National Debt up 3 TRILLION under Obamao
-
"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.
-
No, you didn't, you just spewed out silly stuff to defend your failure pres, Obamao.
Bush support want cap n trade. Obamao did.
Bush didn't do Fannie and Freddie failures.... Frank and Dodd and other Dems did.
Bush didn't do auto co. bailouts... Obamao did.
Bush didn't talk about redistributing the nations' wealth, Obamao did.
Bush didn't cram through the gigantic hc bill, Obamao did.
Bush didn't pass the gigantic and fraudulent "stimulus" bill, Obamao did.
Yeah, I wasn't happy with the deficit spending of the Reps.
But I'm really ,really not happy with the devasting extra two gigantic layers of deficit cake Obamao has built.
You all of a sudden love the deficit and want higher taxes.
You are a silly little biased knuckehead.
-
Again, my point exactly. You have no idea where the deficit comes from and just want to blame Obama, all while pretending you're above being a mindless partisan. While being a mindless partisan.
If you knew what made up our deficit, and what's running up the debt, you'd speak differently, and more like a grown up. But you don't know. And you're not willing to learn.
-
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.
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.
Heh.
Yeah. Great explaination.
Sharon Angle and Pat Toomey.
But if that's your point then you should at least try to answer what caused that recession if it is indeeed to blame and Obama can't be asked to do anything.
Also if it'd be the same no matter who won the election then what makes Obama special?
At least he has a rubber stamp so far.
And the list I gave was basically your (the dems) campaign along with slogans and empty promises.
Pardon us if we thought you were serious.
Isn't it fair to repeat that?
Or when you bleat "conservative think if you give the rich tax cuts everything will be great" is it just as insightful to say "and liberals think all you need to do is take more from the rich and we'll be shitting in tall cotton!" ?
WSS
-
Steve, after already having a long conversation with you about the many things that contributed to the economic collapse, and you repeating the nonsense that it was the result of poor people and the CRA, please spare me the indignity of having to do that again.
And I think Obama can't be asked to do anything about it? Whaa??? Where do you get this stuff? Or even the idea that he's not doing anything. I thought that was your complaint - about all the stuff he's doing.
As for the next bit, yes, if McCain were president, you'd still have a massive dropoff in economic activity, and the resulting loss in tax revenue, and the huge increase in transfer payments.
You'd also still have some version of a massive stimulus package, TARP, and probably most, if not all the other bailouts too. Because it's a lot easier to pretend you're against something like the auto bailouts when you aren't in charge, and there are a bunch of economists telling you that they're not sure the economy can take the loss of the million or so auto industry related jobs without overwhelming the measures you've already put in place, and sending us back into the hole.
It's much easier to be a loudmouth prick in the stands who pretends he knows more than Mangini than it is to be Mangini.
-
Steve, after already having a long conversation with you about the many things that contributed to the economic collapse, and you repeating the nonsense that it was the result of poor people and the CRA, please spare me the indignity of having to do that again.
And I think Obama can't be asked to do anything about it? Whaa??? Where do you get this stuff? Or even the idea that he's not doing anything. I thought that was your complaint - about all the stuff he's doing.
As for the next bit, yes, if McCain were president, you'd still have a massive dropoff in economic activity, and the resulting loss in tax revenue, and the huge increase in transfer payments.
You'd also still have some version of a massive stimulus package, TARP, and probably most, if not all the other bailouts too. Because it's a lot easier to pretend you're against something like the auto bailouts when you aren't in charge, and there are a bunch of economists telling you that they're not sure the economy can take the loss of the million or so auto industry related jobs without overwhelming the measures you've already put in place, and sending us back into the hole.
It's much easier to be a loudmouth prick in the stands who pretends he knows more than Mangini than it is to be Mangini.
Steve, after already having a long conversation with you about the many things that contributed to the economic collapse, and you repeating the nonsense that it was the result of poor people and the CRA, please spare me the indignity of having to do that again.
Actually I gave a list of Dem campaign attacks.
If you say the housing debacle had no effect on the recession fine.
But since you seem to want us to think that the recession is the sole cause of the problem then help us out.
Which of the "failed policies of the Bush administration" are at fault?
And I think Obama can't be asked to do anything about it? Whaa??? Where do you get this stuff?
Oh you gave soms spin as to why he couldn't bring himself to change anything he bitched about even with a 60 senator majority.. Spending political capital and all...
Or even the idea that he's not doing anything. I thought that was your complaint - about all the stuff he's doing.
Me? Or was it Cal? I asked if you think he's done anything wrong. And still...
As for the next bit, yes, if McCain were president, you'd still have a massive dropoff in economic activity, and the resulting loss in tax revenue, and the huge increase in transfer payments.
And you'd be defending the Republicans?
You'd also still have some version of a massive stimulus package, TARP, and probably most, if not all the other bailouts too. Because it's a lot easier to pretend you're against something like the auto bailouts when you aren't in charge, and there are a bunch of economists telling you that they're not sure the economy can take the loss of the million or so auto industry related jobs without overwhelming the measures you've already put in place, and sending us back into the hole.
It's much easier to be a loudmouth prick in the stands who pretends he knows more than Mangini than it is to be Mangini.
One need not be Vince Lombardi to know what 1 and 5 looks like.
So I guess you're Obama's Lumbergh?
WSS
-
I would be defending McCain, yes. From charges that he created all of the deficit, rather than inherited most of it. Yes, I would. When you step into office and the economy just collapsed and we got to paper over the collapse with some new measures we'd never tried before, it's not exactly a winning situation.
The disagreement is over tactics and how you design the best rescue and recovery efforts. And the stuff Obama/Geithner/Summers/Bernanke did, as well as Bush/Paulson/Bernanke will be studied for decades. It's extremely complicated stuff. Some of it is working better than anyone anticipated, like TARP, and some of it hasn't worked, like the loan modification program. The stimulus has had a positive effect, but probably wasn't big enough. There's lots to discuss.
But in here, it's just about hating the cartoon. In here, as in most of right wing crazyland, it's about questioning his motives, as if he was doing all of that stuff because he wanted to. In right-wing crazyland, everything is misunderstood and oversimplified, and then we get to discuss whether or not he's some sort of Maoist figure who wants to dramatically change/ruin America.
Those are the other two Americas - the one where the real conversations transpire, and the one where we obsess about paranoid bullshit, and everyone's motivations are questioned except ours, because we're "real" Americans who love the Constitution, blah, blah.
It's sad.
-
I would be defending McCain, yes. From charges that he created all of the deficit, rather than inherited most of it. Yes, I would. When you step into office and the economy just collapsed and we got to paper over the collapse with some new measures we'd never tried before, it's not exactly a winning situation.
The disagreement is over tactics and how you design the best rescue and recovery efforts. And the stuff Obama/Geithner/Summers/Bernanke did, as well as Bush/Paulson/Bernanke will be studied for decades. It's extremely complicated stuff. Some of it is working better than anyone anticipated, like TARP, and some of it hasn't worked, like the loan modification program. The stimulus has had a positive effect, but probably wasn't big enough. There's lots to discuss.
But in here, it's just about hating the cartoon. In here, as in most of right wing crazyland, it's about questioning his motives, as if he was doing all of that stuff because he wanted to. In right-wing crazyland, everything is misunderstood and oversimplified, and then we get to discuss whether or not he's some sort of Maoist figure who wants to dramatically change/ruin America.
Those are the other two Americas - the one where the real conversations transpire, and the one where we obsess about paranoid bullshit, and everyone's motivations are questioned except ours, because we're "real" Americans who love the Constitution, blah, blah.
It's sad.
But in here, it's just about hating the cartoon. In here, as in most of right wing crazyland, it's about questioning his motives, as if he was doing all of that stuff because he wanted to. In right-wing crazyland, everything is misunderstood and oversimplified, and then we get to discuss whether or not he's some sort of Maoist figure who wants to dramatically change/ruin America.
There's some truth to that.
Still that's how Obama won the election.
By demonizing Bush.
WSS
-
But in here, it's just about hating the cartoon. In here, as in most of right wing crazyland, it's about questioning his motives, as if he was doing all of that stuff because he wanted to. In right-wing crazyland, everything is misunderstood and oversimplified, and then we get to discuss whether or not he's some sort of Maoist figure who wants to dramatically change/ruin America.
There's some truth to that.
Still that's how Obama won the election.
By demonizing Bush.
WSS
There's some truth to that.
Still that's how Obama won the election.
By demonizing Bush.
WSS
I would submit that as one of those oversimplifications.
-
There's some truth to that.
Still that's how Obama won the election.
By demonizing Bush.
WSS
I would submit that as one of those oversimplifications.
-
So oversimplifications aren't a good thing. They pretend to tell you answers, but don't tell you much of anything. Because it's, you know, oversimplified.
Like saying Obama won the election because he demonized Bush.
I'll cut you some slack because I don't expect full election analysis from you, nor do you probably have the time or knowledge or resources to do full election analysis. It's a message board. Pithy works fine here.
I'm just saying I expect you to do better that that.
-
Heck, you apparently don't have the nads to start your own thread yet.
You live in a glass house, and love to throw stones.
Not smart.
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