Reply With Quote
So ing what???
This is king of a big deal...
Given that much of Obama's stimulus/debt was to save us from the crisis, I would think Bush would deserve a little more blame here instead of not even being mentioned.
Barack Obama - The debt grew the most dollar-wise during President Obama's term. He added $6.167 trillion, a 53% increase, in six years. Obama's budgets included the economic stimulus package, which added $787 billion by cutting taxes, extending unemployment benefits, and funding job-creating public works projects. The Obama tax cuts added $858 billion to the debt over two years. Obama's budget included increased defense spending to around $800 billion a year. Federal income was down, thanks to lower tax receipts from the 2008 financial crisis. He also sponsored the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was designed to reduce the debt by $143 billion over 10 years. However, these savings didn't show up until the later years. For more, see National Debt Under Obama
http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebt...et-test-423616
So ing what???
This is king of a big deal...
Given that much of Obama's stimulus/debt was to save us from the crisis, I would think Bush would deserve a little more blame here instead of not even being mentioned.
the annual deficit is way down due to the improving economy, jobs, tax receipts.
the federal is still high due to low tax receipts in the Banksters Great Depression, the recovery from which the Repugs have delayed by their budget cutting, except for the bogus "war spending" which is not included in the sequestration bull .
the first month he took office the country lost 800,000 jobs because Republican s don't know how to take care of the country, yet that goes into the "Obama deficit" right?
September 2008 – 432,000 jobs lost
October 2008 – 489,000 jobs lost
November 2008 – 803,000 jobs lost
December 2008 – 661,000 jobs lost
January 2009 – 818,000 jobs lost
February 2009 – 724,000 jobs lost
March 2009 – 799,000 jobs lost
April 2009 – 692,000 jobs lost
May 2009 – 361,000 jobs lost
June 2009 – 482,000 jobs lost
July 2009 – 339,000 jobs lost
August 2009 – 231,000 jobs lost
September 2009 – 199,000 jobs lost
October 2009 – 202,000 jobs lost
We would have had a returning economy without all the expenditures, plus, the longer people can tak unemployment, the longer they take to return to work.
Still, the numbers aren't real for the unemployment rates.
I blame the congress elected in 2006 for the job losses, and both the presidents who signed bloated budgets. Ever bit of fat needed to be trimmed out in such times.
September 2008 – 432,000 jobs lost
October 2008 – 489,000 jobs lost
November 2008 – 803,000 jobs lost
December 2008 – 661,000 jobs lost
January 2009 – 818,000 jobs lost
February 2009 – 724,000 jobs lost
March 2009 – 799,000 jobs lost
April 2009 – 692,000 jobs lost
May 2009 – 361,000 jobs lost
June 2009 – 482,000 jobs lost
July 2009 – 339,000 jobs lost
August 2009 – 231,000 jobs lost
September 2009 – 199,000 jobs lost
October 2009 – 202,000 jobs lost
"blame the congress elected in 2006 for the job losses,"
what specific legislation caused job losses?
We've been over this. I'm sorry you have a bad memory.
tax receipts have remained steady at 18% of GDP. they're at a normal level.
PFA or honest mistake? quien sabe?
try again
Yep.
Spending is just too damn high.
the Banksters Great Depression still lingers because of the (wealthy) Repugs austerity
sure, it dipped, and partly explains the deficit.
do you know what accounts for the rest of it?
are you ashamed of countercyclical spending, or did you just try to sweep it under the rug?
your mania for blaming everything on Republicans seems to have misled you, or you to have misled us.
very typical of you, tbh.
I support c/c spending, which was way too low in the Banksters Great Depression, thanks to the Repugs. Repugs austerity since 2010 has stretched out the BGD and caused enormous pain as they try to pin their on Obama, esp before the 2012 election.
The Repugs/VWRC/1%/BigCorp have been, are, will the greatest threat to America. If you have anything nearly as dangerous, destructive from the Dems, please don't be coy.
iow, GFY
thanks for admitting countercyclical spending has something to do with the deficit picture.
tax cuts and a decade plus of off budget wars loom large in the background to be sure, but it's not realistic to blame the deficit all on one party. As you may recall, Dems robustly supported the war effort in Iraq until it went s up.
"blame the deficit all on one party"
running a govt deficit, c/c govt spending, in an economic disaster is not "blame" worthy
I don't absolve any Dems for voting for the Iraq war (minus Obama, of course) but the Repugs are 100% to blame, criminalize, for even getting the Iraq-invasion-for-oil to a vote. There is absolutely no equivalence between the two parties on Iraq or mgmt of the economy.
As our president drones away and NSA's the world. If a Republican pulled the aforementioned you could not contain yourself.
sure there is. plenty of responsibility on both sides.
it makes sense to give one side more blame than the other, but one party deserving all the blame for government's fiscal situation (or war policy) is even more unlikely than exact equivalence of blameworthiness.
takes two to tango.
false equivalence.
The Dems hadn't run the economy since 2000, when the Repugs handed Obama the piles of two botched Repug wars and a horribly cratering economy, having TRIPLED the deficit in 8 years, and having created almost no jobs in 8 years, worst jobs record since WWII.
not without help from the Dems they didn't. it's one big happy war party.
Democrat obstruction of GOP malfeasance, if it was that, left much to be desired.
The GOP’s entire iden y is based on a lie: How the Obama presidency exposed Republican deficit delusion
For six years, Republicans have pilloried Obama for out-of-control spending. But there's one big problem with that
Following the first Democratic debate, Fox News and the broader conservative ecosystem erupted in a coordinated effort to paint the Democrats as frivolous spenders, handing out free stuff to everyone without bothering to discuss how they’d pay for it. However, the irony of this attack is thick, given how the Democrats have taken up the burden of fiscal responsibility in the modern era. The Republican Party has no choice but to dig deeply into the history books to find the last GOP president who actually bothered to leave the deficit in better shape than when he was inaugurated. Meanwhile, President Obama, like President Clinton before him, has seen the federal budget deficit fall by record numbers.
According to a new report from the Wall Street Journal’s Market Watch site, the federal government ran up a deficit of $439 billion for the 2015 fiscal year. That’s 2.5 percent of GDP, which is the lowest level since 2007. Why is this significant? The Obama administration inherited a $1.4 trillion (with a “t”) budget deficit — driven in large part by stimulus spending meant to combat the financial crisis — which authorized George W. Bush in October 2008.
Since then, Obama has presided over a gradual $1 trillion-dollar reduction in the deficit. Insofar as deficit reduction is important — and remember, according to the rhetoric of the GOP over the past several years, it is very important — this is a massive achievement for the Obama administration. Massive. And neither he nor the Democrats will get any credit for it.
Chart via Steve Benen
If Mitt Romney’s lies about the deficit in 2012 were a predictor of the GOP’s attack plan for 2016, we can expect to hear the Republican ticket attack both Obama and the Democratic nominee on this very issue. But they won’t cite deficit numbers because, well, they’re not nearly as dumb as they look. Instead, they’ll recycle the Romney tactic of conflating the deficit and the national debt — two entirely separate numbers.
Consequently, the president is responsible for the lowest government spending growth in 60 years. Once again, let’s reference Market Watch:
I can name two Democratic presidents who’ve cut the deficit through the duration of their presidencies: Clinton and Obama. And what about Republican presidents? Bush 43? He turned a $200 billion surplus into a $400 billion deficit by the end of his first term, and a $1.2 trillion deficit by the end of his second term. Bush 41? Nope. Reagan? No. Ford? No. Nixon? No. The last Republican president who cut the deficit was Eisenhower. Along those lines, the recently introduced tax plan of the Republican frontrunner, Donald Trump, would explode the deficit by as much as $10 trillion over a decade. Tell me again: Which is the party of fiscal responsibility?
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/16/the_...cit_delusions/
An Accounting Trick Is the Basis of Phony Claim That U.S. Faces a Public-Sector Debt Crisis
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi’s claim that “rapidly growing public sector debt threatens America’s economic future” is based on dishonest accounting rigged by congressional austerity hawks, reports Ari Rabin-Havt, host of the SiriusXM Progress 127 radio show “The Agenda,” at The Nation:
The numbers relied upon by Enzi and far too many others inside the Beltway, including the Congressional Budget Office itself, are completely bogus. The methodology used by the CBO to create these projections exaggerates the federal government’s long-term debt projection by as much as 440 percent, creating a phony fiscal crisis where none exists.
In reality, data provided to The Nation by Stephen Goss, chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, shows that starting in 2032 the federal government’s debt held by the public is on track to rapidly decline as a share of GDP, bottoming out at 40 percent. This is in stark contrast to the CBO’s sharply rising debt-to-GDP ratio, which peaks at 176 percent in 2090.
How can there be such a large discrepancy in the numbers? The answer is fairly simple. The CBO assumes that Social Security and Medicare Part A will draw on the general fund of the U.S. Treasury to cover benefit shortfalls following the depletion of their trust funds, which at the current rate will occur in 2034. …
… CBO projections disregard the actual law and assume a worst-case legislative scenario—and one that is politically unlikely to boot. It’s hard to imagine Congress would simply leave the problem alone and watch Social Security and Medicare Part A devour the nation’s budget. …
The CBO hasn’t gone rogue here, but rather it’s acting under order of Congress. The CBO confirmed to The Nation that its scoring convention is based on Section 257(b)(1) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, which states that “funding for en lement authority is assumed to be adequate to make all payments required by those laws.”
“To get at the real picture, Congress could and should simply ask the CBO to correctly score these numbers, or at least note that this score is not consistent with current law,” concludes Rabin-Havt. “That would remove a central talking point for austerity hawks who seek deep cuts in federal spending. ... In the meantime, we need to realize that there really is no debt crisis.”
http://www.truthdig.com/eartothegrou...eadlines#below
I am going to give this math problem to my 3rd grade son to see what he thinks. Three guys spend $20 more than they have each year for four years. A fourth guy spends $1oo more than he has for two years, but then spends $10 more than he has the last two years. Who has done better with their budget?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
