fiscally conservative presidents

[Gil Bang]

from the atlantic:


Economist Justin Wolfers tweets a graph from Mark Thoma that's very much worth talking about. It measures per capita growth in government spending for the last seven presidents' first term in office. This is what he finds:



The graph tells a simple story that I've recounted before. For all the talk you hear about Obama's historic spree, government spending actually hasn't increased so dramatically under this president. The stimulus was big, but it's over. It's been replaced by, if not austerity (which has struck our states and cities) then a hard correction to the center.

Here's another way to tell the story ... It's a quiz! I present to you the first three years in spending for three recent presidents: Barack Obama, George Bush, and Ronald Reagan. To make it a game, I've removed their names and indexed the spending increases to their first month of office. And I've replaced the dates with integers from 1-10 so you can't guess by looking at the years.

Can you guess which president is which?








The hint that solves the puzzle: They're in chronological order. It goes Reagan, Bush, Obama. Going by federal expenditures (and note these are nominal figures), it would seem that if Obama's a socialist, Ronald Reagan is Karl Marx with an ICBM.

Let me anticipate some of your objections before you make them. (1) Reagan was fighting a war, he jacked up defense spending instead of discretionary spending, and he inherited a recession with inflation that might, well, inflate his numbers. This is all true, but expanding defense was Reagan's choice, and a dollar spent, on no matter what, is a dollar taxed or borrowed. (2) Bush was fighting a war and battling a recession, too. Yes, but he has neither inflation nor a Great Recession. (3) Don't play relativity games with me, Derek, too much government spending is too much government spending, even if Obama's predecessors were worse! There is a time for government cuts, but it's not when you have 9 percent unemployment and your interest rates are below 2%. (4) The language of Obamacare and financial reform are better indicators of big government than federal spending. It's fair to measure government size by its total involvement in people's lives, but that deserves a longer post. (5) We should be more concerned about the taxes and spending to come than the spending that has past. But they haven't happened yet, so they're not part of the president's record.

Maybe I missed some objections -- I'm sure you'll let me know -- and I'll answer in the comment section.

But the bottom line is that it is really, truly time for the myth about Big Spender Obama to die. If anything, it is remarkable that, after a recession and a private sector implosion, the public sector expanded less under this administration than it did under Bush or Reagan, especially when you consider the government cuts made at the state and local levels.


http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...istory/254658/

[tantric superman]

You read numbers?

[TrashMaster G]

I stopped after the first graph. If I understand it correctly it looks at ALL government spending, by President. Heaps of stupid there. Don't even know where to start.

Let me know when you can look at only federal spending and do it in terms of who is in control in Congress.

kthxbai.

[TahoeHorn]

- Congress spends money, not the President.
- Programs are put in place which spend money at a later date unless chaos is initiated.

This is not a question that can be addressed with data that an eighth grader could compile in thirty minutes.

[clear lake horn]

Answer: look who controlled congress.

[TexasEd]

Answer: look who controlled congress.

winner, winner, chicken dinner.

[JohnnyM]

The same folks who want to blame Obama for spending are the first to point to control of Congress when there's even a hint of positive information wrt spending.

[Francisco Scaramonga]

Answer: look who controlled congress.

And who controlled it the first 6 years of Bush II?

[Escriva]

Looks like he's using Q1 as the baseline, and then basing the increases on that. That uses the stimulus as a part of the baseline, not the increase doesn't it?

[Mizzou415]

The same folks who want to blame Obama for spending are the first to point to control of Congress when there's even a hint of positive information wrt spending.

This. The Republican party line on spending seems to be:

Spending under Reagan = fault of Congressional Democrats
Spending under Clinton = credit to Congressional Republicans
Spending under Bush = fault of Congressional Democrats
Spending under Obama = fault of Obama

[t-shirt fan]

[clear lake horn]

This. The Republican party line on spending seems to be:

Spending under Reagan = fault of Congressional Democrats
Spending under Clinton = credit to Congressional Republicans
Spending under Bush = fault of Congressional Democrats
Spending under Obama = fault of Obama

Man, you guys are really sucking the Obama $#@! here.

I would say you are correct above except: Bush and the Republicans were out of control and there's no way to blame Democrats for that, at least through 2006. Of course, the Democrats controlled Congress for the last two years of Bush's presidency and did nothing to curb the growth of spending when they controlled the purse strings.

Spending under Obama was the fault of Obama and his Democratic party Congress (the same ones that did nothing to curb Bush). I think the rate of growth of spending has slowed (yeah, I know, BFD) since 2010 but we still spend much more than what is fiscally prudent.

[TheGarnetLantern]

Oh look another hack thread that sucks Obama's commy $#@!s. So how many Obama bills do you get for this service to Dear Leader?

[JohnnyM]

Man, you guys are really sucking the Obama $#@! here.

How is it sucking $#@! to point out a double standard being applied?

[Tennesseehorn]

The same folks who want to blame Obama for spending are the first to point to control of Congress when there's even a hint of positive information wrt spending.

No, again BHO doesn't spend money, Congress (when the Senate actually passes a budget)

[JohnnyM]

No, again BHO doesn't spend money, Congress (when the Senate actually passes a budget)

I understand that, but it's common to see people blame spending on the President when they dislike the President, or blame it on Congress when they dislike Congress.

[MyQuick=FrenchToast]

[tea] but his birth certificate is fake!!1!11![/party]

[MP5]

It's amazing that people try to pass $#@! like this off. No one is that stupid anymore!

[Bob Lives!]

[tea] but his birth certificate is fake!!1!11![/party]

That doesn't have jack $#@! to do with the tea party.

[clear lake horn]

When is the last time a Democratic Party controlled Congress submitted a balanced budget?

[TheGarnetLantern]

When is the last time a Democratic Party controlled Congress submitted a balanced budget?

When was the last time they submitted a budget period? Gotta start there first.

[SideSlip]

Aren't numbers fun.

CBS News

(CBS News) The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.
The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

[Grammer Police]

I understand that, but it's common to see people blame spending on the President when they dislike the President, or blame it on Congress when they dislike Congress.

Frustrating, isn't it? And yet we (message board posters) represent an intelligent cross section of the American electorate. At least Tennesseehorn knows who the president is and that we have a Congress.

[fellside]

Aren't numbers fun.

CBS News

A few questions:

1. How much of that $4.939 trillion "Obama added" had to do with the wars Bush got us into?
2. How much of that $4.939 trillion had to do with the recession that happened under Bush?
3. Where do you think unemployment would be without some of the measures taken that lead to that $4.939 trillion?


Not saying you have to like the spending or agree with it, but you should at least consider those questions to be fair.

[longhornmatt]

There are a lot of Republicans who lied about reducing the deficit, spent like drunken sailors, and generally sucked, too.

But:

1. I'm guessing those graphs don't include Obamacare since the spending won't actually start until 2014. If I'm right, that would bump his growth rate up pretty significantly since it's going to run about 250 billion a year under the current estimates.

2. At some point it's not just the rate of growth, but also the raw numbers that become important, too. Increasing spending from 3 trillion to 4 trillion may not be as high a percentage increase as increasing spending from 500 billion to 800 billion, but it's still a larger increase and a larger addition to our deficit in absolute terms.

[Emoryoid]

A few questions:

1. How much of that $4.939 trillion "Obama added" had to do with the wars Bush got us into?
2. How much of that $4.939 trillion had to do with the recession that happened under Bush?
3. Where do you think unemployment would be without some of the measures taken that lead to that $4.939 trillion?


Not saying you have to like the spending or agree with it, but you should at least consider those questions to be fair.

I do not doubt Obama was handed an economy that sucked, but he made the situation worst. He made it worst by pushing for a stimulus package that did not do a thing to help and including almost no "shovel ready" jobs. He made it worst by expanding the federal government rather than shrink it. He should have instead taken major steps to reduce the incredible wasteful spending the government engages in. There should have been an audit of the government that cuts back on all of these duplicative programs and unnecessary programs. Given the severity of the debt, he should not have pushed to create an entirely new and costly entitlement. His administration should not have expanded regulatory involvement which make it more costly to operate in the private sector.

This debt is tremendously burdening our economy. But for the unnecessary spending we would have a better economy right now and the unemployment rate would be lower. It would sure be lower but for Obamacare. What employer wants to be burdened by the obligations imposed by that statute by hiring more employees? Not just that, but Obama keeps pushing to increase income taxes on those making more than $200,000 a year. With that hanging over my head as a small businessman I am not too excited about hiring more people. He increased it by expanding entitlement to unemployment benefits to 99 weeks. I am not against allowing unemployment benefits for a time after someone loses a job, but 99 weeks is ridiculously too long and encourages people to be overly picky in their job hunt.

On the issues of the war, I would point out Obama was in favor of the war against Afghanistan when he ran for office. Further, he pushed for our involvement in Libya. In any event, I am no Bush fan. Bush should have pulled us out of Iraq years ago. Similarly, Obama should have pulled us out of Afghanistan by now. Instead, he provided a surge that was one-third of what his commanders wanted. Better to pull out altogether than give an inadequate surge and then tell your enemies a date certain for when the pull out will take place.

[TheGarnetLantern]

A few questions:

1. How much of that $4.939 trillion "Obama added" had to do with the wars Bush got us into?
2. How much of that $4.939 trillion had to do with the recession that happened under Bush?
3. Where do you think unemployment would be without some of the measures taken that lead to that $4.939 trillion?


Not saying you have to like the spending or agree with it, but you should at least consider those questions to be fair.

1. How much of Bush's debt can be contribute to the fact that Clinton did nothing to deal with previous radical islamic threats during his administration?
2. How much of Bush's debt can be contribute to the fact that Clinton did nothing to prevent the Tech Bubble from bursting at the end of his Presidency?
3. How much future debt could have been saved if Obama hadn't forced through a useless stimulus package?
4. How much better would the economy be if Obama's Administration didn't continue to increase the regulatory burdens on companies in our nation or outright prevent jobs from coming about (Keystone XL)?

Not saying you have to like the fact that Obama is fiscally the worst leader in history or even acknowledge it, but you should at least think before you ask questions that can be thrown back at you.

[fellside]

1. How much of Bush's debt can be contribute to the fact that Clinton did nothing to deal with previous radical islamic threats during his administration?
2. How much of Bush's debt can be contribute to the fact that Clinton did nothing to prevent the Tech Bubble from bursting at the end of his Presidency?
3. How much future debt could have been saved if Obama hadn't forced through a useless stimulus package?
4. How much better would the economy be if Obama's Administration didn't continue to increase the regulatory burdens on companies in our nation or outright prevent jobs from coming about (Keystone XL)?

Not saying you have to like the fact that Obama is fiscally the worst leader in history or even acknowledge it, but you should at least think before you ask questions that can be thrown back at you.

1. Did the Islamic threats cause our debts or our responses to it? What did Iraq do to cause US deficits before we invaded?
2. If you're going to blame Clinton for the end of the tech bubble, do you also give him credit for its origin? Sounds silly.
3. Depends on which studies you look at. Most say it had a positive impact. Like from the CBO: "Through the first quarter of 2011, the stimulus created between 1.6 million and 4.6 million jobs, increased real GDP by between 1.1 and 3.1 percent, and reduced unemployment by between 0.6 and 1.8 percentage points." That's just one of 5 positive reports I can give you right now if you'd like the others.
4. Can you give me evidence of this?


And "questions that can be thrown back at you"??? You didn't even attempt to speak to any of the questions I asked. The questions you asked in response say nothing of the economy that Obama walked into. If you want to blame Clinton for Bush, that's fine. But if you do so it only strengthens the argument that one should blame Bush for Obama. So even if your questions succeed, they fail.

[TheGarnetLantern]

1. Did the Islamic threats cause our debts or our responses to it? What did Iraq do to cause US deficits before we invaded?
2. If you're going to blame Clinton for the end of the tech bubble, do you also give him credit for its origin? Sounds silly.
3. Depends on which studies you look at. Most say it had a positive impact. Like from the CBO: "Through the first quarter of 2011, the stimulus created between 1.6 million and 4.6 million jobs, increased real GDP by between 1.1 and 3.1 percent, and reduced unemployment by between 0.6 and 1.8 percentage points." That's just one of 5 positive reports I can give you right now if you'd like the others.
4. Can you give me evidence of this?


And "questions that can be thrown back at you"??? You didn't even attempt to speak to any of the questions I asked. The questions you asked in response say nothing of the economy that Obama walked into. If you want to blame Clinton for Bush, that's fine. But if you do so it only strengthens the argument that one should blame Bush for Obama. So even if your questions succeed, they fail.

1. No 9/11 = No War on Terror. Plain and Simple. If Clinton had dealt with any of the terrorists attacks that took place during his administration, then 9/11 likely never would have happened.

2. Why give him credit for its origins when its origins were from before he became President?

3. Most don't, but humor me. Produce links to these reports if you want to. I like a good laugh.

4. Google Keystone XL. You'll have your evidence.

You seem quick to blame Obama's failures on anyone but him. He wanted to deal with the problems in this country so the buck stops with him. This is HIS economy. This is HIS unemployment rate. These are HIS high gas prices. These are HIS wars. He wanted them and now they are his. He wants all the credit for the good (little of which his administration has produced), yet no blame for the bad.

Let me ask you something, and if you don't answer anything else I said at least answer this: Do you believe Obama has been a good President or at least a better President for our country? Your answer will tell me all I need to know about me.

[fellside]

1. How about not having a war on an abstract concept? A war on terror was never a realistic war. It's one thing to go after Al Queda. It's another to spend American dollars nation building in the middle east and occupying people that hate us and hate each other due to religious reasons. Killing terrorists wouldn't have caused nearly as much damage to our economy as the belief that we could actually win against terror in general. Too much neoconservative optimism in that.

2. I don't give Clinton credit for the origins either. I'm calling out the silly concept that it's a presidents job to regulate economic trends.

3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...bibJ_blog.html

That's a start. Lists several sources for an against and mentions potential failings of each conclusion. Though I think the overall data suggests at the very least slight benefits from the stimulus. If you disagree I'd like to see your info on why that is.

4. I didn't mean the Keystone XL. I'm with you on that in criticizing Obama. I meant can you give me evidence of increased and excessive regulations that negatively impact the economy.


I don't think Obama has been very good thus far. There are some hopeful signs, but probably more negative. I do think he's better than Bush though. Bush's foreign policy was much more harmful than any economic decisions he or Obama made. While Obama isn't as different from Bush as I would like him to be on foreign policy, I appreciate his restraint with Iran.

I believe that nations need to invest in their own infrastructure during times of economic crisis. Honestly I believe countries need to invest in their own infrastructure regardless, but especially during crisis. I am however against wasteful spending that isn't really an investment. So even on this I'm somewhat against Obama. But I'm not like the right wingers and Ron Paul supporters on here who think now is the time to get rid of the departments of education, environment, commerce and whatever else.

So I guess to conclude... I do not think Obama has been a very good president, but probably for very different reasons than you.

[Foosters Galore]

1. No 9/11 = No War on Terror. Plain and Simple. If Clinton had dealt with any of the terrorists attacks that took place during his administration, then 9/11 likely never would have happened.

2. Why give him credit for its origins when its origins were from before he became President?

3. Most don't, but humor me. Produce links to these reports if you want to. I like a good laugh.

4. Google Keystone XL. You'll have your evidence.

You seem quick to blame Obama's failures on anyone but him. He wanted to deal with the problems in this country so the buck stops with him. This is HIS economy. This is HIS unemployment rate. These are HIS high gas prices. These are HIS wars. He wanted them and now they are his. He wants all the credit for the good (little of which his administration has produced), yet no blame for the bad.

Let me ask you something, and if you don't answer anything else I said at least answer this: Do you believe Obama has been a good President or at least a better President for our country? Your answer will tell me all I need to know about me.

Right. These are all HIS. Except for bush. Those are all clinton's.

[FondrenRoad]

1. No 9/11 = No War on Terror. Plain and Simple. If Clinton had dealt with any of the terrorists attacks that took place during his administration, then 9/11 likely never would have happened.

2. Why give him credit for its origins when its origins were from before he became President?

3. Most don't, but humor me. Produce links to these reports if you want to. I like a good laugh.

4. Google Keystone XL. You'll have your evidence.

You seem quick to blame Obama's failures on anyone but him. He wanted to deal with the problems in this country so the buck stops with him. This is HIS economy. This is HIS unemployment rate. These are HIS high gas prices. These are HIS wars. He wanted them and now they are his. He wants all the credit for the good (little of which his administration has produced), yet no blame for the bad.

Let me ask you something, and if you don't answer anything else I said at least answer this: Do you believe Obama has been a good President or at least a better President for our country? Your answer will tell me all I need to know about me.

Still trying to figure yourself out, huh?

[OnBoard]

A couple guys I've spoken with in the upper upper end of the investment world say that the stimulus stopped a fall off the economic cliff that we might not have recovered from for 10+ years. The cash infusion while artificial did provide a semblance of monetary normalcy that helped bridge the gap. Both these guys tend to be more conservative in their politics.

[Bob Lives!]

That's nothing more than a Keynesian cover up. Infusing the economy with gov't spending merely uses taxpayer money to protect wealthy investors. You can claim that it also benefits the middle class by creating jobs, but make sure you stand in the mirror while doing so. You may see someone that bears a strong resemblance to a trickle down economist. If you can get past the hypocrisy, you'll still have to answer to gov't waste, inefficiency, and cronyism.

[TJ]

GarnetLatern = Sarah Palin?

[SmokeyTheBear]

1. No 9/11 = No War on Terror. Plain and Simple. If Clinton had dealt with any of the terrorists attacks that took place during his administration, then 9/11 likely never would have happened.

Didn't Clinton throw some missiles at the terrorists groups during his presidency? Oh and wasn't the attack 8 months into Bush's presidency?

You seem quick to blame Obama's failures on anyone but him. He wanted to deal with the problems in this country so the buck stops with him. This is HIS economy. This is HIS unemployment rate. These are HIS high gas prices. These are HIS wars. He wanted them and now they are his. He wants all the credit for the good (little of which his administration has produced), yet no blame for the bad.

So 9/11 was Bush's fault by your logic. So was the anthrax attacks going on during the time.

[OnBoard]

Didn't Clinton throw some missiles at the terrorists groups during his presidency? Oh and wasn't the attack 8 months into Bush's presidency?

Your point ?

[SideSlip]

A few questions:

1. How much of that $4.939 trillion "Obama added" had to do with the wars Bush got us into?

Not saying you have to like the spending or agree with it, but you should at least consider those questions to be fair.

Ask and you shall receive.

[fellside]

That's nothing more than a Keynesian cover up. Infusing the economy with gov't spending merely uses taxpayer money to protect wealthy investors. You can claim that it also benefits the middle class by creating jobs, but make sure you stand in the mirror while doing so. You may see someone that bears a strong resemblance to a trickle down economist. If you can get past the hypocrisy, you'll still have to answer to gov't waste, inefficiency, and cronyism.

Have you ever actually looked at the Act? Because if you had I don't see how you could compare it to trickle down economics.

There are some things in the stimulus package that I think are just silly. But giving $50+ Billion to local school districts to prevent employees from being laid off sounds like the complete opposite of trickle down economics.

[OnBoard]

Have you ever actually looked at the Act? Because if you had I don't see how you could compare it to trickle down economics.

There are some things in the stimulus package that I think are just silly. But giving $50+ Billion to local school districts to prevent employees from being laid off sounds like the complete opposite of trickle down economics.

It's not trickle down economics, it's shake down economics. The NEA is a huge $#@!ing worthless union (like 99% of all unions today) that does nothing but protect members at the expense of the children they're supposed to teach. Va. doesn't have teachers unions, and we have some of the highest ranked PUBLIC schools in the nation.

[TheGarnetLantern]

1. How about not having a war on an abstract concept? A war on terror was never a realistic war. It's one thing to go after Al Queda. It's another to spend American dollars nation building in the middle east and occupying people that hate us and hate each other due to religious reasons. Killing terrorists wouldn't have caused nearly as much damage to our economy as the belief that we could actually win against terror in general. Too much neoconservative optimism in that.

2. I don't give Clinton credit for the origins either. I'm calling out the silly concept that it's a presidents job to regulate economic trends.

3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...bibJ_blog.html

That's a start. Lists several sources for an against and mentions potential failings of each conclusion. Though I think the overall data suggests at the very least slight benefits from the stimulus. If you disagree I'd like to see your info on why that is.

4. I didn't mean the Keystone XL. I'm with you on that in criticizing Obama. I meant can you give me evidence of increased and excessive regulations that negatively impact the economy.


I don't think Obama has been very good thus far. There are some hopeful signs, but probably more negative. I do think he's better than Bush though. Bush's foreign policy was much more harmful than any economic decisions he or Obama made. While Obama isn't as different from Bush as I would like him to be on foreign policy, I appreciate his restraint with Iran.

I believe that nations need to invest in their own infrastructure during times of economic crisis. Honestly I believe countries need to invest in their own infrastructure regardless, but especially during crisis. I am however against wasteful spending that isn't really an investment. So even on this I'm somewhat against Obama. But I'm not like the right wingers and Ron Paul supporters on here who think now is the time to get rid of the departments of education, environment, commerce and whatever else.

So I guess to conclude... I do not think Obama has been a very good president, but probably for very different reasons than you.

1. The War on Terror was really a damned if you do, damned if you don't. There was no way our leader at the time could allow the biggest attack on American soil to go down without a response. Wasn't an option at all. However this War wasn't really like any other war we've fought. We weren't fighting a nation, we were fighting an ideology. We were fighting to change the hearts and minds of those who, if they had their way, wouldn't allow us to exist anymore. You can't put the blame for these wars solely on Bush's hands. It's true that he went all in, because honestly, he had no choice but to go all in, but let's not act like he was alone in this matter. He won bipartisan support to engage in these conflicts. What didn't help was that for some reason our media told us we could go in there and whip some undeveloped country's ass and be out in time for dinner and our populace bought in. When that didn't happen, they couldn't understand why and the media went into full "it's a failure" mode. I could go on and on about this, but I'll concede that Bush deserves some blame, but Clinton deserves some of the blame, as does Jimmy Carter, and if you are being fair about it, the Democrats in Congress at the time deserved their piece of the pie too.

2. Well if you are going to blame Bush for the Bad Obama economy, then I am certainly going to blame the economic downturn at the end of the Clinton Presidency on Clinton. Only fair, no?

3. Here is a link where two economic professors - one from Stanford and one from Harvard - outright say that the Stimulus Act was a failure: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...re_576356.html

4. Here's a link for you: I love this little nugget:

Some 10,215 new federal regulations from the Obama administration are costing consumers, businesses and the economy overall $46 billion annually, more than five times the regulatory price tag of former President Bush in his first three years in office. Worse: just implementing those regulations had a one-time additional cost of $11 billion, according to a Heritage Foundation analysis provided to Washington Secrets.

Well at least you are half right. He's not a good president, but as mediocre as the Bush years were, they are far better than what we are dealing with now.

[TheGarnetLantern]

Ask and you shall receive.

So if my math is right, only $497 billion of that $5 trillion came from Bush's Wars. However, I could have sworn that Obama kept promising to get us out of those wars within a year of taking office. Hell, the only reason why we are pulling out of Iraq is because Obama failed to negotiate the continuation of their stay. Either way, $497 billion pales in comparison to the $900 billion stimulus package that has not only failed, but many believe has actually had a negative impact on the economy.

[TheGarnetLantern]

[QUOTE=fellside;3793510]Have you ever actually looked at the Act? Because if you had I don't see how you could compare it to trickle down economics.

There are some things in the stimulus package that I think are just silly. But giving $50+ Billion to local school districts to prevent employees from being laid off sounds like the complete opposite of trickle down economics.[/QUOTE

Okay so that helps them for a year or two. What then? The Salaries and pensions aren't a problem in most southern states because we don't pay them like they are surgeons and lawyers. We pay them the salary for what someone who only works 180 days should get. Maybe those states who are having problems with teacher's unions should end their contracts with them and go to right to work. States with right to work have far less problems than those without it.

[tropheus]

There are plenty of arguments to support shoving splintered broomsticks up the rear of R's and D's but wrt to Obama, as others have said, his big spending (healthcare) won't really start until his 6th year or the 2nd year of a republican president.

[OnBoard]

Giving $50B to teachers unions isn't trickle down economics it's shakedown economics. It's just his payment for votes delivered and to be delivered.

The NEA is a waste ot time and shouldn't be allowed to operate. It's entire reason for being is to protect teachers/it's members and acts exactly in the opposite diretion of trying to actually help students.

No teacher unions in Va. And we have among the best public schools in the nation and we're in the $#@!ing South.

[Not My Real Name]

Let me ask you something, and if you don't answer anything else I said at least answer this: Do you believe Obama has been a good President or at least a better President for our country? Your answer will tell me all I need to know about me.

First thing you've posted on these boards that makes any sense.

[BritishHorn]

fiscally conservative presidents: nobody since william mckinley

[clear lake horn]

fiscally conservative presidents: nobody since william mckinley

Don't forget Calvin Coolidge.

[Escriva]

Don't forget Calvin Coolidge.

Silent Cal was a good one. He and Romney are distant cousins.

[Nivek]

This thread is why we have the government we deserve. Not the one I deserve.