National Debt up 3 TRILLION under Obamao
-
And how much of that is he responsible for, Cal? How much of that is caused by the recession, and how much of that is new spending? Do you know?
If you want to make the claim that Obama's spending added to the debt, go ahead and make it. But that figure isn't even close to three trillion, is it? Plus, most of the spending is to address/ameliorate the effects of the recession - stimulus, increased food stamps and unemployment benefits, TARP, etc.
The reality is that you'd have roughly the same figure if McCain were president, and then you wouldn't care. Just like you didn't post things like this when Bush added almost $5 trillion to the debt. And that was during a period of economic growth, not a massive economic downturn.
So let's do this, since you seem to think liberals would shrink from this debate, rather than the idea that they just don't see any point in talking to someone so dense: how much of that increase in the debt is due to the loss in revenue caused by the economic downturn? Cal?
Also, since you're so concerned about the size of the debt, why are you for extending the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000, which makes the problem far worse?
-
The recession would've been over a year ago if the damn Liberals in gov. would've left things alone instead of printing 3 TRILLION DOLLARS
Everytime they pass a damn spending bill the whole economy stops to see how much inflation is going to be added before they can continue forward.
-
Of course, that's not true. You can believe it if you like, but the administrations actions, while costly, certainly and measurably, to a certain extent, shortened the worst of the recession. And that includes some of the Bush administration's actions.
We'd have been looking at unemployment levels that dwarf where we are today, lower or negative GDP growth, and a longer and deeper recession.
To say that the economy would have recovered quicker absent additional stimulus - which included tax cuts for businesses and individuals - is categorically untrue. Honestly, in an economy with not enough money to spur demand and no real additional hiring, you're arguing for even less demand, and less hiring. And then saying that's what would have made things better. It's nuts.
So is your assertion that we "printed 3 trillion dollars" is. Who knows where you're getting that.
Nor do you seem to know that inflation is not, has not been, and will not be a problem for the foreseeable future.
Other than everything you wrote, great post.
-
As I recall you demurred when I asked a pretty basic question about the tax cuts.
I assume you think the ensuing tax hikes will do more good than harm correct?
So would you let them all expire or keep the "middle class" cuts?
You could scroll to my poll.
Further do you think the current administration OR the shift in the houses 4 years ago have had any negative effect on te economy?
WSS
-
Heck, you didn't answer the question from Steve again. as almost always.
And you never got the nads to actually start your own thread, as always.
And, you are saying that Obamao is not responsible for the majority of the deficit?
Please stop play Obamao's fool. Go READ the article like an honest man...
maybe it will make an honest man out of you yet.
Of course I cared about the deficit before, I didn't like it. But to the point of having to
go after terrorists because of 9/11, I understood that part of it.
But your fave Obamao, the liar, fascist, coward and manipulator and whiner, has thrown billions and billions
into vote buying share the wealth bills that created NOTHING of what they "intended".
And the hc bill? is a debacle of the monumental kind.
And the cap n trade/tax? would cripple our entire economy, business and private lives.
But, it's nice to know you are still cowardly lurking and attacking, like a Vietnamese sniper.
Just once, start your own thread on a subject your own choosing? Just so we can figure out
where YOU stand on ANYTHING, outside of always attacking, and launching personal attacks.
-
I see no one would like to answer the question since they don't know the answer, or because the answer is inconvenient to their opinions. And so we try to change the subject to something else.
How much of that increase in debt in the last two years is related to the recession, and how much is related to increased spending that is not recession-related spending?
If Obama's such a big spender, as you allege, this shouldn't be a hard question to answer.
So ...what's the answer?
-
And Cal, Bush's deficit wasn't really caused by going after the terrorists who did 9/11. What were his deficits caused by?
-
I see no one would like to answer the question since they don't know the answer, or because the answer is inconvenient to their opinions. And so we try to change the subject to something else.
How much of that increase in debt in the last two years is related to the recession, and how much is related to increased spending that is not recession-related spending?
If Obama's such a big spender, as you allege, this shouldn't be a hard question to answer.
So ...what's the answer?
I see no one would like to answer the question since they don't know the answer, or because the answer is inconvenient to their opinions. And so we try to change the subject to something else.
Is that why you refuse to answer me?
WSS
-
No, it isn't. I don't find your question to be a stumper. But I don't recall you asking me about it. You ask me lots of things that I don't feel the need to answer, like, "Just like your buddy Joseph Stalin, eh?"
One can only take so much of these types of discussions:
Steve: I don't think he's a Nazi.
Me: The point isn't whether or not he's a Nazi.
Steve: I still don't think he's a Nazi.
It's not all the interesting.
...So does anyone want to answer the question? Do a little research. Find out what caused the sudden run-up in the debt and then report back.
Was it Obama's wild spending on new programs like health care?
Anyone?
-
No, it isn't. I don't find your question to be a stumper. But I don't recall you asking me about it. You ask me lots of things that I don't feel the need to answer, like, "Just like your buddy Joseph Stalin, eh?"
One can only take so much of these types of discussions:
Steve: I don't think he's a Nazi.
Me: The point isn't whether or not he's a Nazi.
Steve: I still don't think he's a Nazi.
It's not all the interesting.
...So does anyone want to answer the question? Do a little research. Find out what caused the sudden run-up in the debt and then report back.
Was it Obama's wild spending on new programs like health care?
Anyone?
No, it isn't. I don't find your question to be a stumper. But I don't recall you asking me about it. You ask me lots of things that I don't feel the need to answer, like, "Just like your buddy Joseph Stalin, eh?"
One can only take so much of these types of discussions:
Steve: I don't think he's a Nazi.
Me: The point isn't whether or not he's a Nazi.
Steve: I still don't think he's a Nazi.
It's not all the interesting.
It rarely is when you're involved.
You can't respond in a meaningful way so it makes you angry.
We know.
But that's another thread in case you were confused.
You can keep changing the subject over there if you have anything of interest.
So, though I know you have a problem focusing, you can go back just a few posts and answer what I asked in this thread.
Or about the tax cuts.
...So does anyone want to answer the question? Do a little research. Find out what caused the sudden run-up in the debt and then report back.
Was it Obama's wild spending on new programs like health care?
Anyone?
Perhaps you should enlighten us.
As I recall Bush's war spending was driving us to the poorhouse among other things.
So now that it's all over.... (what? He did???? Nevermind)
And back to mine.
Is Obama accountable for anything Heck?
Yes or no is fine.
Anyone?
WSS
-
Again, don't dodge because it's inconvenient to what you think. And the answer isn't a straw man argument about something else. OR to ask me to answer the question you asked to avoid answering mine.
What's the answer? Does anyone know?
-
Again, don't dodge because it's inconvenient to what you think. And the answer isn't a straw man argument about something else. OR to ask me to answer the question you asked to avoid answering mine.
What's the answer? Does anyone know?
Again, don't dodge because it's inconvenient to what you think. And the answer isn't a straw man argument about something else. OR to ask me to answer the question you asked to avoid answering mine.
What's the answer? Does anyone know?
Then, as vague as the question might be, no.
No one here knows.
It's up to you to tell us, but I assume you'll just create a new question.
You see if the deficit and the ensuing economic hard times are caused by the recession and it's aftershock we'll need to know who or what caused the recession.
Is that fair?
If you believe it was war spending or the tax cuts or the prescription drug benefit that caused the worldwide slowdown then it was all initially the fault of GW Bush.
If it was the bailout or the subprime mortgage fiasco maybe we spread the blame.
Obama's spending and taxing has yet to do it's predicted damage then it's probably the uncertainy that keeps the clamps on the economy which in turn keeps the deficit high.
In that case he's caused the uncertainty .
So.....
Is the "recession" kept alive by anything Obama has done or not done?
If that's the question I'd say probably.
Here are the only two I found in the thread:
" So let's do this, since you seem to think liberals would shrink from this debate, rather than the idea that they just don't see any point in talking to someone so dense: how much of that increase in the debt is due to the loss in revenue caused by the economic downturn? Cal?
Also, since you're so concerned about the size of the debt, why are you for extending the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000, which makes the problem far worse? "
The answer to the second part is at least not to further damage the weak recovery which even you seem to accept.
" No, it isn't. I don't find your question to be a stumper. "
Great!
So again does the president bear any responsibility?
WSS
-
Steve, Steve, Steve. Once again, you're completely lost.
First, stop conflating the budget with the economy. Things that are bad for the budget aren't necessarily bad for the economy, and vice versa.
So no one in their right mind would suggest that "war spending or the tax cuts or the prescription drug benefit that caused the worldwide slowdown." Those are things that affect the budget. Plus, we have a pretty good idea what caused the economic meltdown, and it's obviously none of those things. (It's poor black people and the Community Reinvestment Act, remember?)
As for responsibility, he bears responsibility for everything he does. I think you mean "blame."
-
"If it was the bailout or the subprime mortgage fiasco maybe we spread the blame.
Obama's spending and taxing has yet to do it's predicted damage then it's probably the uncertainy that keeps the clamps on the economy which in turn keeps the deficit high.
In that case he's caused the uncertainty."
I don't know where to start with this. It's such a mess. Do I have to? It's not going to make a difference.
Just remember that conservatives made all these argument - these exact same arguments - when Clinton raised taxes on the upper brackets in the 90s. That was going to "kill the economy" too, remember? You'd think the fact that it didn't would have settled the debate since this wasn't that long ago and some of the same people who are making the "kill the economy" argument now are the same people who made it then. But no, we have to go through this all over again.
Changing the top rates a few points simply does not have a massive effect on economic growth, or even a moderate one. It just doesn't. You'd have to change them a lot more to get the sort of effect that all these people are talking about.
And the economy isn't stuck because of the uncertainty. That's mostly a canard, something that people repeat, as if you can blame Obama for most of the economic uncertainty anyway. It's a minor issue. The real issue is that consumers don't have the money to spend in order to lift us out of the recession, and so the businesses, despite all the incentives, are sitting on their cash and not hiring ...because there's no one to buy the stuff they make. And around we'll go, and for years, it seems.
Seriously. We're pretty screwed.
That's the crux of it. So what are you going to do to get us out of it? Every option costs money. If you want to cut taxes, that's going to make the deficit worse. If you want to do infrastructure spending, that's going to make the deficit worse. (Though you get something for it that can improve economic growth in the long term.) No free lunch and all that. Hopefully you do enough to get us out of the mess and not enough to screw us down the road. And not screwing us depends on our political system functioning well. Anyone feel good about that?
Well, let's elect some lunatics like Sharron Angle and Pat Toomey and see if that helps.
So again, the vast majority of the Obama spending is to address and reverse the downturn. You act like he's just doing it for fun, because that's what liberals do - spend, spend, spend. He hasn't proposed or passed a lot of new spending otherwise. The growth of federal expenditures hasn't changed since he took office. It's almost exactly the same as Bush's term. Health care is his major initiative, and it's paid for through cutbacks, efficiencies and new taxes.
As for the "taxing" you speak of, it's funny - just this week we learned that only about 1 in 10 Americans knows that the vast, vast majority of taxpayers in the country saw their taxes go down under Obama.
Your taxes went down. Cal's taxes went down. T's taxes went down. Everyone's taxes went down on their first $250,000 of income, including the rich.
I would imagine you're all part of the 90% that isn't aware of this.
So again, the deficit is growing, and so is the debt. And it's growing because of the recession and because of the growth in transfer payments because of the recession. The whole point of this thread is largely fiction. It's looking at a stat - the debt is up three trillion since Obama took office - and not knowing how to interpret it, because you and Cal don't know what's causing the debt to spiral and you don't care to find out.
All you know is that you don't like Obama, so it must be him.
-
"If it was the bailout or the subprime mortgage fiasco maybe we spread the blame.
Obama's spending and taxing has yet to do it's predicted damage then it's probably the uncertainy that keeps the clamps on the economy which in turn keeps the deficit high.
In that case he's caused the uncertainty."
I don't know where to start with this. It's such a mess. Do I have to? It's not going to make a difference.
Just remember that conservatives made all these argument - these exact same arguments - when Clinton raised taxes on the upper brackets in the 90s. That was going to "kill the economy" too, remember? You'd think the fact that it didn't would have settled the debate since this wasn't that long ago and some of the same people who are making the "kill the economy" argument now are the same people who made it then. But no, we have to go through this all over again.
Changing the top rates a few points simply does not have a massive effect on economic growth, or even a moderate one. It just doesn't. You'd have to change them a lot more to get the sort of effect that all these people are talking about.
And the economy isn't stuck because of the uncertainty. That's mostly a canard, something that people repeat, as if you can blame Obama for most of the economic uncertainty anyway. It's a minor issue. The real issue is that consumers don't have the money to spend in order to lift us out of the recession, and so the businesses, despite all the incentives, are sitting on their cash and not hiring ...because there's no one to buy the stuff they make. And around we'll go, and for years, it seems.
Seriously. We're pretty screwed.
That's the crux of it. So what are you going to do to get us out of it? Every option costs money. If you want to cut taxes, that's going to make the deficit worse. If you want to do infrastructure spending, that's going to make the deficit worse. (Though you get something for it that can improve economic growth in the long term.) No free lunch and all that. Hopefully you do enough to get us out of the mess and not enough to screw us down the road. And not screwing us depends on our political system functioning well. Anyone feel good about that?
Well, let's elect some lunatics like Sharron Angle and Pat Toomey and see if that helps.
So again, the vast majority of the Obama spending is to address and reverse the downturn. You act like he's just doing it for fun, because that's what liberals do - spend, spend, spend. He hasn't proposed or passed a lot of new spending otherwise. The growth of federal expenditures hasn't changed since he took office. It's almost exactly the same as Bush's term. Health care is his major initiative, and it's paid for through cutbacks, efficiencies and new taxes.
As for the "taxing" you speak of, it's funny - just this week we learned that only about 1 in 10 Americans knows that the vast, vast majority of taxpayers in the country saw their taxes go down under Obama.
Your taxes went down. Cal's taxes went down. T's taxes went down. Everyone's taxes went down on their first $250,000 of income, including the rich.
I would imagine you're all part of the 90% that isn't aware of this.
So again, the deficit is growing, and so is the debt. And it's growing because of the recession and because of the growth in transfer payments because of the recession. The whole point of this thread is largely fiction. It's looking at a stat - the debt is up three trillion since Obama took office - and not knowing how to interpret it, because you and Cal don't know what's causing the debt to spiral and you don't care to find out.
All you know is that you don't like Obama, so it must be him.
All you know is that you don't like Obama, so it must be him.
LOL
After a raft of non response and misdirection you end with this.
I think the truth is that the party in power for four years and with supreme control for two must accept some responsibility for an economic downturn that has lasted well longer than just about any other.
But you DO like Obama so you can't bear to admit it.
You can't give the spin a rest for a second.
BTW Responsibility is a fine word.
And yes dear the donwturn is global.
-
"If it was the bailout or the subprime mortgage fiasco maybe we spread the blame.
Obama's spending and taxing has yet to do it's predicted damage then it's probably the uncertainy that keeps the clamps on the economy which in turn keeps the deficit high.
In that case he's caused the uncertainty."
I don't know where to start with this. It's such a mess. Do I have to? It's not going to make a difference.
Just remember that conservatives made all these argument - these exact same arguments - when Clinton raised taxes on the upper brackets in the 90s. That was going to "kill the economy" too, remember? You'd think the fact that it didn't would have settled the debate since this wasn't that long ago and some of the same people who are making the "kill the economy" argument now are the same people who made it then. But no, we have to go through this all over again.
Changing the top rates a few points simply does not have a massive effect on economic growth, or even a moderate one. It just doesn't. You'd have to change them a lot more to get the sort of effect that all these people are talking about.
And the economy isn't stuck because of the uncertainty. That's mostly a canard, something that people repeat, as if you can blame Obama for most of the economic uncertainty anyway. It's a minor issue. The real issue is that consumers don't have the money to spend in order to lift us out of the recession, and so the businesses, despite all the incentives, are sitting on their cash and not hiring ...because there's no one to buy the stuff they make. And around we'll go, and for years, it seems.
Seriously. We're pretty screwed.
That's the crux of it. So what are you going to do to get us out of it? Every option costs money. If you want to cut taxes, that's going to make the deficit worse. If you want to do infrastructure spending, that's going to make the deficit worse. (Though you get something for it that can improve economic growth in the long term.) No free lunch and all that. Hopefully you do enough to get us out of the mess and not enough to screw us down the road. And not screwing us depends on our political system functioning well. Anyone feel good about that?
Well, let's elect some lunatics like Sharron Angle and Pat Toomey and see if that helps.
So again, the vast majority of the Obama spending is to address and reverse the downturn. You act like he's just doing it for fun, because that's what liberals do - spend, spend, spend. He hasn't proposed or passed a lot of new spending otherwise. The growth of federal expenditures hasn't changed since he took office. It's almost exactly the same as Bush's term. Health care is his major initiative, and it's paid for through cutbacks, efficiencies and new taxes.
As for the "taxing" you speak of, it's funny - just this week we learned that only about 1 in 10 Americans knows that the vast, vast majority of taxpayers in the country saw their taxes go down under Obama.
Your taxes went down. Cal's taxes went down. T's taxes went down. Everyone's taxes went down on their first $250,000 of income, including the rich.
I would imagine you're all part of the 90% that isn't aware of this.
So again, the deficit is growing, and so is the debt. And it's growing because of the recession and because of the growth in transfer payments because of the recession. The whole point of this thread is largely fiction. It's looking at a stat - the debt is up three trillion since Obama took office - and not knowing how to interpret it, because you and Cal don't know what's causing the debt to spiral and you don't care to find out.
All you know is that you don't like Obama, so it must be him.
"If it was the bailout or the subprime mortgage fiasco maybe we spread the blame.
Obama's spending and taxing has yet to do it's predicted damage then it's probably the uncertainy that keeps the clamps on the economy which in turn keeps the deficit high.
In that case he's caused the uncertainty."
I don't know where to start with this. It's such a mess. Do I have to? It's not going to make a difference.
Not if you're unable to be objective.
Just remember that conservatives made all these argument - these exact same arguments - when Clinton raised taxes on the upper brackets in the 90s. That was going to "kill the economy" too, remember? You'd think the fact that it didn't would have settled the debate since this wasn't that long ago and some of the same people who are making the "kill the economy" argument now are the same people who made it then. But no, we have to go through this all over again.
Ahhh Clinton. Yep we had a booming economy for a while.
Good time to raise taxes and pay down the debt.
When the next one comes I'm OK with that again. Oh and that prosperity lasted forever or was it cyclical? Think hard.
Changing the top rates a few points simply does not have a massive effect on economic growth, or even a moderate one. It just doesn't. You'd have to change them a lot more to get the sort of effect that all these people are talking about.
And the economy isn't stuck because of the uncertainty. That's mostly a canard, something that people repeat, as if you can blame Obama for most of the economic uncertainty anyway. It's a minor issue. The real issue is that consumers don't have the money to spend in order to lift us out of the recession, and so the businesses, despite all the incentives, are sitting on their cash and not hiring ...because there's no one to buy the stuff they make. And around we'll go, and for years, it seems.
Business is worried about this stupid health care debacle you guys forced through.
And I'd bet a great deal that if all the tax cuts were extended for a period of say two years we'd see a dramatic upswing.
Then (if were in a bull cycle) let em all expire.
Seriously. We're pretty screwed.
Time to break the glass on the European Socialm model emergency box.
Uh oh.
They're screwed too!!!
That's the crux of it. So what are you going to do to get us out of it? Every option costs money. If you want to cut taxes, that's going to make the deficit worse. If you want to do infrastructure spending, that's going to make the deficit worse. (Though you get something for it that can improve economic growth in the long term.) No free lunch and all that. Hopefully you do enough to get us out of the mess and not enough to screw us down the road. And not screwing us depends on our political system functioning well. Anyone feel good about that?
Possibly. If we get divided government again.
Well, let's elect some lunatics like Sharron Angle and Pat Toomey and see if that helps.
Ha. They're running against Jefferson and Marshall right?
Or two lunatics from a party you like?
So again, the vast majority of the Obama spending is to address and reverse the downturn. You act like he's just doing it for fun, because that's what liberals do - spend, spend, spend. He hasn't proposed or passed a lot of new spending otherwise. The growth of federal expenditures hasn't changed since he took office. It's almost exactly the same as Bush's term. Health care is his major initiative, and it's paid for through cutbacks, efficiencies and new taxes.
That's always the slogan. Frankjly I don't believe you.
As for the "taxing" you speak of, it's funny - just this week we learned that only about 1 in 10 Americans knows that the vast, vast majority of taxpayers in the country saw their taxes go down under Obama.
Your taxes went down. Cal's taxes went down. T's taxes went down. Everyone's taxes went down on their first $250,000 of income, including the rich.
I don't care much about my taxes.
The increase or decrease is barely noticeable.
And when the rest of the economy tanks it costs us more than the pittance we saved.
Me Cal and you.
I would imagine you're all part of the 90% that isn't aware of this.
Of course you are an idiot.
So again, the deficit is growing, and so is the debt. And it's growing because of the recession and because of the growth in transfer payments because of the recession. The whole point of this thread is largely fiction. It's looking at a stat - the debt is up three trillion since Obama took office - and not knowing how to interpret it, because you and Cal don't know what's causing the debt to spiral and you don't care to find out.
All you know is that you don't like Obama, so it must be him.
And you love him so he can't bear any responsibility.
What a surprise.
WSS
-
Obamao is wonderful because Heck didn't like Bush.
So, everything is always Bush's fault.
Liberal constipation runs rampant on the Dim side.
I'm still waiting for Heck to ever answer his own questions that change the subjects...
and, for him to actually get the nads to start his own thread...
waiting....waiting......
-
Yep, that was pointless.
-
Yes, you are. You can't seem to stay on topic.
Obamao inherited a deficit, so the fact that he has tripled it...........
doesn't mean a thing, right?
If only you libs would stop emoting and start THINKING LOGICALLY, they
could start dealing with THREAD TOPICS>
hell, maybe they might start answering their own dumb questions.
maybe, even stop changing thread subjects..... maybe...
-
My point exactly, Cal. I just spent a few posts trying to explain to you the major reasons why the debt climbed over the last two years, and how they would have climbed anyway no matter who was president, and you go back to insisting that Obama "tripled it."
You couldn't answer the question when I asked it. Neither could Steve. So I answered it. And then you both ignored it, and went back to blaming it all on Obama. And then accused me of not thinking logically.
It's a really fun board, filled with wonderful, informed people.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login