. How about some substance Langer...?

tylerdolphin
05-25-2012, 06:16 PM
:lol:


Richard "Rick" Ungar (born in Youngstown, Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown,_Ohio) in 1950) is a contributor to Forbes.com and the Washington Monthly where he writes on American health care policy and politics. He additionally appears weekly as the liberal voice of the "Forbes on Fox" television show and as a political pundit on other television and radio programs. Ungar moved into the world of journalism after a long career as a creative writer and executive producer in television.


Enough said.

So we should ignore anything Bill O'reilly says because hes a Republican voice and should definitely ignore anything you have to say being that youre our Republican voice on this board. Got it.

LANGER72
05-25-2012, 06:17 PM
I knew it was going to happen. Without fail, someone comes in and blasts the author and ignores the facts. How about some substance Langer...?

I would rather tangle your lines and steal your bait...lol
It's a long holiday weekend, I really don't want to get into another long debate right now.
My wife has a long list of honey-do's..
Punching holes into your thread requires diligent research...lol

Dogbone34
05-25-2012, 06:17 PM
stop

this is silly. it does not include stimulus.

LANGER72
05-25-2012, 06:19 PM
So we should ignore anything Bill O'reilly says because hes a Republican voice and should definitely ignore anything you have to say being that youre our Republican voice on this board. Got it.

Take it easy. I am trying to be civil.
If you want to ignore me, that is fine.

tylerdolphin
05-25-2012, 06:22 PM
Take it easy. I am trying to be civil.
If you want to ignore me, that is fine.

I wasnt trying to be uncivil :idk:

Just pointing out the natural progression of your logic.

Locke
05-25-2012, 06:22 PM
stop

this is silly. it does not include stimulus.

He mentions the stimulus in the article...

Dogbone34
05-25-2012, 06:32 PM
He mentions the stimulus in the article...

A desperate attempt to mislead.

Valandui
05-25-2012, 06:46 PM
Does this include military spending?

Tetragrammaton
05-25-2012, 07:39 PM
It isn't so much a positive of Obama than it is an indictment of the massive spending overseen by the Bush Administration.

The biggest problem with the administration, and the reason the deficits keep growing so hugely, is the continued tax cuts. Obama and the Congress have passed far too many in a time when revenue is already low thanks to the recession. Until tax rates are normalized, a surplus will always be impossible.

Locke
05-26-2012, 12:27 AM
A desperate attempt to mislead.

I like you dog, I really do. But this is ridiculous. I'd love to hear some actual substance to your opinions. How is this an attempt to mislead? Personally, I see some logic behind his article, but it is also a very subjective way to measure...

jared81
05-26-2012, 08:18 AM
I like you dog, I really do. But this is ridiculous. I'd love to hear some actual substance to your opinions. How is this an attempt to mislead? Personally, I see some logic behind his article, but it is also a very subjective way to measure...

Without scouring the internet for graphs and charts I assume there is some truth to this. However, for every claim like this, there are 10 more that say Obama is a big spender. All I know is, Obama has increased the debt 5 trillion in his first term. You can fudge the numbers all you want.

Dolphins9954
05-26-2012, 09:29 AM
So basically Obama expanded an already unfundable and bloated government by a little while adding 5 trillion to the debt so let's give him a cookie.

Dolphins9954
05-26-2012, 10:47 AM
Here's a good read disputing this.....in short classic Washington fuzzy math.


FACT CHECK: Obama off on thrifty spending claim


The White House is aggressively pushing the idea that, contrary to widespread belief, President Barack Obama is tightfisted with taxpayer dollars. To back it up, the administration cites a media report that claims federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since the Eisenhower years.
"Federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any president in almost 60 years," Obama said at a campaign rally Thursday in Des Moines, Iowa.

The problem with that rosy claim is that the Wall Street bailout is part of the calculation. The bailout ballooned the 2009 budget just before Obama took office, making Obama's 2010 results look smaller in comparison. And as almost $150 billion of the bailout was paid back during Obama's watch, the analysis counted them as government spending cuts.

It also assumes Obama had less of a role setting the budget for 2009 than he really did.

Obama rests his claim on an analysis by MarketWatch, a financial information and news service owned by Dow Jones & Co. The analysis simply looks at the year-to-year topline spending number for the government but doesn't account for distortions baked into the figures by the Wall Street bailout and government takeover of the mortgage lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The MarketWatch study finds spending growth of only 1.4 percent over 2010-2013, or annual increases averaging 0.4 percent over that period. Those are stunningly low figures considering that Obama rammed through Congress an $831 billion stimulus measure in early 2009 and presided over significant increases in annual spending by domestic agencies at the same time the cost of benefit programs like Social Security, Medicare and the Medicaid were ticking steadily higher.

A fairer calculation would give Obama much of the responsibility for an almost 10 percent budget boost in 2009, then a 13 percent increase over 2010-2013, or average annual growth of spending of just more than 3 percent over that period.

So how does Obama measure up?

If one assumes that TARP and the takeover of Fannie and Freddie by the government as one-time budgetary anomalies and remove them from calculations — an approach taken by Holtz-Eakin — you get the following picture:

—A 9.7 percent increase in 2009, much of which is attributable to Obama.

—A 7.8 percent increase in 2010, followed by slower spending growth over 2011-13. Much of the slower growth reflects the influence of Republicans retaking control of the House and their budget and debt deal last summer with Obama. All told, government spending now appears to be growing at an annual rate of roughly 3 percent over the 2010-2013 period, rather than the 0.4 percent claimed by Obama and the MarketWatch analysis.


http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-obama-off-thrifty-spending-claim-231221900.html



http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/08/miracle-1.jpg

Locke
05-26-2012, 12:38 PM
Here's a good read disputing this.....in short classic Washington fuzzy math.


FACT CHECK: Obama off on thrifty spending claim



http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-obama-off-thrifty-spending-claim-231221900.html



http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/08/miracle-1.jpg

Thanks man. This is the kind of stuff I was looking for...

ohall
05-27-2012, 01:36 AM
stop

this is silly. it does not include stimulus.

^^^^ We have a winner!!!

SnakeoilSeller
05-27-2012, 08:42 AM
I make it a point not to comment the political forum anymore. It is too loaded with ignorant liberal bs to the point where even commenting is a waste of my time and effort. However, this is just ridiculous Pro Obama pandering, nothing is his fault, garbage that the media has been spinning. Here is the best retort I have seen about the ridiculous article that was psted in Marketwatch:

http://media.hotair.com/greenroom/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/MarketWatchObamaSpendingInfographic.jpg

(You just have to enlarge it.)

How anyone with any amount of intelligence can blame the last 3 plus years all on George Bush with a straight face is beyond ridiculous.

SnakeoilSeller
05-27-2012, 09:45 AM
Here are some other articles that point to the ridiculousness of the claim that President Obama has no blame in the increased Governmnet spending and set the record straight.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/24/the-truth-about-president-obamas-skyrocketing-spending/

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/24/setting-obamas-great-fiscal-restraint-record-straight/

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2012/05/examiner-editorial-big-spending-obama-frames-himself-scrooge/650536

http://news.investors.com/article/612620/201205241756/obama-is-a-spendthrift.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html#pagebreak

LANGER72
05-28-2012, 10:56 AM
I make it a point not to comment the political forum anymore. It is too loaded with ignorant liberal bs to the point where even commenting is a waste of my time and effort. However, this is just ridiculous Pro Obama pandering, nothing is his fault, garbage that the media has been spinning. Here is the best retort I have seen about the ridiculous article that was psted in Marketwatch:

http://media.hotair.com/greenroom/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/MarketWatchObamaSpendingInfographic.jpg

(You just have to enlarge it.)

How anyone with any amount of intelligence can blame the last 3 plus years all on George Bush with a straight face is beyond ridiculous.

This ^
I feel the same way. Guys come here, start threads from liberal sources proclaiming them as facts, and then start with the BS explanations. :idk:.

Locke
05-28-2012, 05:42 PM
This ^
I feel the same way. Guys come here, start threads from liberal sources proclaiming them as facts, and then start with the BS explanations. :idk:.

Then feel free to follow Snake and shula to their conservative circle jerk forum. This is just an alternative way to look at something, not one I think is entirely accurate, but is at least interesting. Instead of going "lolz we dun lyke dem educmacated librals", you could do what 9954 did and actually post an intelligent rebuttal. If you noticed, he got a thanks and an acknowledgement of a valid counterpoint. No one yelled at him, called him names, commented on his intelligence, or anything like that. That's what happens when you add worthwhile dialogue to a forum. That's something you've yet to do...

Dolphins9954
05-28-2012, 05:49 PM
Then feel free to follow Snake and shula to their conservative circle jerk forum. This is just an alternative way to look at something, not one I think is entirely accurate, but is at least interesting. Instead of going "lolz we dun lyke dem educmacated librals", you could do what 9954 did and actually post an intelligent rebuttal. If you noticed, he got a thanks and an acknowledgement of a valid counterpoint. No one yelled at him, called him names, commented on his intelligence, or anything like that. That's what happens when you add worthwhile dialogue to a forum. That's something you've yet to do...

Civil debate. It goes a long way.

JamesBW43
05-28-2012, 06:14 PM
I make it a point not to comment the political forum anymore. It is too loaded with ignorant liberal bs to the point where even commenting is a waste of my time and effort.
:loco:

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/05/BillMaher_Republicanbubble-1.png

SnakeoilSeller
05-29-2012, 09:34 AM
Please tell me more about civil debate. I make one comment in a year and suddenly I am off in some conservative circle jerk forum? That sounds civil.

The reality is liberalism is a lie. It always is and always will be, just like the article claiming that Obama isn't a big spender. It is a lie. Liberals claim civility, but who attacked who personally?

Civility in a liberal mind = "lolz we dun lyke dem educmacated librals" Liberalism is a lie, and the actions of liberals usually prove liberalism is a lie.

LANGER72
05-29-2012, 12:36 PM
Please tell me more about civil debate. I make one comment in a year and suddenly I am off in some conservative circle jerk forum? That sounds civil.

The reality is liberalism is a lie. It always is and always will be, just like the article claiming that Obama isn't a big spender. It is a lie. Liberals claim civility, but who attacked who personally?

Civility in a liberal mind = "lolz we dun lyke dem educmacated librals" Liberalism is a lie, and the actions of liberals usually prove liberalism is a lie.

All of that civility was directed at me Snake. I appreciate your input. Your sensible point of view is refreshing.
Regarding some of the elite posters(or imposters), on this forum... I just play along. Nothing will get solved here.
Except for a few exceptions, I do not take the time to furnish supporting information. It is just a waste of time.

LANGER72
05-29-2012, 12:45 PM
Then feel free to follow Snake and shula to their conservative circle jerk forum. This is just an alternative way to look at something, not one I think is entirely accurate, but is at least interesting. Instead of going "lolz we dun lyke dem educmacated librals", you could do what 9954 did and actually post an intelligent rebuttal. If you noticed, he got a thanks and an acknowledgement of a valid counterpoint. No one yelled at him, called him names, commented on his intelligence, or anything like that. That's what happens when you add worthwhile dialogue to a forum. That's something you've yet to do...

..let it go.

Dolphins9954
05-29-2012, 12:52 PM
Please tell me more about civil debate. I make one comment in a year and suddenly I am off in some conservative circle jerk forum? That sounds civil.

The reality is liberalism is a lie. It always is and always will be, just like the article claiming that Obama isn't a big spender. It is a lie. Liberals claim civility, but who attacked who personally?

Civility in a liberal mind = "lolz we dun lyke dem educmacated librals" Liberalism is a lie, and the actions of liberals usually prove liberalism is a lie.

Liberalism is just as much a lie as modern day "small government" conservatism. Getting all caught up in the "pot calling the kettle" antics is a watse of time and energy especially when Bush, Obama and Romney will all create unfundable budgets and skyrocketing debt. While trumping our liberties with government every chance they get.

LANGER72
05-29-2012, 01:09 PM
Liberalism is just as much a lie as modern day "small government" conservatism. Getting all caught up in the "pot calling the kettle" antics is a watse of time and energy especially when Bush, Obama and Romney will all create unfundable budgets and skyrocketing debt. While trumping our liberties with government every chance they get.


Romney has not even been elected yet. For you to lump him in with Bush and Obama is not fair to the man.
He deserves a chance(if elected) to make changes before he is painted in a negative light.

Dolphins9954
05-29-2012, 01:19 PM
Romney has not even been elected yet. For you to lump him in with Bush and Obama is not fair to the man.
He deserves a chance(if elected) to make changes before he is painted in a negative light.

His policies that support government interventions like bailouts and wars will guarantee he keeps us in the red. I've never heard one word from him on how he plans to balance the budget. Obama doesn't have those words in his vocabulary at all. And all I've seen from Romney is his support for Paul Ryan's plan which doesn't balance the budget for 30 years. Romney is just another continuation of the same fiscal and monetary policies we've all come to know.

Locke
05-29-2012, 03:05 PM
Please tell me more about civil debate. I make one comment in a year and suddenly I am off in some conservative circle jerk forum? That sounds civil.

The reality is liberalism is a lie. It always is and always will be, just like the article claiming that Obama isn't a big spender. It is a lie. Liberals claim civility, but who attacked who personally?

Civility in a liberal mind = "lolz we dun lyke dem educmacated librals" Liberalism is a lie, and the actions of liberals usually prove liberalism is a lie.

Glad to see you haven't changed during your hiatus. Hateful neoconservatives, such as yourself, are tearing this country apart.

How is liberalism a lie? In fact, what is liberalism? Do you even know? I can't wait to see your answer to this. I can almost guarantee you're going to sidestep the questions though. Make some snide comment about something unrelated, and think you just "put me in my place". This should be interesting...

JamesBW43
05-29-2012, 03:54 PM
Damn. All this time, I had no idea that liberalism was a lie. I wonder if I can ask for a partial refund on my master's degrees.

SnakeoilSeller
05-29-2012, 04:47 PM
Glad to see you haven't changed during your hiatus. Hateful neoconservatives, such as yourself, are tearing this country apart.

How is liberalism a lie? In fact, what is liberalism? Do you even know? I can't wait to see your answer to this. I can almost guarantee you're going to sidestep the questions though. Make some snide comment about something unrelated, and think you just "put me in my place". This should be interesting...

What hate? I did not attack anyone, I did not spew hate. I stated my opinion, not about any one individual person but about liberalism and look at the response. What part was the civil part? What parts of your responses to me were civil? I think that liberalism and all that it stands for is a lie. It never works. It never has worked. I am not going to side step the question because quite frankly I dont care to get into this huge debate with you. It is not worth my time or my effort. If that makes you feel like "you won", so be it. If that's what you need.

phinfan3411
05-29-2012, 07:35 PM
What hate? I did not attack anyone, I did not spew hate. I stated my opinion, not about any one individual person but about liberalism and look at the response. What part was the civil part? What parts of your responses to me were civil? I think that liberalism and all that it stands for is a lie. It never works. It never has worked. I am not going to side step the question because quite frankly I dont care to get into this huge debate with you. It is not worth my time or my effort. If that makes you feel like "you won", so be it. If that's what you need.

I think what Locke is trying to say is many people (imo) would be shocked at the actual meaning of the word liberal, many people throw it around, and do not really look into its true meaning.

It has been a while, but when i looked into it, a liberal had many interesting meanings that i certainly identified with including the pressing of individual liberties or freedoms, and small government if my memory serves...

Locke
05-29-2012, 08:11 PM
I think what Locke is trying to say is many people (imo) would be shocked at the actual meaning of the word liberal, many people throw it around, and do not really look into its true meaning.

It has been a while, but when i looked into it, a liberal had many interesting meanings that i certainly identified with including the pressing of individual liberties or freedoms, and small government if my memory serves...

Thank you. The word liberal is thrown at anything and everything that can be construed as negative. Especially with most of our resident Neocons, it's used as an insult towards anyone who doesn't agree with them. Calling it a lie is saying that it is saying something that is intentionally not true. It's OK to disagree with the tenets of liberalism, but to call it a lie is just feeding into the hyper-partisan rhetoric that dominates our culture currently...

JamesBW43
05-29-2012, 08:33 PM
What hate? I did not attack anyone, I did not spew hate.


I make it a point not to comment the political forum anymore. It is too loaded with ignorant liberal bs to the point where even commenting is a waste of my time and effort.

:err:

SnakeoilSeller
05-30-2012, 10:19 AM
Thank you. The word liberal is thrown at anything and everything that can be construed as negative. Especially with most of our resident Neocons, it's used as an insult towards anyone who doesn't agree with them. Calling it a lie is saying that it is saying something that is intentionally not true. It's OK to disagree with the tenets of liberalism, but to call it a lie is just feeding into the hyper-partisan rhetoric that dominates our culture currently...

But saying that I was at some conservative circle jerk and calling me a neo con helps our current culture how? Your recent posts on this just prove my point and further reinforces my beliefs on liberalism and it's ridiculous hypocrisy. I did not attack anyone individually, did not attack anyone by name - yet I was not afforded the same respect. If anyone took what I said about liberalism personally, well that's a you problem not a me problem.

phinfan3411
08-14-2012, 09:44 AM
Bringing to top.

phinfan3411
08-14-2012, 10:06 AM
Here's a good read disputing this.....in short classic Washington fuzzy math.


FACT CHECK: Obama off on thrifty spending claim



http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-obama-off-thrifty-spending-claim-231221900.html



http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/08/miracle-1.jpg
I believe this pretty much sums it up, and it is brought up by the least partisan person I know.

nick1
08-14-2012, 10:55 AM
The author did aa great job supporting his numbers with where he got the data and does include the bailouts some of the bailouts were signed off by bush so it is appropriately assigned to bush

---------- Post added at 10:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:54 AM ----------

Just look at the below comments under the article can't believe the author even responded to them

phinfan3411
08-14-2012, 11:34 AM
Please, just read the fact check on the article, it is a very partisan piece, i feel this type of crap is detrimental to our nation.

I am not trying to shield the republicans, they bring absolutely NOTHING to the table, my continuing problem is the belief held by some that the only problem is the other "team" (politics has taken on that mythical favorite team mentality), the only way this changes is if both parties lose their core support without proper representation.

Their should be NO Bush supporters, when he was in power he did the equivalent of walking into the oval office and taking a crap on the desk. Obama, basically the same, and they do it because they know their supporters hate the other side more than they care about what the heck they do, disgusting.

nick1
08-14-2012, 04:13 PM
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/

---------- Post added at 04:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:11 PM ----------

The main idea is correct like I said the numbers might be a little off, but the idea that he hasn't increased the budget as much as the rest is true

CashInFist
08-14-2012, 07:31 PM
LOL. Obama EXEMPLIFIES "Big Government". He preaches it every single day of his life. Is this thread a joke?

tylerdolphin
08-14-2012, 09:08 PM
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/

---------- Post added at 04:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:11 PM ----------

The main idea is correct like I said the numbers might be a little off, but the idea that he hasn't increased the budget as much as the rest is true

But thats irrelevant. The guy before him spent oodles of money and racked up a huge deficit. Its illogical to just increase it anyway, but barely less than some other presidents did, and then act like you did something special. Bottom line is that he followed a president that had wreckless fiscal policies and actually increased the budget and is growing the deficit at a ridiculous rate.

CashInFist
08-14-2012, 10:40 PM
But thats irrelevant. The guy before him spent oodles of money and racked up a huge deficit. Its illogical to just increase it anyway, but barely less than some other presidents did, and then act like you did something special. Bottom line is that he followed a president that had wreckless fiscal policies and actually increased the budget and is growing the deficit at a ridiculous rate.

Ummmm...Obama didn't get our country attacked and the World Trade Centers get crumbled down as soon as he got thrown into office. Is this so hard to comprehend?

Locke
08-14-2012, 11:03 PM
Ummmm...Obama didn't get our country attacked and the World Trade Centers get crumbled down as soon as he got thrown into office. Is this so hard to comprehend?

Ummm. Bush knew the attacks were being planned and did nothing to prevent them...

Spesh
08-14-2012, 11:05 PM
Ummmm...Obama didn't get our country attacked and the World Trade Centers get crumbled down as soon as he got thrown into office. Is this so hard to comprehend?

Wait, what?

Now Bush gets a pass on spending money hand over fist near the end of his term because of 9/11?

Color me shocked at that excuse.

tylerdolphin
08-15-2012, 12:11 AM
Ummmm...Obama didn't get our country attacked and the World Trade Centers get crumbled down as soon as he got thrown into office. Is this so hard to comprehend?

Yea good thing you guys invaded Iraq to prevent that happening again.

TheWalrus
08-15-2012, 12:24 AM
Ummm. Bush knew the attacks were being planned and did nothing to prevent them...

I'm a liberal and hated President Bush but I have to say I disapprove of this. The man was many things: a buffoon, an evangelical whack job, a liar, a guy who gave Cheney the reigns of power and the man ultimately responsible for the death of 4,804 America soldiers in a senseless war in Iraq.

But the notion that -- had he known -- he would have done nothing about 9/11 out of... what? Laziness or a lack of caring or... seriously, what, exactly? It breaks with reality, imo. It's not so bad as the 9/11 Truth movement, but you have to assume more than just incompetence there. You're assuming something almost sinister.

It's pretty much a long dead issue but it was something I felt I had to express, particularly as a lib.

Locke
08-15-2012, 12:43 AM
I'm a liberal and hated President Bush but I have to say I disapprove of this. The man was many things: a buffoon, an evangelical whack job, a liar, a guy who gave Cheney the reigns of power and the man ultimately responsible for the death of 4,804 America soldiers in a senseless war in Iraq.

But the notion that -- had he known -- he would have done nothing about 9/11 out of... what? Laziness or a lack of caring or... seriously, what, exactly? It breaks with reality, imo. It's not so bad as the 9/11 Truth movement, but you have to assume more than just incompetence there. You're assuming something almost sinister.

It's pretty much a long dead issue but it was something I felt I had to express, particularly as a lib.

It's been so long, I'd have to go back and read up on it again, which would also include hunting down where I read it, which I just don't have the time to do with my semester starting up. Pretty much, from what I read and remember, he had reports of these terrorists taking these flight classes, as well as intel from the CIA suggesting that an attack on American soil was being planned. I would assume he just didn't take the reports seriously, considering we had been pretty much attack free since Timothy McVeigh, and even he was domestic. Of course I'm not Bush, nor do I know anyone who knows him, so I couldn't say.

I guess my post implies that he knew exactly what the attack was going to be, when in reality I would assume he just knew something was being planned. Of course, it's also possible that all of this is fabricated, but I highly doubt you could get that many sources at the time coordinated enough to lie. It's the same way I feel about people who think it was an inside job, it's insane to think that you could get that many people at that many levels of government to coordinate a story and not expect leaks. Occam's razor says the simplest explanation is usually the right one, and the simplest explanation is our guard was down and we got complacent. That's entirely on the POTUS...

TheWalrus
08-15-2012, 01:22 AM
It's been so long, I'd have to go back and read up on it again, which would also include hunting down where I read it, which I just don't have the time to do with my semester starting up. Pretty much, from what I read and remember, he had reports of these terrorists taking these flight classes, as well as intel from the CIA suggesting that an attack on American soil was being planned. I would assume he just didn't take the reports seriously, considering we had been pretty much attack free since Timothy McVeigh, and even he was domestic. Of course I'm not Bush, nor do I know anyone who knows him, so I couldn't say.

I guess my post implies that he knew exactly what the attack was going to be, when in reality I would assume he just knew something was being planned. Of course, it's also possible that all of this is fabricated, but I highly doubt you could get that many sources at the time coordinated enough to lie. It's the same way I feel about people who think it was an inside job, it's insane to think that you could get that many people at that many levels of government to coordinate a story and not expect leaks. Occam's razor says the simplest explanation is usually the right one, and the simplest explanation is our guard was down and we got complacent. That's entirely on the POTUS...

I don't really see it that way, personally. The President's primary function is to set the agenda and set the tone. He chooses the cabinet heads and points them where to go but the details are neither his field nor within the scope of his time to deal with. This view that the president has to be the one to link the memo "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" (or whatever it was called) with another memo about terrorists training at flight schools is just not something I have much sympathy with.

There's an FBI full of people paid to make those analyses. If George Tenet thinks the two are linked, it's his job to say so. Then he recommends a course of action to the president, and then the president decides whether to take that action or not. If he just puts a bunch of memos in front of the president at the daily intelligence briefing and doesn't focus too much on them, he's not giving the president a reason to be concerned.

So it's not like Bush blew off the "let's stop Bin Laden from killing Americans" meeting to go a circle jerk with Billy Graham, which is sort of what I see too many liberals willing to believe. It's a scary memo but, you know, presidents get a lot of scary memos.

Now, back to George Tenet, who if anyone is to blame, in my opinion, it's him. According to him, his very first reaction to 9/11 was to link the Bin Laden memo and the terrorists training in Florida report in his mind. I think what he wrote was something like, "Oh, God. I hope it's not those guys training in Florida."

Which is, I think, a very revealing thing for him to admit because it just shows how his immediate instinct wasn't one of sorrow, or remorse, or even anger, but to hope his ass wouldn't be in the sling for missing the connection, which obviously, if he's to be believed, came easily to his mind. Better for him for the attack to be something completely off the radar.

I'm not much for singling out a specific person to blame in these situations. That kind of thing is far too comforting to be the truth. But Tenet comes closer to anyone, imo. If Bush is to be blamed, it's for keeping him on (and, significantly, for giving Tenet a goddamn Medal of Freedom for his craptastic effort), and similarly blame must go to Clinton for appointing him in the first place.

Anyway, this thread has been massively derailed now. Sorry about that.

Locke
08-15-2012, 01:33 PM
I don't really see it that way, personally. The President's primary function is to set the agenda and set the tone. He chooses the cabinet heads and points them where to go but the details are neither his field nor within the scope of his time to deal with. This view that the president has to be the one to link the memo "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" (or whatever it was called) with another memo about terrorists training at flight schools is just not something I have much sympathy with.

There's an FBI full of people paid to make those analyses. If George Tenet thinks the two are linked, it's his job to say so. Then he recommends a course of action to the president, and then the president decides whether to take that action or not. If he just puts a bunch of memos in front of the president at the daily intelligence briefing and doesn't focus too much on them, he's not giving the president a reason to be concerned.

So it's not like Bush blew off the "let's stop Bin Laden from killing Americans" meeting to go a circle jerk with Billy Graham, which is sort of what I see too many liberals willing to believe. It's a scary memo but, you know, presidents get a lot of scary memos.

Now, back to George Tenet, who if anyone is to blame, in my opinion, it's him. According to him, his very first reaction to 9/11 was to link the Bin Laden memo and the terrorists training in Florida report in his mind. I think what he wrote was something like, "Oh, God. I hope it's not those guys training in Florida."

Which is, I think, a very revealing thing for him to admit because it just shows how his immediate instinct wasn't one of sorrow, or remorse, or even anger, but to hope his ass wouldn't be in the sling for missing the connection, which obviously, if he's to be believed, came easily to his mind. Better for him for the attack to be something completely off the radar.

I'm not much for singling out a specific person to blame in these situations. That kind of thing is far too comforting to be the truth. But Tenet comes closer to anyone, imo. If Bush is to be blamed, it's for keeping him on (and, significantly, for giving Tenet a goddamn Medal of Freedom for his craptastic effort), and similarly blame must go to Clinton for appointing him in the first place.

Anyway, this thread has been massively derailed now. Sorry about that.

Don't apologize, it's nice to have a intelligent debate for a change. Most of the well-spoken and intelligent posters I tend to agree with, so it's nice to have someone like that on the other side of a debate for once, derailed topic or not.

I can agree with your blame towards Tenet, and I can also agree that it was a failure on the entire FBI and CIA as opposed to just Bush, but it always comes back to the boss. Especially considering how much time off he was taking at the start of his Presidency, it makes it hard to sympathize with the man for being unprepared. And you're right, it might be unfair to put that on him when it might not have been completely his fault, but that's a responsibility you take on as POTUS. Obama is feeling the exact same thing now with the economy. Most of us know he inherited the problem, yet he is still blamed for the slow recovery. I respect both men for taking that blame and not trying to displace it, but it's still there...

TheWalrus
08-15-2012, 02:16 PM
Don't apologize, it's nice to have a intelligent debate for a change. Most of the well-spoken and intelligent posters I tend to agree with, so it's nice to have someone like that on the other side of a debate for once, derailed topic or not.

I can agree with your blame towards Tenet, and I can also agree that it was a failure on the entire FBI and CIA as opposed to just Bush, but it always comes back to the boss. Especially considering how much time off he was taking at the start of his Presidency, it makes it hard to sympathize with the man for being unprepared. And you're right, it might be unfair to put that on him when it might not have been completely his fault, but that's a responsibility you take on as POTUS. Obama is feeling the exact same thing now with the economy. Most of us know he inherited the problem, yet he is still blamed for the slow recovery. I respect both men for taking that blame and not trying to displace it, but it's still there...

Well, yeah. The president is always ultimately at fault, just as the captain of a submarine is at fault if someone loads a torpedo wrong, there's an explosion and people are killed.

Leaders historically take on that responsibility for themselves and I can see why but c'mon. I think we as intelligent people can dig a little deeper than that and, especially in the case of 9/11, see petty inter-agency squabbles, a lack of foresight, a complacent intelligence community, a huge bureaucratic turnover in the form of a new president, an utterly audacious, well funded and well executed terrorist plan and other factors being the true culprits here rather than George W. Bush clearing too much sagebrush on his fake ranch.

The comparison you make with Obama and the economy is a good one, I think. The strange thing there is that the political climate for reform in the economic area hasn't been nearly a favorable as the climate for intelligence reform was to Bush. I still think Obama could have fought harder for a wider range of stimulus, instituted harsh penalties for credit default swapping, put some of these *******s on trial, nationalized a few of the banks for a short period and wiped the debt off their books, not opened himself up for criticisms of favoritism by allowing Geithner to give Goldman Sachs a larger cut of bailout money than other banks and a few other things.

Obviously, he was worried about being charged with socialism and some of the above reforms might have not been possible politically but I think those were the right things to do for the country and anytime any politician doesn't do something because they're more worried about reelection than doing the right thing it will draw a rebuke from me (as a result, I do much rebuking). I still think that on balance Obama has been a fair to good president and would certainly be better than Romney, though the ugly truth no one in the wings of either party seems willing to admit is that the two candidates really are not all that different, even by the meek standards of a presidential election. Both are somewhat moderate, domestically inclined, somewhat bloodless, Harvard educated technocrats. Obama drinks beer and can sing better. Romney is whiter and more fertile.

phinfan3411
08-15-2012, 06:32 PM
Ummm. Bush knew the attacks were being planned and did nothing to prevent them...
Ooooh, that hurts Locke.

Nothing i like more than a good Bush bashing, but can you be more specific here? I have a fair understanding here of some of the events leading up to 9/11, and although they certainly knew something was brewing, maybe i have not noticed all the details he did know.

So, I will leave it up to you, i would like to know, and from good sources, what did they know?

Are you saying he knew the targets, the dates, the times, i know the rumor, and that is all it was at the time, of using airplanes was certainly out there, but in his defense, how many people would believe that before they did it, and how did they know the time and targets?

See, i would love to believe this, but there is a fine line between a story with some meat on it, and a partisan hit piece...what is this?

Locke
08-15-2012, 06:48 PM
Ooooh, that hurts Locke.

Nothing i like more than a good Bush bashing, but can you be more specific here? I have a fair understanding here of some of the events leading up to 9/11, and although they certainly knew something was brewing, maybe i have not noticed all the details he did know.

So, I will leave it up to you, i would like to know, and from good sources, what did they know?

Are you saying he knew the targets, the dates, the times, i know the rumor, and that is all it was at the time, of using airplanes was certainly out there, but in his defense, how many people would believe that before they did it, and how did they know the time and targets?

See, i would love to believe this, but there is a fine line between a story with some meat on it, and a partisan hit piece...what is this?

I addressed it a few posts back, I think at the top of this page actually. I didn't go into too much detail since that would involve a lot of research I don't have time for at the moment, but the gist of it is there....

CashInFist
08-15-2012, 09:52 PM
Stop sucking each other's dicks, and post faster! Time is money. This forum used to be light lightning!!!!

LOL...I thought this was the anything goes forum. Sorry!!! :(

KTOWNFINFAN
08-22-2012, 11:54 PM
It’s official. President Barack Obama is the biggest spender in the history of the world. And that is not hyperbole. Like a shopaholic who denies the addiction, Obama has consistently been in denial about his reckless spending addiction. Despite President Barack Obama’s denials, though, an analysis by Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/06/14/president-obama-the-biggest-government-spender-in-world-history/2/) shows there has not been a greater spender than Obama.According to Forbes, “Obama’s own fiscal 2013 budget ... shows federal spending increasing from $2.983 trillion in 2008 to an all time record $3.796 trillion in 2012, an increase of 27.3%” and, “before Obama there had never been a deficit anywhere near $1 trillion.”
In addition, Obama had four consecutive budget deficits of over a trillion dollars and, in just one term, will “will have increased the national debt as much as all prior Presidents, from George Washington to George Bush, combined.”
And according to the study, budget proposals supported by Obama and Congressional Democrats will increase federal spending to the point where it will become 80% of the GDP if not reined in.
And in the short term, according to Forbes:

Obama’s 2013 budget proposes to spend $47 trillion over the next 10 years, the most in world history by far, increasing federal spending by $1.5 trillion above the current CBO baseline.
The first step in treating Obama’s spending addiction will be for him to admit he has a problem. What should scare Americans is that Obama seems a long way from even realizing he has a spending problem, let alone admitting that he does.

TheWalrus
08-23-2012, 12:37 AM
Sometimes I really wonder whether people's concept of the job of president is like that scene from the 1989 Batman where the Joker is at the head of a parade just throwing money into the crowd at random.

That's a stupidly ignorant way to look at it, yet KTOWNFINFAN's post basically ascribes to that kind of worldview, meant sarcastically or not. It's like no one understands that the political decisions on the budget are really only made in the margins (much of it is set aside in one fashion or another) and most of those decisions are made by, you know... that political body that actually writes and votes on the law.

The political power of the president is magnified because all of it rests in one place but the Constitution was purposefully set up to minimize the power of the president relative to Congress, especially when it comes to domestic concerns.

JamesBW43
08-23-2012, 12:48 AM
Sometimes I really wonder whether people's concept of the job of president is like that scene from the 1989 Batman where the Joker is at the head of a parade just throwing money into the crowd at random.

That's a stupidly ignorant way to look at it, yet KTOWNFINFAN's post basically ascribes to that kind of worldview, meant sarcastically or not. It's like no one understands that the political decisions on the budget are really only made in the margins (much of it is set aside in one fashion or another) and most of those decisions are made by, you know... that political body that actually writes and votes on the law.

The political power of the president is magnified because all of it rests in one place but the Constitution was purposefully set up to minimize the power of the president relative to Congress, especially when it comes to domestic concerns.

I wouldn't say it's entirely without merit. While what you say is technically true, the executive has been given more power than it was originally intended to have. Add onto that, the fact that the President becomes the de facto leader of his political party, and I think it's fair to say the President CAN be responsible for a lot more than the Constitution allows him to be.

That said, I completely agree that the degree to which the average person blames/praises the President for certain things (particularly in this case) is beyond ridiculous.

Locke
08-23-2012, 01:53 PM
Sometimes I really wonder whether people's concept of the job of president is like that scene from the 1989 Batman where the Joker is at the head of a parade just throwing money into the crowd at random.

That's a stupidly ignorant way to look at it, yet KTOWNFINFAN's post basically ascribes to that kind of worldview, meant sarcastically or not. It's like no one understands that the political decisions on the budget are really only made in the margins (much of it is set aside in one fashion or another) and most of those decisions are made by, you know... that political body that actually writes and votes on the law.

The political power of the president is magnified because all of it rests in one place but the Constitution was purposefully set up to minimize the power of the president relative to Congress, especially when it comes to domestic concerns.

You're talking about a guy who blames gays for every single problem humans have had since they learned how to harness fire. If you're expecting intelligent discourse from him, I hope you're ready for a long wait...

TheWalrus
08-23-2012, 02:01 PM
You're talking about a guy who blames gays for every single problem humans have had since they learned how to harness fire. If you're expecting intelligent discourse from him, I hope you're ready for a long wait...

Yeah, I don't either. But I also have the perhaps misguided notion that ridicule is a powerful motivator, and that sometimes if you laugh in someone's face (or over the internet, as it were), in their haste to defend themselves they might actually do some research and potentially learn something.

Either way, laughing in someone's face is usually satisfying, especially when they're the type who blames gays for everything when they're clearly gay themselves.