The Obama Debt

well, I for one would appreciate a breakdown of those figures. One would think that much of what is on the Obama side are carry overs from the previous administration. To assume that Obama has created all of that spending, just because it occured during his watch, is just as ridiculous.

Not ridiculous at all, when you consider a trillion for the useless stimulus, even more for Obamacare, bailouts, etc.

and:

With President Obama and Republican leaders calling for cutting the budget by trillions over the next 10 years, it is worth asking how we got here — from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits, including the $1.3 trillion shortfall in 2010. The answer is largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions.

And:

I think the stimulus and bailouts probably saved a lot of butts. Maybe not all of the right butts but...  I would like to have seen more controls/safeguards put in place against the banks, lending institutions, financial services, investment banking, etc. to be more transparent and responsible, again a big but... 

ObamaCare, I don't really know at this point however if I had a child that need medical care that either I couldn't afford or had been rejected as a pre-existing condition, I'd be pretty relieved.

Spencer, I make an assumption that religion plays a part in your life and ask you to consider, "what would Jesus do?"

The media is a willing stooge, but even they forget about the alternate media.  Check out the graphs here: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/07/14/well-theres-your-problem-fed-spending-299-home-income-27/

They clearly show that while taxes have remained fairly constant (trend line flat at 18%), spending has skyrocketed.  No, it is purely a democrat spending problem (it was not helped by republicans failure to exercise some fiscal responsibility).

No he did not.  He inherited a $400 billion dollar deficit.  He created the $1.2 trillion by adding the Porkulus (that is now part of the baseline) to it.

not lie about who created it or who is responsible for it.

I was waiting for someone to bring up that NYT nonsense.  It's already been shown to be false, and their first notion that tax cuts caused the deficit is purely BS.  Common from the DNC/NYT (same thing really) who try to use class warfare.

http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2011/05/the-tax-cuts-did-not-cause-the-deficit

The 2001/2003 tax cuts are blamed for past, present, and future budget deficits. The numbers tell a different story.

When the tax cuts were enacted in 2001, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast a $5.6 trillion surplus between 2002 and 2011. Instead, Washington is set to run a cumulative $6.1 trillion deficit over that period. So what caused this dizzying $11.7 trillion swing? CBO data reveal that the much-maligned tax cuts, at $1.7 trillion, caused just 14 percent of the swing from projected surpluses to actual deficits (and even that excludes any positive economic impact of the tax cuts).

The bulk of the swing resulted from two recessions, two stock market crashes, and other economic/technical factors (33 percent), other new spending (32 percent), net interest on the debt (12 percent), the 2009 stimulus (6 percent) and other tax cuts (3 percent).

I was talking about Obamacare, you know compassion oh, and I guess he did kick the money lenders out of the temple but...

heritage.org? this is just an arm of the republican party, not a very unbiased source. while the writers that I referenced may have their own agenda it was taken out of time magazine and not moveon.org (wikipedia, The Heritage Foundation is a conservative American think tank). With all of the divergent opinions out on the web it isn't difficult to find opposing views or methods to spin the same data to serve a purpose.

c'mon you guys aren't even being realistic. the big amount of spending in the first year had much to do about saving the economy. You think the economy tanked just because Obama got elected? well, in a sense it might have because of all the institutions that got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

We (you and I) all got screwed, I'm at a loss how anyone can support/defend those institutions that screwed us or those politicians that are in their pockets.

raise the debt ceiling, let the tax cuts expire, cut the pork and don't mess with my social security benefits.

As the NYT is an arm of the democrat party.  But again, do not take our word for it. do the research yourself or go to my link where the numbers were crunched and put into a nice neat chart.  They even source where the numbers came from in case you want to check the math yourself.

As for WWJS on Obamacare?  I believe he said "give unto Caesar what is Caesars, and unto God what is God's".  he did not say "Take from Caesar to pay God".

I think that this really deals with separation of church and state and why churches that get involved in politics need to pay taxes, but that's just my take on it.

I'm not disputing the numbers only why Obama spent the amount recorded. it wasn't that he woke up one morning and thought to himself, "wow, wouldn't it be great to spend trillions of dollars just because I can". He spent the money because he felt he needed to to keep the economy from going into a depression. He didn't bring on the recession, he inherited it.

Oi!  I thought you asked WWJS?  As for getting involved, what is your definition of that?

Here's where we differ.  I do not believe he thought that.  Rahm Emmanuel as much said it "Never let a good crises go to waste".  Seeing the crises, they woke up and said "time to pay back friends and penalize enemies".  And did.  That is what the Porkulus did.  He said it was to stimulate because the truth would have been political suicide.  But Rahm pretty much spilled the beans on that one (although Obama has plausible deniability since he did not say it).

you're funny.

with regards to what?

Would that "first" year be Obama's first year as president or the Democrats (Obama included) first year as the majority (2007)? Sounds like part of what Obama "inherited" was due in part of his and his colleagues own making. Not everything ran as smooth as the 2010 budget... oh wait there was no 2010 budget, just spending.

You mention the wars. Seems they were so bad, Obama decided we needed another one to pay for in Libya too. Bush at least asked and received bipartisan support, whether one likes it or not.

If I remember correctly we were attacked, emotions ran high at the time. there was no increase in revenue to pay for these wars and he lied about Iraq. Iraq had no WMD but Iran on the other hand...

It seems to me that you all are putting all of the blame on Obama and that just isn't the case. He did inherit a tanked economy and two wars. They did what they thought was necessary with the hopes that we wouldn't end up in a depression. The Bush tax cuts played a big part in this as well. how do you fund two wars without the necessary funding to do so. As with all executive decisions only time will tell.

in order to balance the budget we need to apply a balanced approach: raise the debt ceiling, let the Bush tax cuts expire and (good luck with this one) cut the pork.

I believe (conspiracy thoughts coming) that there is a effort by some to keep the people at odds with each other in order to push agendas that are not in our best interests. "our" being you and I. People seem to forget that we do have a ruling class in America, I'm not a part of it and I'm pretty sure that you aren't either.

What would you consider a church doing to be construed as getting involved in politics?

Iraq was 2 years later.  Emotions still high then?  Bush did not lie about WMDs.  The intel was bad, but that was due to Saddam hiding the fact he had gotten rid of them from the Iranians (who he feared more than Bush).  And WMDs were but one of a litany of reasons given for finishing the war in Iraq (there was never a peace treaty from 91).  Again, Lie is a strong word.  You have to prove he KNEW the British and American Intel was wrong.  Your opinion does not count, except to bolster your argument that Bush was wrong, not that he lied.

Putting all of what on Obama?  The 4 trillion he has run up since becoming president?  That is his responsibility.  Bush was responsible for his own mess, but no one is saying that is Obama's fault.  Blame for Obamacare (which has nothing to do with care, but with insurance)?  Obama broke several promises to get that passed, and it is a bad bill (bad laws are worse than no laws).  Blamed Obama for "Fast and Furious"?  The program was ill conceived and badly executed, but since democrats have a solid lock on government, no one told Obama that - this one is going to cause a lot of sorrow in the White house.  Blame Obama for $800 billion stimulus that accomplished nothing?  That was all his bill (and also why his first budget deficit exceeded $1 trillion).  Blame Obama for one of the largest tax increases in history (you just have not seen most of it yet)?  Again, he lied.  The tax will affect everyone regardless of income.

So where are we falsely accusing obama of things he did not do?  Obama did inherit a bad economy and 2 wars - but the former he and the democrats helped to create with their insistence and laws that forced banks to make loans to people with no hope of repaying them (and yes, the banks were complicit - they could have refused to do so - and then been blackballed by the government). 

Eventually, you have to stop excusing the man.  No, he did not crucify Jesus (Bush did that), or start WWII (Bush did that too), or even cause the great flood (Bush again).  But he has a resume that shames even Carter.  And Bush did not do that.

sorry, forget this response.

 I thought this was about the budget crisis and I'm even sorry that I posted anything here. I have watched the postings here on the JoeUser blog and have noted those who attack anyone who disagrees with them of which you are one.

This is no way to have a real debate with you. You refuse to take responsibility for the actions of your party except as they suit you. I am unable to delve into the current administrations mistakes when we cannot even somewhat agree on how we got here.

No, Obama and his administration is not perfect and have made mistakes but I consider him a straight shooter with the interests of the American people in his heart and mind. I also think he will win in 2012 and that the republicans are shooting themselves in the foot with their no'ism attitudes.

Raise the debt ceiling, let the Bush tax cuts expire and cut the pork.

If you are directing your response to me, I am not a republican.   I have never been one, so I cannot take responsibility for that which I have no stake in.  As for Attacking you, perhaps I missed the attacks, but I did not see any.  I see plenty of disagreement.  I see plenty of discussion.  But I do not see any ad hominems or belittling.  If you can point out where i am guilty, I will apologize as that is not my intention.  However, I cannot apologize for others if they have done it.

I do not agree at all with the constant raising of the debt. The grave is dug, why dig deeper? I like the one analogy of arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic after it has already struck the iceberg.

While I see DrGuy not agree on points many times, I don't agree with "attack". To have a conversation with all that agree with a point of view accomplishes nothing. The only way to learn and grow is to debate with people you do not agree with.

IMHO, it is also fairly useless to finger point at the 2 different parties. I would rather see different views and debate on what to do about the problem at hand.

Do not raise the debt, stop all the wars that are not wars LOL, close all the loopholes for the wealthy and corporations at least until the debt is paid. If the rich want their tax cuts back let them use all their lobby power to reduce the size of government and make sure there is a balanced budget. My 2 cents.

The corpse is getting fatter and more bloated.

Heh, nothing like manipulating those who are ignorant of how fractional reserve banking works. These numbers might also be more frightening if the value of a dollar was not run into the ground.

Regardless, if you wanted to see how the neo-cons in charge of the Republican party talk the talk of the old conservatives, but do not walk the walk, here are the real numbers that matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

So yep, Vodoo Reganomics and Laffer Curve Theory (failed spend and borrow stimulus theory), and 2 unpaid for wars.

The country was well on its way to a meltdown long before Obama came around (admittedly he isn't helping any)

You are confused.  The country was not on the right road, but it was not on its way to meltdown until Obama.  Numbers do not lie.  Even Clinton had more sense and intelligence, and when he saw the writing on the wall, he moderated, he did not double down on stupid as Obama has.

GMC2 posts:

DRG posts:

Gmc2 posts:

Gmc2,

Instead of picking up your bat and ball and leaving why don't you do your homework and check out the simple facts.

DrG. is correct. What Obama inherited was Bush's 413 billion dollar Deficit that was 3.5 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). According to the NYTimes,  this "enormous" deficit was very bad and was condemned  as "unprecedented" and the biggest budget deficit in the history of the world" that will cause "a collapse of confidence" in the financial markets unless Bush got America's "financial house in order".

Well, fast forward to 2011 and note how the NYTimes tune changes ....Obama's 1.5 Trillion dollar deficit and 10 percent of the GDP is "good". Columnist Paul Krugman's in his column titled, "Fiscal Scare Tactics" said, "running big deficits in the face of the worst economic slump since the 1930's is actually the right thing to do".... 

When Obama took over the helm, Oil was 39 dollars a barrel and a gallon of gas was $1.84. The Unemployment rate was 7 something and we had a AAA rating. Not anymore.  Is Obama to blame? Yes, he owns this crisis. And while you are doing your homework, why don't you tell us what Obama's specific economic plan is to get us out of this mess? Oh wait a minute...don't waste your time, he doesn't have one.

Do some homework.

Two years in office and Obama is intent on "change"... that is, taking America in a new Socialist direction. We see that in the way he set up Obamacare where the public option was a first step in getting socialist single payer system into law. His policies are setting the stage for redistributive welfare spending. His rhetoric is laced with class conflict...his strategy is to turn the non-producers against the producers.

Obama's regime had a super majority and wants to continue feasting on taxpayers' money. They are addicted to over spending and over borrowing to the point it's imploded from its own greed and damaged our creditworthiness and caused a crisis of confidence. For example in Nov. 2010, the government spent 150.4 billion more than it took in. For the first 2 months of FY 2011, which began October 1, the feds spent 585.7 billion and took in 294.9 billion, a deficit for just one sixth of the fiscal year of 290.8 billion.

To keep the voters happy and the entitlement programs going, Obama's government made promises it couldn't afford shifting the burden onto future generations.