Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

OK , I just have to ask

I have been checking out the answers this morning and I am happy to see some liberal questions for a change but I am just floored at their lack of logic. I have to ask about something that has come up several times.
Several questions have to do with the many Obama fans that say Bush dug this hole for 8 years and now Obama has to get us out of debt.

PLEASE someone tell me how it is not ok for Bush to Spend huge amounts of money(lets not talk about the Dem congress that passed them) but it is for Obama. Do you mean you can spend so much money that the only way you can reverse any damage is to spend more and more and more(3 times as much a Bush)as Obama is doing?
What I am reading is leading me to think this is what the posters believe. Can anyone explain the their logic? I'm going insane thinking someone can not comprehend a simple rule that says spending money you don't have will only make things worse.

 
itsmesteph11

Asked by itsmesteph11 at 12:21 PM on May. 29, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

Level 39 (113,405 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (20)
  • Ladies, our problems started when we abandoned the "gold standard" in 1933. We have been running a "printing press" instead of a true treasury ever since. If there isn't gold to back up the value of the paper every thing you build is without a foundation.

    Our country has been overspending for decades. It comes from BOTH sides of the aisle. It is time for us the people to put a stop to it. Families are expected to use their money wisely, save for the future and keeep their debt down. Why isn't the government.

    Our government is killing us with the spending and the taxing. Look at Europe, they are in far worse shape than us. The UK now has a 50% income tax and they still can't pay the bills. If you can't pay the bills you have to give up something. The problem is nobody wants to give something up.
    yourspecialkid

    Answer by yourspecialkid at 1:58 PM on May. 29, 2009

  • You're asking people to use logic! Heads will start exploding very soon!
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 12:24 PM on May. 29, 2009

  • It was okay for former Pres Bush to spend money. It is not okay for current Pres Obama to spend as much as he has in such a short time. I'm a Lib and I'll admit it. Two wrongs don't make a right.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 12:27 PM on May. 29, 2009

  • I'm going insane thinking someone can not comprehend a simple rule that says spending money you don't have will only make things worse.

    So-you were OK spending all this money in iraq right? I think that Obamas reasoning for spending this money was an honest one-I think that he thought that he would be preventing disaster. What the disaster would have been and if it was prevented-we will never know.

    But the fact of the matter is that we were in serious debt before he did this-so do I think it was right-nope, did I think that it helped-I don't know. But what I do know is that we spent 8 years being decieved and spending money in Iraq-a lot of money has gone unaccounted for-that could have/should have been prevented.

    Obama is trying to preserve our country-this is the way he saw to do it. Bush thought that going into iraq was the best decision at the time, too. Soo, where does that leave us, at the hand of others.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 12:28 PM on May. 29, 2009

  • Yes Bush spent alot of money, lets get that out of the way. Problem with your comparison is, Bush spending in Iraq was a help in Iraq but spending here is not helping and even if the stimulus might help in the short term, Obama is not stopping. He is continuing to spend when we should not be.
    itsmesteph11

    Answer by itsmesteph11 at 12:39 PM on May. 29, 2009

  • Bush spending in Iraq was a help in Iraq but spending here is not helping and even if the stimulus might help in the short term, Obama is not stopping

    But-thats the thing-we will never know what it would have been like if the money hadn't been given. AND-to me-'helping iraq' wasn't the intention of us being there in the first place. We have BIGGER issues in this country. That is where the money SHOULD have gone.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 12:42 PM on May. 29, 2009

  • 12billion a month x 72 = 864 Billion is what was spent by Bush on Iraq (not Afganistan, not on US Reserves - on Iraq) and was never placed on the budget. Essentially you paying your house payment but never subtracting it from you bank balance. Then couple that with the Bush program of $1 saved for every $30 lent for Wall Street, then couple that with the Oil tax breaks passed out.

    Well, duh, Obama had to borrow the money. Plus, your question is disjointed so that you can compare apples to oranges, rather than apples to apple.

    Personally, I think both Administrations have made terrible economic moves.
    urkiddingright

    Answer by urkiddingright at 12:53 PM on May. 29, 2009

  • Neither one is ok, IMO. Obama seems to be Bush-lite and with the idiots in Congress I am none to pleased with my party right now. We all might as well start learning Mandarin so we are prepared for China's takeover.

    Friday

    Answer by Friday at 12:54 PM on May. 29, 2009

  • IMO it is about ideology. Economists have neglected the subject of stimulus for so long that their theories of how it works are majority underdeveloped. In most instances the arguments that are made for a proposal are more about common sense, guesswork, and ideology instead of ACTUAL economics.
    I think that it can be said if we do tax cuts or an enormous stimulus package like the one that has passed, is going to saddle future generations with debt. Economist didn't count on the new found frugality of Americans with Bush's tax cuts. Historically tax cuts had worked, but with citizens saving stimulus money or spending it on televisions and cars that were syphoned into other countries economy's instead of our own, it created more debt and a bigger problem. Something that might have been avoided if Economist had been going off of current information instead of outdated methods, it might have been avoided. continued
    2-1CavWife

    Answer by 2-1CavWife at 12:55 PM on May. 29, 2009

  • Bush spent huge amounts of money on a war that HE started for NOOOO  reason putting us into debt in the first place (we had a surplus when Clinton left office) Now we are in horrible debt and so president Obama is thinking long term he is spending a lot of money but he is spending it on GOOD things he is creating jobs and bring jobs back to America. The thing people have to realize is that it is going to take time...you think he can cut a check and then the next day a company will be flourishing? its not that simple and we will see the results in a few years and it is going to be great...it is possible to spend money to get out of debt think about it as in investment you put $1000 in an investment for a couple years it will grow and then you will have $2000.00 (or whatever just random numbers) and you can pay off twice the amount you could have before....

    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 12:58 PM on May. 29, 2009

close Cafemom Join now to connect to other members! Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN