Obama Administration Spending Recklessly

Can you show any reckless spending?

 

I'm more of a political pragmatist. If a groups does something that has a detrimental effect on the economy, I'll call them out on it. If they do the right thing, I'll acknowledge when they do the right thing. But, I don't allow some false sense of looking for middle ground, when one side strives for insanity, as conservatives have been want to do. It used to be that Republicans were rational and able to maybe stop some of the overreach of liberals back in the 1950s and 1960s. They aren't an opposition party anymore. They're movement ideologues. Apparently, you're tainted by that inability to resolve reality with the ideology. I'm partisan, and make no bones about it. It's only from political necessity, in order to not see the nation turn into a third world (*)(*)(*)(*) hole like the right wants. I used to vote for Republicans, and at one time was more conservative than you. The real world, mathematics and dealing with government has shown me that conservative ideals lead to negative externalities.

Obama doesn't spend. Spending comes from congress. And, if the GOP wants to stop acting crazy and work to reduce deficits, instead of increasing them, they should start being willing to work towards those goals. But they won't.

 

Everything in bold above...shows how polarized you are, therefore, your entire perspective on these forums is driven by your polarization. Here's how stupid polarization is; there are tens of millions of Americans, from all walks of life, who support and vote for Republicans. Similarly, there are tens of millions of Americans who support and vote for Democrats. Republicans think Democrats are idiots, and Democrats think Republicans are idiots...neither party is capable of middle-ground and what's in the best interest of the USA. Therefore, being politically polarized creates closed minds and NEVER will solve the complex problems we have today...

 

The president has three choices; veto budget legislation, sign budget legislation, or do nothing which allows budget legislation to become law.

Obama is 100% responsible for the US budget...

 

Bush wasted a good deal more in his two wars and by cutting taxes for the wealthy elites.

 

You've got to be living under a rock if you don't see it.

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing compared to Obama.

 

But Obama's administration is working while Bush's was a dismal failure.

 

Is this Nancy Pelosi?

 

You mean kind of like all those credit card companies and corporations who's computer systems are so bad that they can be hacked at almost any time.

 

Are you Barbara Bush?

 

Get used to it...all electronic medium can be hacked...IMO the only issue here is the extent of the damage as sites are hacked...

 

Was responding to the assertion that private companies wouldn't have computer problems like those of The ACA. Every really major program goes through lots of problems during implementation. And the only reason companies don't have more secure credit systems is the costs are passed on to the consumer so the companies really don't care unless the problem is so major ( like Target ) that the company loses customers.

 

OK. Let's be conservative and say Bush's war cost 4 trillion and his tax cuts cost 1.3 trillion annually for twelve years for a total of about 1.3X12 + 4.0 which equal say 19.6 trillion. So now all you have to do is show us where Obama wasted 19.6 trillion.

 

Golly, I just remembered the total Debt of the United States is estimated to be 17.9 trillion by the end of 2014.

 

I'm guessing every company cares about the security of their information. But each company is limited how much they can spend to achieve whatever levels of security. You cannot pass ALL costs to the consumer because at some point a company is no longer competitive. There are tens of thousands of very small businesses in the USA who don't have state-of-the-art security systems, because they cannot afford them, but the hackers will go after Target and others and not waste their time on mouse-nuts companies. BTW; the entire concept of business is to produce or process something and sell it to consumers and gain profits. All the costs of doing business must be something less than the income, if not, either the income must increase or expenses must decrease or some of both...in this scenario there is only so much room for securing electronic systems.

Lastly, I know electronic security is improving, however, in parallel, so are the hackers and their tools. Just as confidential papers in a file cabinet, no matter the security of the file cabinet, those papers remain subject to theft or disclosure, so does electronic data...

 

Gee thanks, I am sure most of us didn't know that. Thought it was secret knowledge available only to conservatives.

Like I said before, if the cost of security breaches was borne by the companies instead of the card you can bet that it would improve almost immediately.

 

If you understand how business works then why would you expect business to reduce their potential profits? If you were a shareholder would you like the company to reduce profits? Each company will do what they can do based on what they feel is needed and affordable and to remain competitive. Regarding a company 'paying the price' don't you think Target has paid a price? Using your logic above about who 'bears the cost', if the card company is exposed to liabilities, then why are the card companies also hacked? IMO everyone can be hacked no matter how much money is spent to create security. What type of high-tech state of art security do you believe your local restaurant is employing when you use your credit card with them?

 

It's just that no one has shown it yet.

- - - Updated - - -

She did better as Speaker than Newt, Hastert or Boehner.

 

Your numbers are from lala land.

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you Obama.

- - - Updated - - -

You just lost any credibility you may have had.

 

Not at all. Look at her record, and you see her being part of the response to the largest economic disaster the country ever had, and got things passed to get the country started back on apathy to recovery. Look at Hastert's, and you see the neglect of the gop that made the economic disaster happen, after Gingrich was part of the leadership that brought it on. Then Boehner has done everything he could to block recovery.

 

As seen from the liberal point of view.

 

No. On pure economics, she did stuff to help foster recovery. The preceding two speakers worked to put in place the deregulation that helped to see the housing bubble be created and grow until it burst. Boehner has blocked recovery since taking the Speakership.

 

Well, to be fair, I don't think Obama loves the deficits in themselves... I believe he loves the fact that they give him a reason to raise taxes and thus have even more control over the people.

 

We'll just have to disagree.

 

Fair enough. If you ever want the facts on it, just ask. Gingrich, Hastert and Boehner are a disgrace to congress.