happy2bhere - Bush inherited a surplus budget and turned it into 5 trillion in
more debt. He also increased federal spending by more than 8% on his watch.
Obama inherited an economy that was losing 800,000 jobs a month and turned it
around to increasing jobs by over 100,000 per month. And he did it by
increasing government spending by only 1.4%. If you think both presidents
started their time in office on equal terms then you haven't been paying
attention for the past 13 years. Bush enjoyed the cooperation of the
Congress and he squandered the unity felt after 9/11 where he could have brought
greater peace to the world but, instead, we received their disdain for the way
we handled the aftermath and misused our power as a nation. Obama has received
a kick in the teeth by the opposition in Congress who have even voted for
programs and policies they previously supported just so they could squash
everything the president wanted to do to fix the problems he inherited. And
despite that obstruction, look what he has done. We have gained the confidence
and respect of other governments and the economy is improving.
Re: ECRThe Democrat who said that about the managable debt was Bob
Beckle. You might not know who is because I doubt you watch Fox News. As for
anything that happened beyond 4 years ago. That is now largely irrelevent due to
the fact that Obama doubled what Bush did in 8.And for the record, I have
a lot of problems with Bush running up a 4 trillion debt on his watch. He was
at best a medicore president who would be forgotten by now were it not for his
pretty good handling of 911. That was until he got us into useless Iraq war and
a too long Afghanistan War. So that's what I think of Bush, Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and the gang. The only problem, is Obama is 10 times
worse than those guys.
happy2bhere said , "Democrat spokespeople are now saying that this is a
"managable" debt and don't worry about it."If
you're going to put a quote out there like that I wish you would actually
provide the quote and who said. On the other hand you might be interested in
who actually suggested that deficit spending doesn't matter. In a
documented meeting with treasury Secretary Paul O-Neill our then Vice President
stated this:"O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President
Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this
fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You
know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to
excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections).
This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was
fired."So what, in your mind, has changed since the Republican
Vice President made that statement? Can you provide evidence of your disgust
with that statement made by the Republican Vice President? Or did you agree
with him then? I'd rally like to know.
Wow, ECR, you've once again pointed out why posting on this thread is so
entertaining. You make a simple nonpartisan comment about the value of our
Presidents and system of government and suddenly the winds bring in deficit
spending, the evils of Obama, and the short comings of congress. Nice job I
All of the ex-Presidents are uber-wealthy. They can hire their own private
security. They don't need pensions. This is beyond ridiculous.
To "Truthseeker" just because congress passes something does not mean
that the President has to sign it.
Re:RedshirtWhen Clinton was elected President, the Republican
Congress passed a bill limiting Secret Service Protection for former presidents
to 10 yrs. The bill to reverse the limitation and extend it for life was
introduced in 2012 by 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat. It passed by unanimous
consent. Apparently Republicans and Democrats can agree on something! In Congress, unanimous consent is a way of quickly deciding issues without
taking a vote. Issues where unanimous agreement may be readily obtained are
Ex presidents should don tights and travel around the country in a van, solving
Re: ECRYou refer to "checks and balances" in our government.
Today that has a meaning our founding fathers could not possibly fathom. The
checks are being written as fast as possible and the balance is 17 trillion in
the red! What are we supposed to do about that when the low information voters
are enough to reelect this runaway spending train. Democrat spokespeople are
now saying that this is a "managable" debt and don't worry about
it. That is now the White House and Democrat talking point they take to the
media. Does anyone out there on the Democrat side think this debt could become
unmanagable? If so, what is the number? I'd really like to know.More to the point of this article RedShirt makes a good point. I only wonder
how Obama is going to make the 500 million a year necessary to support the
lifestyle to which he has become accostomed.
Here is the irony of the whole situation. Clinton signed a bill during his
presidency that would have eliminated the free Secret Service details that the
ex-presidents get. Bush did nothing to change that. Now, Obama brings it
back.Tell us, who wants to live like royalty when they retire on
ECR,Thank you for agreeing they put themselves out there. And
I am sure we will differ as to the value of the service some of them provide now
or if they ever did, even in office.But you are sadly mistaken if
you believe I have disdain for the form of government our founders established.
I DO have disdain for the travesty that it has become; that we have wandered so
far from the principals of freedom on which our once-great nation was founded.
My stridency is caused by my deep love for my country and the horror
with which I watch it descend. Though I definitely claim to be no prophet, and
no one on earth knows my shortcomings more than I, I begin to get a glimpse of
how Jeremiah in the OT must have felt as he watch his nation decline and then be
overrun by Babylon.To quote Pogo, we have seen the enemy, and they
Lost in DC - So sad to learn of your derision and disdain for our form of
government here in the United States of America. I'm going to play the
Founding Fathers card and suggest that they set up our government with checks
and balances. They saw the need for a Commander in Cheif who would have limted
power kept in check by the Congress and the Courts. So, as the saying goes, the
miracle of our nation is that every four years we have a national election and
elect or re-elect a president. Regardless of whether or not we like the results
of the election, we support a peaceful transfer of power. We can disagree with
the president's positions - as we both often do, depending on who the
president is - and we can make that disagreement known in public.But
these folks put themselves out there. They didn't hide behind a phoney
name or acronym, like you and I do. They proudly stated their position and
worked for what they thought was right. And although they are no longer in
office, I think your comments provide evidence that they still protection,
sometimes from our own citizens.
Say what you want about tricky dick nixon, and I am no fan, but he told the SS
to get lost in his later years, thereby reducing his burden on the taxpayers.ECR,HAHAHAHAHA, TOO FUNNY!no one held guns to these
jokers heads and forced them to be president! They agressively sought the
office. If they were too stupid to see the effects the demands of the office
would have on them, too bad! Their lust for power and notoriety were just too
The less we hear of current and past presidents the better.
There's a reason for term limits, and they should be respected.
Ex-presidents can engage in charitable activities if they want, but should stay
clear of matters of state after their terms.
I think the picture accompanying this article gives a good illustration of how
much nonsense Mr. McFeatters is spreading. What would have been even more
telling was a comparative picture of these two men when they first took office.
The silver/gray/white hair on their heads is a testament to the toll taken by
serving in that position for 4-8 years. Regardless of the party affiliation of
the president, we should all be grateful for their willingness to sacrifice
their privacy and to give their full time to such an arduous job assignment,
literally putting their lives on the line every day.Near the end of
the article Mr. McFeatters outlines the cost of recent presidential libraries
thinking we will forget what he said earlier in the article - that the libraries
are funded with private donations. These libraries serve as an accounting of
our national history - during that brief period of time - where our citizens can
visit and be educated about issues of the day. Mr. McFeatters does point out
that recent presidents have given their service after they left office. We
should all be grateful for their willingness to serve us.