Oblaaaaaaaaaaaama

Status
Not open for further replies.
I want to get me some of those Obama Bucks to buy me some more detailing supplies! :rofl :bigups
 
From fact check .org

"Fact: When Obama took office in January 2009, the federal deficit was already running at $1.2 trillion for the fiscal year that had begun nearly four months earlier, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It has risen since then, and Obama has failed to make good on a promise to cut the deficit by half. But it’s misleading to say Obama “started” spending borrowed money.

In fact, the numbers show spending actually has increased far more slowly under Obama’s budgets that it did under Bush’s, and more slowly than under any president in half a century. An analysis by the Wall Street Journal’s “MarketWatch” website on May 22 shows spending under Obama rising at an average rate of just 1.4 percent per year. Spending under Bush rose 7.3 percent per year during his first term, and 8.1 percent per year in his second term.

“pending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s,” wrote MarketWatch’s Rex Nutting. And after adjusting for inflation, Nutting notes, federal spending is actually falling under Obama — the first time that’s happened since the end of the Vietnam war."

Don't believe what you see in all the billionaires paid TV Adds!:rockon
 
RustyFinish said:
From fact check .org

"Fact: When Obama took office in January 2009, the federal deficit was already running at $1.2 trillion for the fiscal year that had begun nearly four months earlier, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It has risen since then, and Obama has failed to make good on a promise to cut the deficit by half. But it’s misleading to say Obama “started” spending borrowed money.

In fact, the numbers show spending actually has increased far more slowly under Obama’s budgets that it did under Bush’s, and more slowly than under any president in half a century. An analysis by the Wall Street Journal’s “MarketWatch” website on May 22 shows spending under Obama rising at an average rate of just 1.4 percent per year. Spending under Bush rose 7.3 percent per year during his first term, and 8.1 percent per year in his second term.

“pending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s,” wrote MarketWatch’s Rex Nutting. And after adjusting for inflation, Nutting notes, federal spending is actually falling under Obama — the first time that’s happened since the end of the Vietnam war."

Don't believe what you see in all the billionaires paid TV Adds!:rockon
Click to expand...


Here we go again, blame Bush. I did not agree with the Bush increase in spending either. The final budget year was skewed by the 800 billion dollar stimulus, which should have never been passed.

If you do not believe the figures on the debt, check this clock. It is going up, not down. 16 Trillion is a lot of cash.
U.S. National Debt Clock

Also, even CBS news can see that the debt has increased from 9 trillion to 16 trillion under Obama.

National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87 percent, or $9.34 trillion, during his two terms.

These are real numbers. If you or I had a household budget like this, we would be broke.
 
arack said:
These are real numbers. If you or I had a household budget like this, we would be broke.
Click to expand...

The problem is Congress has been pretty good about passing tax cuts and passing unpaid spending (a couple of wars, prescription drug benefits, all those tax cuts under Bush and Obama, all the bailout activities).

The problem is that there is just not enough spending that Congress has the nerve to cut while each blaming both sides for the stalemate. If you just balance the budget next year, you will be taking a lot of money out of the economy which will cause an economic slowdown.

Then we cut taxes (deficit up again) to supposedly add stimulus to replace the spending. This is the reason why even in Ryan's plan you end up having to grow out of the problem by limiting mostly future expenditures. This is a multi-year problem and I think the Simpson/Boyles did a decent look at the problem.
 
Bunky said:
The problem is Congress has been pretty good about passing tax cuts and passing unpaid spending (a couple of wars, prescription drug benefits, all those tax cuts under Bush and Obama, all the bailout activities).

The problem is that there is just not enough spending that Congress has the nerve to cut while each blaming both sides for the stalemate. If you just balance the budget next year, you will be taking a lot of money out of the economy which will cause an economic slowdown.

Then we cut taxes (deficit up again) to supposedly add stimulus to replace the spending. This is the reason why even in Ryan's plan you end up having to grow out of the problem by limiting mostly future expenditures. This is a multi-year problem and I think the Simpson/Boyles did a decent look at the problem.
Click to expand...

Bunky, you are right on about Simpson/Boyles plan. It was a sensible plan to reduce the deficit, but Obama did not look at it.

I am not advocating an immediate shock of balancing future budgets, but spending must halt and fall in an orderly fashion if we are to prevent our economy from becoming a larger version of Greece's economy.
 
arack said:
Bunky, you are right on about Simpson/Boyles plan. It was a sensible plan to reduce the deficit, but Obama did not look at it.
Click to expand...

The House would not bring it the floor for an up or down vote either. No one wants to give the other side more political ad material.

If the GOP does not capture the Senate with a filibuster proof majority the stalemate will continue since the Dems in the Senate will do what the minority party usually does....prevent progress.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top