Obama--what do you think? Options

[lovebuddha]

Just curious as to know what everyone thinks of him. Not the brightest crayon in the box...but that's just my opinion.

[lovebuddha]

Well, if he made smart decisions then he would have followed through with his promises. That would be the more intelligent thing to do.

[heyo-captain-jac...]

Well, if he made smart decisions then he would have followed through with his promises. That would be the more intelligent thing to do.

He is going through with his promises. Congress is what's preventing anything from happening.

[Uronacid]

He is going through with his promises. Congress is what's preventing anything from happening.

Are you kidding? You really believe this garbage? The Democrats practically had a straight shot at passing bills in the house/senate the last two years and with it they passed some of the most expensive bills in history (Stimulus, Health Care). If Obama wanted to follow through with his promises, he would have.'

Anyway, I feel as if Obama is spending us into oblivion.

[mipadi]

Anyway, I feel as if Obama is spending us into oblivion.

Nope, that's the Department of War Defense that you're thinking of.

[Uronacid]

Nope, that's the Department of War Defense that you're thinking of.

They only do what he tells them to... War in Afghanistan *cough cough* :X

[mipadi]

They only do what he tells them to... War in Afghanistan *cough cough* :X

Obama doesn't (directly) control the Defense Department's budget.

[Uronacid]

Obama doesn't (directly) control the Defense Department's budget.

Obama is the Commander and Chief. He's also a big spender.

You know, a lot of good has come from our defense department. The money we invest in weapons technology does quite a bit of good for all of us. Just like NASA.

[mipadi]

Obama is the Commander and Chief. He's also a big spender.

What's your point? Command-in-Chief doesn't set the budget; Congress does. The President has veto power over budget bills, but they are subject to being challenged (as with any bill). And no Congressman (with the exception of, perhaps, Ron Paul and Kucinich) wants to touch defense spending. The President also lacks line-item veto power (that was found to be unconstitutional), so he can't control individual budget elements.

Plus, it wasn't Obama who got us into Iraq and Afghanistan. It was Bush (and a Republican-controlled Congress). Given the extreme cost of the two wars, I'd argue that Bush and Republicans are even bigger spenders. And let's not forget that Clinton's administration actually turned a budget surplus. Here's an illustration of the unrestrained spending of the government:



You can't criticize Obama's spending with a straight face unless you're willing to criticize the Defense Department's oversized budget.

[Uronacid]

Blah blah blah... I'm a big dem. Bush sucks.

I don't give a shit about Bush. He wasn't a conservative at all. My point is, Obama is a big spender. I don't like that.

Roflcopter goml.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-d...it-in-pictures/

[mipadi]

I don't give a shit about Bush. He wasn't a conservative at all. My point is, Obama is a big spender. I don't like that.

And my point is that the Defense Dept. is a huge money drain, but no one in Congress wants to deal with that issue. If you want to criticize "big spending", start there.

(Also, Obama was dealing with a much different economic situation. Bush enjoyed a buoyant economy, and still managed to run up a huge deficit. Part of the deficit of '09 was due to the banking bailout which was initiated by the Bush administration. Much of the rest was due to the economic stimulus package.

I don't know... I don't agree with unrestrained spending, and think that the government should live within its means. I didn't support the bank bailout. I'm not sure whether the economic stimulus package was entirely the "right" solution to the economic problem. I'm not an economist, so I can't really say what would work best. I support a balanced budget, but I also agree that sometimes, you have to spend some money to make some money. However, I do know that I'd rather see my money spent on public projects, than on fueling the military-industrial complex.

Also, Bush was most certainly a conservative; saying he wasn't is just a cop-out. It's excusing right-wing America for the failings and abuses of the Bush administration. I know what you're trying to say; there's a strong movement among Tea Partiers, etc., to disassociate themselves from the Bush presidency since he was such a shitty leader, and move to the "conservatism is about fiscal responsibility and libertarian rights", but you know what? It's about 6 years too late for conservatives to take a stand against Bush -- conservatives should've had the spine to stand up to him earlier, if they felt he was violating their principles. They did not, so now they have to live with his legacy.

I mean, okay -- maybe that's unfair. I disagree with much of what the Dems have done in the past decade or so, and don't want to be saddled with that legacy. (Then again, the Dems are hardly liberal, compared to liberal parties in other countries. But I digress.) But I've also often been critical of the idiocy of Democratic politicians, so I think it is fair to ask: if conservatives don't think of Bush as a conservative, then where was the right-wing criticism of his policies during his administration (instead of after the fact)?

And anyway, the Tea Party is bullshit, too: it's just a corporate-funded campaign to get lower taxes for large companies. But I digress.