Democrats do you think you might have made a wee bitty mistake?

Do you really expect these liberals to admit they made a mistake? They won't even admit Obama is a mistake, just read the tripe that "I' everywhere U want 2b" is leveling.

@I'm Everywhere

Get a calculator out.

The $459 billion that you mention is the FY2008 budget deficit, it is not handed of to anyone other than to the US taxpayers in the form of an increase in the national debt.

The TARP funds were in FY2009 so you can not add the $459 billion to the $700 billion. The first half of the TARP funds were available on October 15, 2008, Bush spent this money so that is $350 billion, the remaining $350 was not available until January 15th 2009 and was left for Obama, so this is equally divided between the two. It has never been accounted for twice, at least not by me or anyone else that I have heard of.

You have also conveniently left off funds requested by Obama during FY2009, these are

$860 billion for the Jobs Stimulus

$410 billion Omnibus bill

$85 billion to fund Obama's plan to increase activity in Afghanistan. No this is not the 30,000 troops that was requested by McChrystal, those troops were requested in September 2009 and not approved until December 2009 which was already FY2010

Obama himself, requested and received an additional $1.355 trillion and I did not even include Obama's share of the TARP funds, rightfully if you give the full budge to Bush and add only what Obama requested and received he had $1.705 trillion. Now if you take what Obama spent and deduct what the deficit was you have $1.705 trillion - $1.4 trillion = $305 Billion which accounts for all of the TARP funds received and spent by Bush

Don't even bother to count the FY2009 budget, look soley at what each person requested after the budget was submitted and received, Bush $350 billion, Obama $350 billion (his share of the TARP funds) $860 billion jobs bill, $410 billion omnibus bill and $85 billion military bill.

No I never give any president a free ride, why should an incoming president get the benefit of 9 months of spending? I start on the day that the new president assumes office and all responsibility.

If this is not the case then every president will inflate the budget so that his last year does not look bad on his record.

Obama inherited a national debt of $10.7 trillion, today that debt is well over $13 trillion. An increase of more than $2.6 trillion.

Bush created $4.8 trillion in 8 years, 40% of that total was created in the last 2 years of his term by a democrat controlled congress. Since the democrats have gained control 3 1/2 years ago there has been more than $4.5 billion added to the national debt.

Sorry, I have all of this documented and placed in a spreadsheet, I can tell you year by year how much was added to the national debt and which party was controlling congress. I can also tell you that before you eat turkey on Thanksgiving, Obama will have added more to the national debt than Bush and the republican congress added in his first 6 years. By the end of April 2011 Obama will have added more to the national debt than the republicans did in 12 years of congressional control.

In fact if you use an annual average Obama has outspent every president of the past 110 1/2 years and this is using 2009 dollars.

@D.Knows

Did you miss the part that said no laws were broken in Troopergate since the guy was an "At will employee"

Also, just as a side not one of Sarah's accusers filed 6 different complaints *after* she announced she was resigning

Perhaps it's impossible for a Republican to talk or even think about Palin and not lie.

First, as the answerer with the ability to look at wikkipedia shows, Palins problems as Gov. in Alaska are because she was a corrupt politician, and all sides seem to agree.

Instead of addressing any of these complaints, you decide to make the subject of your piece about these actions driving Palin to be a political force in the US. Of course, Palin ran for political office before most of these complaints came to light, and only quit her governorship after the election.

However, there is nothing to stop Palin from entering US politics when her term is over, like all other Govenors who run for office. It is the normal thing to do.

Lastly, you are assuming that Palin has a chance at winning an election, even though her poll numbers are so negative and she is also a pathological liar (everything she said at her nominating convention was either a lie or a mis-direction).

And the Tea Parties are simply nominating nut jobs that the Dems actually have a chance at picking off.

We actually look forward for Obama to run against Palin. You betcha.

That little rant was interesting, but doesn't resemble reality. After a unanimous vote of a bipartisan committee of the Alaskan legislature, an investigator was hired to examine alleged ethics violations by Sarah Palin. Later, there was another unanimous vote to release the report which showed that Palin had, indeed, "abused her power as governor". Palin resigning as governor had nothing to do with "serving" the people of Alaska, but was a self-serving action to make money. And, despite the wishful thinking, Democrats would welcome Palin as the 2012 Republican nominee for president.

Yeah, i will admit Democrats have made errors, too. :) i do no longer comprehend if I qualify as a "neocon" to you... maximum widely, I see the term as a typical insult to somebody who's a Republican, so i might. if so, then specific, President Bush and different Republican politicians have made errors. a reasonably great one replaced into the followup to the defeat of Iraq, or perhaps in the present day the militia isn't doing sufficient on the digital area of counterinsurgency (getting advice out, applying the internet effectively, and so on.). The nomination of Harriet Miers replaced right into a substantial "WTF" 2d in my view. He did no longer do sufficient to push the countless reasons for going into Iraq, in spite of the undeniable fact that the advice is there to be got here across, actual, if one cares to look. He spent too lots political capital on his attempt to restructure Social risk-free practices. those are some, off the right of my head. i think of between the enormous issues that gets knee-jerk reactions protecting the President is the close to-continual assaults that attempt to lift errors and difference of evaluations into offender strikes. Has he made errors? Yeah, rather. Has he committed crimes? no longer that i will see, and that i see no subject with complicated those assertions.

We need to investigate Sarah Palin's role in Senator Ted Stevens' murder.

Sarah Palin is so extreme that she drives moderates out of her party. She's not doing any favors to the conservative movement - she's just a media whore who loves the attention brought by controversy.

Palins the best thing that could happen for us Democrats.Whats her educational background qualify her to be ? A teleprompter reader.

You do know that she was convicted of some of those charges, don't you? She had to pay back quite a bit of the money she stole. I would hardly call that trivial.

And do you consider the American people so stupid as to believe Sarah Palin on anything she says, in particularly about Obama? Consider this.

_________________________

According to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, in 2008 Bush was short $459 billion in his federal deficit; in 2009 Obama was short $1.42 trillion.

But according to Sean Hannity, the government's fiscal year ends on September 30th of every year, and the new one begins on October 1st. Why is that important? Well, in mid-September of 2008, Bush attempted to get a $700 billion bailout passed in Congress to save the failing financial sector. He failed, the House Republicans blocked the bill. So $150 billion in REPUBLICAN PORK (according to Glenn Beck, who insists he is against all spending by either party despite the fact he backed the $3 trillion Iraq War) was added to the bill to attract those votes. That works, and the Republicans vote to pass the now $850 billion bailout bill. But they cave in mid-October of 2008--AFTER the new fiscal year, Obama's fiscal year, had already begun. Bush was still President, but it was now Obama's fiscal year. Which means that BUSH'S bailout is counting entirely against Obama.

Now if we follow the Republican mantra of personal responsibility, then we must ask the Republicans to take responsibility for their spending.

All numbers in trillions:

0.459 (Bush's deficit) + 0.85 (Bush's bailout restored to him) = $1.309 trillion (Bush's ACTUAL deficit, and the reason Obama keeps saying that he was given a $1.3 trillion debt)

_______________

But remember, the bailout is now counting twice (once against Bush and once against Obama), and must be removed from Obama.

1.42 (Obama's deficit) - 0.85 (Bush's bailout) = 0.57 trillion, or to be more grammatically correct $570 billion (Obama's ACTUAL deficit).

_______________

1.309 (Bush's deficit) - 0.57 (Obama's deficit) = 0.739, or $739 billion (Savings found in Obama's 2009 spending when compared to Bush's 2008 spending)

Which means that using Republican numbers, and ONLY Republican numbers, that it turns out Obama actually drastically CUT spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. And in fact, since $570 billion is less than half of $1.309 trillion, Obama has actually already held to his promise of cutting the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term--he did it in ONE YEAR (literally 1/4 of the promised time frame).

They weren't that unfair the last I read. And if I am saying "Oh boy", I am saying, with gleeful anticipation, "Oh, boy, what's that stupid b**** going to say next?"

You GO Akelleys.