Here's a little something lifted from Politifact regarding the deficit accumulated during the Obama administration.


"On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the
Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year
2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion. The 10-year projection was
estimated to be about $3.1 trillion. So Obama's number was very close on
the 2009 deficit -- he said $1.3 trillion -- but substantially
different from the 10-year projection -- he said $8 trillion."


"There are two reasons why he differs from the CBO. On the difference
between the $1.2 trillion and the $1.3 trillion, the Obama
administration credited a small portion of spending on its watch to
policies of the previous administration. The reason for this is that the
federal government runs on a fiscal year that starts Oct. 1, so Bush
and Obama technically split responsibility for 2009 spending."


"The large difference on the 10-year projection has to do with Bush
administration tax cuts. The CBO creates its estimates based on current
law, which means the CBO assumes that the Bush tax cuts will end in 2010
and everyone will start paying higher taxes in 2011 and going forward.
The Obama administration, on the other hand, assumed in its baseline
that those tax cuts would be renewed."


"{Economists we spoke with -- Josh Gordon, policy director for the
Concord Coalition, and Brian Riedl, lead budget analyst of the
conservative Heritage Foundation -- both said they believe the White
House approach is more realistic because it assumes current policy will
continue."


"So the CBO's estimate is $5 trillion lower than the White House
numbers, though economists don't quibble with the White House
methodology. It does highlight, however, that when it comes to budget
projections, people can have differences of opinion about what to
include. In any budget projection there is room for interpretation, but
it seems reasonable to assume for a baseline that the Bush tax cuts will
continue. Obama's numbers are fairly solid, so we rate his statement
Mostly True."

So most or maybe more than most of the deficit accumulated during the last 4 years was built-in before Obama ever took office. And Republicans complain about not passing a budget. Gee what's up with that? Why would you want to pass a budget when you can hang that deficit around Obama's neck?

"I don't know if you are racist or not. I do wonder why you are using the name Hussein."

You obviously haven't heard the claim: You're a racist if you call the President by 1) his whole name or 2) by his middle name.

I can't name two non-racist people who address the President as Hussein.

"I can't name two non-racist people who address the President as Hussein.".

To assure you that I'm not a racists, I happen to be an Army Infantry vet who happened to serve with brothers of all races. Including a brother with the last name of Hussein. Yes, jokes were made about trying to kill his uncle.

So, lets move away from the racist talk buddy.

I already counted you sir, giving you the benefit of the doubt. Couldn't think if another.

Not many people except racists use your phrasing.

Now, back to the regularly schedule program:

But you're blaming the wrong person

The debt was mostly run up by Republicans

The debt Obama has run up is almost entirely from programs started by Republicans that Obama has tried to stop but the Republicans in congress prevent him

There have certainly been some Democrats along the way that contributed. It's really the right wingers that are in control of the Rs and are partially in control of Ds.

R S -

*SIGH*

I can surmise from your posts that you are more interested in baiting people than engaging in a frank and honest discussion as to the merits of the respective candidates for office.

I challenge you to backup your assertion in regards to government spending under the Obama administration. I believe you will be hard pressed to provide any substantive data supporting the claim that Obama spends at a greater rate than any other president in recent history (last 30 years).

I can provide data that shows the opposite is true. You can pin many things upon Obama - but that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Dirk

Edited by dirk9827 on 09/05/2012 00:01:02 MDT.

Maybe you guys forgot the stimulus handouts. I remember it being reported on the Big 3, so it must be true.

Jerry  Medicare is OK? Part D is the problem? Maybe I'm missing something. Reimbursements aren't exactly paying the bills.

Cola  There was a "liberal" :) that worked in the office several years ago that would always swing by with a topic of the week or month and start asking me how a heartless conservative felt about it (referencing me). By the way, he didn't "give" to charitable organizations because he felt it would be better for gov't to tax, and use the money where it was "needed". I digress. 9 times out of 10, I would say it's not the Feds business, it's a state issue. I told him he needed to read a little history and come back. He was fired before I could get him a pocket constitution and perform a conversion/exorcism. States rights, or it's return, would solve so many of the problems that the left has created. Just my $0.02

Jerry 

"It's really the right wingers that are in control of the Rs and are partially in control of Ds."

I keep hearing this and have to scratch my head. If the far right wingers, ultra conservatives, are in charge... Why did they nominate a moderate for the highest office? Doesn't add up.

Edited by BFThorp on 09/05/2012 08:49:52 MDT.

Stimulous handouts - one time expense, relatively small compared to other budget breakers.

Don't make me break out that chart with the numbers on it that Michael Lang doesn't like : )

Medicare without part D prescription coverage had a fairly balanced budget. Then the Rs with D support passed part D and this is what really put Medicare under water. There's a provision that Medicare has to pay retail price for prescriptions which costs a lot. Look up the numbers.

I have two pocket Constitutions - one from the Heritage Foundation and one from the ACLU.

The "right wingers" that have bought our government are people like the Koch brothers who own oil companies, Sheldon Addleson who owns Casinos around the world, the Walton family that owns Wallmart,... And large corporations that are "people" now (actually it's the CEOs that are the people and the problem).

They are multi-billionaires. Make large political contributions. In return for making laws that favor them.

Mitt Romney is a minor player in this group. He has always been super-rich so he sympathizes with them and profits from the same laws.

They don't care about religion, abortion, gun rights, or racism. They just want to make more wealth. It makes no sense because they have way more than they'll ever need, it's just a game and we're the pawns.

There are some super-wealthy like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Ted Turner,... that don't attempt to buy off the government and want to give their wealth away rather than create permanent dynasties. It's not being super wealthy that's the problem, it's buying our government.

And you Fred, are being manipulated. You think they're looking after your interests. If you pay more than 15% of your income in Federal tax (SS, Medicare, income,...) then you're being screwed.

"The "right wingers" that have bought our government ... They are multi-billionaires. Make large political contributions. In return for making laws that favor them."

Because we all know there are no rich left wingers who buy our government to get laws that favor them. None. Only right wingers. I read it on the interwebs.

"And you Fred, are being manipulated."

Oh Jerry, you crack me up. You're being manipulated by the left as much as anyone else is being manipulated by the right. It's all part of the 'voting against their interests' claptrap that some left leaners like to trot out. I guess those left leaners can't see what an arrogant statement that is, and a rather narcissistic one at that. It doesn't seem to occur to them that some people simply have a different set of values than they do, and feel that some things are more important than others, which are not necessarily the same things some left leaners feel are important.

RS, just go away. I find some of your posts in bad taste.

Doug, Doug, Doug,...

"Because we all know there are no rich left wingers who buy our government to get laws that favor them"

Look at the percent of total wealth - it is flowing to wealthier people.

Look at tax rates - Romney and all of those other super-wealthy pay 15%. You and I pay 15% if we get minimum wage or more like %40 if we make a decent income.

Look at welfare or medicaid - left wing programs - the funding of these has decreased in recent years. Well, Medicaid funding has gone up but not as fast as medical costs in general.

Look at the percentage of workers in labor unions. Used to be 35%. Now it's maybe 15%? And there is a huge right wing effort to reduce this.

Just based on results, I'de say the Right wing puppet masters are more successful than left wing.

Like Warren Buffet said, there's a class war going on and "My class" (Buffet's) has won.


"I guess those left leaners can't see what an arrogant statement that is, and a rather narcissistic one at that. It doesn't seem to occur to them that some people simply have a different set of values than they do, and feel that some things are more important than others, which are not necessarily the same things some left leaners feel are important."

I have no problem with conservative values. Families. I've always worked and saved some. If someone wants a gun, fine. If someone wants to be super-religious with some particular religion, fine, just don't try to convert me.

It's not conservative vs liberal, it's that a few people have bought our government and we're letting them do it.

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, Jerry (do I win? ;-)

"It's not conservative vs liberal, it's that a few people have bought our government and we're letting them do it."

And here we agree, but that's not what many of your posts generally infer. You generally, from your posts, want to blame just about everything on the 'right,' with an occasional, throw away "with the help of some D's". So where we disagree is that I think they're ALL in it together, you just want to lay the blame (or the lion's share of it) on the right, and believe the false choice of having to vote Dem (better of two evils argument).

So as long as we take sides (instead of not playing into their divisive tactics) we'll all continue to lose. So I believe that you've been as manipulated as those on the right, because you're all playing the blame game against each other instead of meeting in the middle and working together.

"There are some super-wealthy like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Ted Turner,... that don't attempt to buy off the government and want to give their wealth away rather than create permanent dynasties. It's not being super wealthy that's the problem, it's buying our government."

These individual want to give away the wealth They have accumulated via the foundations they set up. They want to direct those funds. I don't see them donating all the wealth to the federal government and letting them decide where to distribute the wealth.

Where I live many of the wealthy families contribute millions of dollars to education, hospitals, arts, poverty, etc. How much of this money do you think these organizations would receive if the federal government was the funnel. Today the system of giving away wealth works very well. Individuals have the right to distribute based on their personal interest which most often aligns with the country's need (ie education, health care etc). If the federal government takes over then it will get distributed based on party favors and votes.

Why is it bad for a wealthy person to decide where he would like to direct his money? If you don't think he has the right fine, but why do you think our corrupt political system (both parties) has the right to do that?

Brad

Edited by wufpackfn on 09/05/2012 10:34:26 MDT.

Brad, +1 and then some.

"Why is it bad for a wealthy person to decide where to direct his money?" Volunteerism just isn't going to work. Imagine trying to set a budget for schools based on whether or not the local wealthy people will decide to pony up that year--or not--or moved away--or lost their money in a hedge fund; etc. You don't get to "volunteer" whether to pay taxes. By the way, remember that the next time you drive your car on a road, it didn't get there because some rich people volunteered to build it; same thing when the fire truck shows up to douse your burning house or the ambulance arrives to save your life.

I was always taught to keep it simple, so here it goes:

Federal spending in '08 and '09 was around 3 trillion dollars. It's been around 3.6 trillion dollars since then. A 20% increase over a very large number.

The Bush administration increased federal debt by +4 trillion dollars over an eight year time span. Wildly irresponsible. The Obama administration has added +5 trillion in less the four years. Worse, obviously.

The forecast is for +1 trillion dollar annual deficits for the next ten years. At the end of a second Obama term, should he win, the debt would be north of 21 trillion dollars. Over $63,000 PER PERSON.

Now, what we usually see here are "See, what happened was....." responses designed to obfuscate these numbers. Complicated charts that compare fictional numbers to hypothetical baselines and long "fact-checker" explanations about blame.

There are only two possible ways out of this mess and raising taxes is not one of them. You could jail the rich and confiscate their money and still not come close to substantially reducing the debt.

We can reduce the value of the money through inflation which is devastating to everyone except the wealthy. This seems to be the plan. Or grow the economy, and fast.

I vote for growth, or at least the possibility of growth.

Edited by davidlutz on 09/05/2012 10:55:19 MDT.