President Obama formally asked Congress Thursday to raise the nation’s debt ceiling, stating the country’s debts have fallen within $100 billion of the current debt limit and an increase is needed to meet “existing commitments.”
The request came Thursday in a letter from the president to House Speaker John Boehner.
The latest request is the third asking to raise the debt limit since the contentious debt ceiling agreement last August. That agreement called for the ceiling to be increased in three stages, giving Congress the opportunity to express disapproval at each stage.
That deal, signed into law in August, authorized a phased increase of the debt ceiling by up to $2.4 trillion, with $400 billion of that kicking in immediately and another $500 billion coming in September. This latest request – for an additional $1.2 trillion – is the final stage of the agreement.
Congress has 15 days to pass a joint resolution denying the request for the increase, which President Obama can then veto.
In September, the Republican-controlled House passed a resolution against Obama's request to increase the debt limit, but the Senate did not.
In response to today’s request, Speaker Boehner’s spokesman Brendan Buck said, “Washington’s mounting debt is hurting our economic recovery, and this request is another reminder that the President has consistently punted on the tough choices needed to rein in the deficit and protect important programs for American seniors from going bankrupt.”
The new debt ceiling is expected to meet current financial commitments through the end of next year, according to the Treasury Department official.
time to dust off this old gem from then-senator obama all the way back in 2006...
"The fact that we're here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means 'The buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."
Exactly Don!! Though the liberals will conveniently forget he said that. Just like they choose to forget everything potentially negative about him.
Exactly Gurgle!! Though the conservit*rds will conveniently forget their boy Bush took eight loooong, horrible years to dirve the middle class into this ditch! Just like they choose to forget everything potentially negative about elitist party.
Right! We need a TOUGH LEADER, who won't spend us into oblivion! Someone like ... George W. Bush! Or ... uh, Ronald Reagan! You know, FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE!
It's agonizingly simple math. So simple a 3rd grader could do it. Either put more money in the account or take less out. The govt is not God – they don't get to CREATE money. Borrowing more is stupid. We're WAY too far in debt already.
REPUblicanTs...wanna pass an ACTUAL BALANCED BUDGET? and get DEMOCRATIC VOTES?
all the end of the BUSH TAX CUTS. and you'll get it...the deificit will go down...and way more jobs will be created...
but NO...i dont think you want this...AT LEAST not until a REPUBLICAN control's the white house...AM I RIGHT?
Interesting comment since the main strategy of the Repubilican party has been to block every item that the president has tried to implement in hopes of getting another president in office.
The real interesting facts have been the Republican Party of Wealth Continues to Support only the top 1% of the USA.
The payroll extension seemed to show the true colors of the republcan party where they said no and raise taxes on the non wealthy unless their major contributer Koch borthers worth 52 Billion got the Keystone pipeline in which they of course own 33%.
This just shows that the Rpeubican party in congress will pass bills but its dependent on contributional bribes being place in their pockets from the wealthy , oil lobbyist and of course polution lobbyist.
When you can actually have a candidate running for president that use their past president as a reference of good sound decision making and not go decades back to Reagon let us know. I guess maybe because Junior cost us trillions of dollars in a war that had nothing to do with Sept 11 but in Dick C. defense his personal company Haliburton make millions off the deal...... PAYOLA YET AGAIN........ :-0
I don't know what planet you inhabit, but on this planet progressive-minded people are deeply disappointed in this President.
The only thing that will get this President reelected is NOT "liberals" who won't hold Obama accountable to his promises, but rather it will be an uninspiring (or downright scary) alternative offered up by the GOP.
To Phil In Oregon – Sorry but Bernanke is quite good at printing(creating) more money.
You've apparently conveniently forgotten that the economic situation was vastly different in 2006. I guess you've forgotten that Republicans had taken a balanced budget and turned it into a $500 billion deficit in four years even without a recession, unemployment at or below 4.7%, and record tax revenues. I'm thinking liberals aren't the ones with selective memories here. They (and independents such as myself) are the ones who remember he said that in very different circumstances.
Yes, a very timely quote. One of the reasons I voted for him last election. But NEVER again ...his words mean nothing.
Don't be a fool. That quote was from 2006. If you don't understand how different economic conditions are now than they were then you really need to spend some time educating yourself.
we have to pay for that defense somehow, since we can't raise income, we have to borrow more
We could try wasting less money on welfare bums.
That would be a drop in the bucket. Defense, SS and Medicare/caid are the three things that drive the budget. Without cutting them you're not going to get very far.
Wish I could raise my credit card limit each time I maxed it out!! But no, I have had to learn to live within my income.
Henry Miller: "We could try wasting less money on welfare bums."
I'm all for a serious debate on welfare reform, but these kinds of childish, hateful comments are not the least bit helpful. If you're not up to a serious, intelligent discussion of the issue perhaps you could at least refrain from poisoning discussions with such rhetoric.
How about this crazy idea? Maybe we could cut the government budget by 10% across the board, then go after upper level management who make top salaries and cut out some of the overwhelming bureaucracies and fraud. How about we eliminate some large agencies and merge others, lay off excess staff and trim back on all government? Just a thought especially since this administration has spent more money in the past three years than all of the Presidents combined since Washington. Each of us (taxpayers) already owes over $40,000.00 just to pay off the debt we already have not to mention the additional 2. trillion dollars that Obama wants to spend in the next year.
Kay2012: "How about this crazy idea? Maybe we could cut the government budget by 10% across the board"
Across-the-board proposals are the product of intellectually lazy people who don't understand the federal budget. Such proposals imply that all government spending has equal value, which is absurd. They reveal a lack of understanding that not all spending can even be cut 10%. For example, we can't cut spending on interest on the debt 10%. We can't cut what the government pays for the goods and services and services it uses by 10%. We can't cut legally contracted spending by 10%.
If the government signed a contract to pay you $200K for something would you accept a check for $180K?
"then go after upper level management who make top salaries"
"Go after?" Is this your idea of an intelligent plan?
"and cut out some of the overwhelming bureaucracies and fraud."
By its very nature fraud is hard to eliminate. People don't seem to understand what should be obvious, that fraud isn't a line item in the budget that can be cut, and there is no official reporting mechanism for it to make it easy to identify. The government already works to identify and stop fraud, but there will always be people trying to scam the system. It's a never ending battle.
"How about we eliminate some large agencies and merge others, lay off excess staff and trim back on all government?"
How about some specific proposals supported by real world data?
"Just a thought especially since this administration has spent more money in the past three years than all of the Presidents combined since Washington."
Oh god, not that myth again. What an idiot. Hey, here's *my* crazy idea: Educate yourself about issues before running your mouth about them. The claim that the government has spend more in the past three years than in the previous 230 years combined is laughable. Anyone who would be taken in my it is a fool who clearly hasn't bothered to spend any time educating himself about any of this. The data to refute this is easy to find, so there's no excuse for such profound ignorance. In point of fact total spending under Obama doesn't even exceed total spending under Bush, you twit. Get a brain, for god's sake.
"Each of us (taxpayers) already owes over $40,000.00 just to pay off the debt we already have"
I was warning people about the debt six and seven years ago. Were you?
"not to mention the additional 2. trillion dollars that Obama wants to spend in the next year."
And the ignorance continues. It's not about what Obama wants to spend, it's about what needs to be spent. I'll bet you haven't given two seconds of thought to the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling. Go ahead, please elaborate on the consequences of having to cut federal spending by nearly 50%, not 10%.
Too bad the Contards refuse to negotiate, and instead revert to their preferred method: ECONOMIC TERRORISM.
The GOP has tried to put forward multiple budget bills, deficit reduction bills and jobs bills and Obama and Harry Reid refuse to even allow them to come to debate on the Senate floor
Biotechdev: "The GOP has tried to put forward multiple budget bills, deficit reduction bills and jobs bills and Obama and Harry Reid refuse to even allow them to come to debate on the Senate floor"
The GOP's proposals I've looked at have not been good proposals in my opinion and consistently put the burdens of dealing with the deficit on lower- and middle-class Americans.
Only 20% of Americans, 26% of Republicans, and 12% of economists polled favor a cuts-only approach to dealing with the deficit, yet 277 Republicans signed a pledge to oppose any attempts to increase revenue. As long as Republicans are intransigent on this issue you should expect Democrats in the Senate to resist Republican proposals to cut spending that almost exclusively impact the poor and middle classes.
But for the record, Obama has not refused to allow them to be debated in the Senate. He doesn't have that authority. Also, what Republicans like to call "jobs bills" seem to have little or nothing to do with creating jobs. That's just more Republican rhetoric.
just say no!: "The dipsticks in the senate (Democrats) see CUT.. and won't even talk about it."
Only 20% of Americans, 26% of Republicans, and 12% of economists polled favor a cuts-only approach to dealing with the deficit, yet 277 Republicans signed a pledge to oppose any attempts to increase revenue. As long as Republicans are intransigent on this issue you should expect Democrats in the Senate to resist Republican proposals to cut spending, which so far almost exclusively impact the poor and middle classes.
"Won't even vote on it. While I agree if they did vote it would only be no.. but It seems to me the Democrats haven't offered cr*p.. and expect the other side to give them everything except the kitchen sink."
Well, I guess that's one way to spin it. From where I sit Republicans haven't exhibited any willingness to compromise either. In fact, 277 of the signed a pledge to hold an ideological line in the sand that ignores the will of most Americans, ignores the advise of economists, and puts our credit rating at risk:
"We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that **the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling** and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, **or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues** is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process."
Yes dear. It's all the Democrats' fault dear. Whatever Rush says dear.
the huge flaw in your logic is that if the government 'raises' tax rates that 1) revenue will go up ....it is higher today(under the Bush tax cuts) than ever before at around 2.3 trillion and 2) the government will use that 'extra' revenue (that will not be there) to do anything other than spend it on new programs and agencies which will grow the power and reach of government
the government has never paid down its debt....and no Clinton never had a surplus...he like every other president before him left office with a huge debt added to the already huge debt (1 trillion in Bill's case)
the only way the government is going to pay down its debt is if they stop spending more money then they take in .....so the magic number is 2.5 trillion dollars....when government expenses get down to that level then anything else that is left over they can use to pay down the debt....
The republican Congressmen are right to not raise taxes when all the government is going to do with my money is give it to Solyendra , start a new war, create a new entitlement, or create a new agency which will want more power and more money from the American people
Except that when Obama made that statement ...
"Supposedly" the economy was wonderful!
And "Supposedly" unemployement was very low!
And "Supposedly" GWB's budgets had very small deficits!
And "Supposedly" the 2001&2003 tax cuts were going to pay for themselves through increased revenue???
And "Supposedly" the 2 unfunded wars were also going to pay for themselves!
And "Supposedly" Medicare D was going to pay for itself!
And yet in the end Bush with all that going for him still had to raise the debt limit 9 times ... more than doubled the National debt $5.807T up to $11.909T ... and Left the country in financial freefall
So yeah ... it does seem a bit odd that GWB would want and/or need to raise the debt limit!
Classic liberal deflect tactic. Your killing me smalls.
Yah Blame everything on Bush I guess that is the easy excuse to use but it is getting a little old now.
Yes if we'd taken care of our financial house in the good times we wouldn't have been 10trillion in the hole when the Great Recession hit, but you know what they say...let the good times roll!
In his first 2 years Obama spent more tha 3 trillions dollars added to the debt.Now he wanted more ??
remorse2: "In his first 2 years Obama spent more tha 3 trillions dollars added to the debt.Now he wanted more ??"
You people are such suckers for Republican rhetoric. The president doesn't spend money, Congress does. Instead of educating yourself about federal spending to really understand it you just regurgitate misleading rhetoric.
The recession and its lasting effects are largely to blame for the increase in the size of the deficit, not spending by Obama. Of course if you were to spend some time learning about the federal budget you'd know that. Furthermore, during the period 2005-2007 the national debt rose by about $1.6 trillion with no recession, low unemployment, and record tax revenues. All but the last three months of that was under Republican budgets signed by a Republican president.
The president is asking to raise the debt ceiling because there is no other viable option. The alternative would require slashing government spending by nearly half, which would devastate the economy, create a great many problems far worse than the current situation, and severely damage the country for years. How can so many people not understand this obvious reality?
Yes it got raised, but NEVER by TRILLIONS and NEVER every 3 month
Yeah, continue the path and let the poor pay for the gain of rich.
The problem is that it is the poor who are on food stamps and other entitlement and to top that off they don't pay taxes either. Enough about the poor, they are just most likly a lazy lot doing just like mama and papa and sisster do.
That's right, for the liberals it's either class warefare or racism.
Please IGNORE the man behind the curtain....ie the obama.
but of course they continue to stop the vote on a pay freeze
Sonnie2: "The problem is that it is the poor who are on food stamps and other entitlement and to top that off they don't pay taxes either. Enough about the poor, they are just most likly a lazy lot doing just like mama and papa and sisster do."
Your use of the phrase "most likely" reveals that your views are not the result of evidence, facts, or study, but beliefs you fabricate to reinforce your disdain for poor people and justify your lack of compassion for people who are struggling financially.
Allow me to point out that this is class warfare talk. For all the right-wing rhetoric about Obama trying to encourage class warfare it is in fact your side that seems most determined to engage in class warfare with comments like this.
Ya know, Folks, this simply goes to prove that the World must look a little different when someone takes a seat in the BIG chair. Shooting our mouths off, based upon our personal desires, and campaigning on ideals is one thing. Taking on the responsibility for the well being of ~300 million citizens is another. You know what I'm saying?
How does one decide upon who to help? Those who support(ed) your campaign or those who are struggling to survive?
Obama will support whoever helps him to get elected. And the unemployed will NOT benefit from this
Interesting stat for you. Since Kennedy the percentage the national debt has been increases when a republican president was in vs a democrat president.
Republicans – 414%
Democrats – 152%
This is if you look at the debt when the president came in and the percentage increase at the end when he left office. A bit telling if you ask me.
As far as Obama's comment remember that he said that as the economy was starting to slide and after the debt ceiling had already been raised 5 (I believe) times. A very different situation that today where we are coming out of a bad situation and we have only raised it 2 times. Also, do not forget Bush started with a surplus...Obama with a huge defecit.
In the end the debt ceiling debates are always stupid, but the situations are not the same.
When Obama said that in 2006 unemployment was 4.7% or lower, there was no recession, home prices were at all-time highs and we were bringing in record revenues. Five years earlier Republicans had inherited a balanced budget and by 2006 were running $500 billion deficits. In the context of that time Obama's comment was an accurate assessment.
I guess you people have been too busy listening to Rush Limbaugh and bashing Obama to notice that this isn't 2006 and the economic landscape is very different. The $500 billion deficits Republicans were running nearly tripled as a result of the Great Recession, which cost more jobs than the past four recessions combined.
Tax revenues were down $500 billion in 2009 compared to 2007, and while they've rebounded some are still below 2007 levels. Spending on unemployment, food stamps, Medicaid, and other programs have driven up spending with increases over which the president has had little control.
Spending cuts would have been a great idea in the mid-2000s as unemployment was low, so the people put of out work by those cuts could have found new jobs quickly. But unemployment hasn't been at 2006 levels since well before Obama took office, when it was 7.8% and rising fast. Given the economic realities foisted on us by the recent recession there really is no viable alternative to a large deficit right now, economic realities that are strikingly different from those in 2006.
Trying to use a quote from 2006 to condemn Obama today is either very intellectually dishonest or it demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the differences in the economy between then and now and its effect on the deficit. So which is it, are you dishonest or just profoundly ignorant?
The context of the quote doesn't change the principles that are expressed therein. President Obama is a failed leader. Leaders make hard choices, choices that are inconvenient, but necessary. President Obama has failed to do anything to help the economy recover. Sure, he inherited a complete mess. Yet, he has somehow managed to make it worse, and delayed recovery. His lack of leadership is my biggest problem with him. His constant use of blame and finger-pointing has divided Congress and the American people. It's time for a true leader to hold America's office.
Its very easy to understand the difference. Then times were good. Now times are bad. Then Conservative principals, now liberal principals.
Thanks for the comment. I totally agree with your statement that it's not fair to nail someone on a speechwhich has been given under much different circumstances.
solyrndra, general electric ( no taxes), general motors. The goverment is trying to pick winners and losers, Stop it.....If you fail, no bailouts...Rich democrats running around the country blaming the rich for everyones prolbems but owe the Irs money.
mr. Sky tag when you say that all spending bills originate in the house of representatives you are right so are you admitting that democrats are responsible for deficit spending from january 2007 to january 2011?
Let's just let the man spend us into the abyss. We ignorant people may not know much, but we know when to say enough is enough!
Hey, the last couple of weeks have been tough since Obama returned from his vacation. I think he and the family are about due for another one soon.
Excellence by example. The rest of us struggle to provide an honest living for our families while the President spends money and leaves us to pay the bill. "Hope and Change you can believe in". Pathetic!
Jason: "The context of the quote doesn't change the principles that are expressed therein."
This is a lame attempt to dismiss a valid argument because it doesn't support what you've been brainwashed to believe.
"President Obama is a failed leader. Leaders make hard choices, choices that are inconvenient, but necessary. President Obama has failed to do anything to help the economy recover."
You're just parroting a lot of anti-Obama rhetoric. The reality is that given the nature and depth of the problems and the length of time they were in the making there isn't really anything the President could have done to make much of a difference. The basis for your argument is essentially that he's a failure because he failed to do the impossible. If you think John McCain would have done better you're kidding yourself.
"Sure, he inherited a complete mess. Yet, he has somehow managed to make it worse"
You make a very good attack parrot, but in so doing you only expose the fact that you have no real grasp on the issues involved. Anyone who hasn't allowed himself to be brainwashed knows that things are better than we Obama took office. At that time we were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs every month. The unemployment rate was climbing rapidly as a result. It was 7.8% when Obama took office and rising fast. It was 6.8% in Nov 2008, 7.2% in Dec, 7.8% in Jan, 8.3% in Feb, and 8.7% in March. There was nothing Obama could do to stop that trend and anyone who understands how recessions play out knows this. Contrast that with the fact that unemployment is declining now.
"and delayed recovery."
Just because you say this doesn't mean it's true. I haven't seen any evidence to support this. This mess was decades in the making. Recovery will take years. If anything is delaying recovery it's Republican insistence on being pessimistic on the economy to promote their own political agenda. It is in their best political interest to preach gloom and doom on the economy while selling the election of a Republican president as the only hope of changing that. "It won't get any better as long as Obama is president," they say. Translation: "Expect the economy to be bad for at least 13 more months." Oh yeah, that's really going to encourage people to go out and spend money, which would increase demand and hence demand for workers.
Of course they *could* talk up the economy and point out how much better things are than they were when we losing 700,000 jobs a month, unemployment was 10.1%, or when the market was at 6,443.27 a couple of weeks after Obama took office. But I think we all know the flaw in that plan: It would make Obama and Democrats look good.
So Republicans face a conundrum: Do what's best for the country by bolstering consumer confidence, or do what's best for themselves by claiming the economy will be bad until they can be elected to save it. So far they have clearly chosen the latter option.
Jason: "His lack of leadership is my biggest problem with him. His constant use of blame and finger-pointing has divided Congress and the American people. It's time for a true leader to hold America's office."
You're biggest problem is that you've been brainwashed by listening to fairytales in which he is consistently portrayed as the villain, which is why all you have is standard right-wing rhetoric and unsupported claims to attack him.
The claim that he has divided Congress is laughable. First, Congress is composed of 535 adults who one would presume make up their own minds about the positions they'll support and oppose. Obama doesn't have the power to divide Congress.
Congress is divided because the represent a divided populace, plain and simple. The populace is so divided for two primary reasons. First, bad economies always produce divided societies because people are looking for someone to blame, so they blame each other. Second, the masses are woefully uninformed. In their ignorance they embrace a wide range of beliefs, often extreme, because their beliefs are not constrained by facts, reason, evidence or logic.
For example, your claim that Obama has made things worse is nothing but fiction put out by his opponents. Unemployment is dropping, the market is up, GDP has recovered. The recession that started in December 2007 ended in July 2009. This is your idea of worse? I've heard the arguments used to support this myth you've embraced and they are easily debunked.
As for Obama leading, Republicans made it clear they would rather be led by Grover Norquist.
You cannot lead people who don't want to be led. The reality is that Republicans can't afford to be seen as led by a president they've worked so hard to vilify. Once people in your party have characterized him as a Kenyan-born socialist communist socialist Marxist socialist Black Liberation Theology Christian Muslim socialist (they really like that one so I used it more than once) who pals around with terrorists, wants to set up death panels, take over our health care system, and who hates America, capitalism, white people and probably puppies, you really can't afford to be seen as letting him lead you. And that's exactly what Republicans and other people on the right have done.
Thanks to this insane picture they have of him they happily believe anything negative they hear about him without hesitation, even when it's so absurd it's laughable. They fabricate things about him and then choose to believe them because it feeds their image of him. They claim to oppose his policies but never seem capable of intelligently discussing any of his policies. They've been brainwashed to believe he's such a great threat to America they're willing to do anything to oppose him at every opportunity. It doesn't matter what he says or what he does, he must be opposed. The people must be turned against him. Facts don't matter. Logic and reason don't matter. The truth doesn't matter. Opposition is all that matters.
Get back to me when you think you're up to discussing this issue with more than right-wing sound bites and talking points.
utahsang: "when you say that all spending bills originate in the house of representatives you are right so are you admitting that democrats are responsible for deficit spending from january 2007 to january 2011?"
Kind of depends on how you define "responsible." First, you need to understand the 2007 fiscal year ran from Oct 1, 2006 to Sept 31, 2007, and that spending was under a Republican budget signed by a Republican president. So as a factual matter, no, Democrats cannot be held responsible for that spending. If you don't even know this basic fact, well...
Something else you need to understand it that federal spending is not like personal spending in many ways. One of those is that it can't be radically cut quickly. The government has too many obligations and tens of millions of people rely on it in one form or another. You can decide to start eating rice and beans, take on a roommate, move to a cheaper apartment, and so on should your economic situation go south. Government doesn't have such options. If you turn off your cable no one will really notice. If the government cuts back on spending people lose their jobs. If the cuts are large enough we could be talking millions of jobs.
Democratic controlled spending didn't take effect until Oct 1 2007, by which time the housing crisis had already been impacting the economy and the Great Recession was two months away. Cutting spending in a recession is a bad idea. No economist advocates that. Cutting spending when unemployment is high is a bad idea too, and it just puts more people out of work at a time when they can't find new jobs quickly.
Stop trying to find a way to make it sound like Democrats are the problem. They are not. Both parties have failed to solve our problems and both have contributed to them.
This delusion many on the right have that all we need is for Republicans to be in control is nothing short of dangerous. Republicans can screw things up every bit as well as Democrats, but if you delude yourself into thinking otherwise what we'll end up with is overly confident, arrogant Republicans screwing things up *their* way instead of the Democrats' way, and that really isn't an improvement.
In your rush to find a way to blame Democrats it seems you missed the fact that Republicans took a balanced budget in 2001 and turned it into $500 billion deficits in 2005-2007, with no recession, low unemployment, and record tax revenues. Sorry, but if you can't balance the budget when tax revenues are at all time highs and economic indicators are strong you really don't have any room to criticize deficits at a time when the economy is slow and unemployment is high.
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter." — Dick Cheney, 2002
Tebow for President: "Let's just let the man spend us into the abyss."
Please detail all this spending you think he's doing. I'm very interested in the details and since you're posting on the Internet I'm sure you have a wealth of accurate information you can use to support your comments.
"We ignorant people may not know much"
You said it, but I wholeheartedly agree.
"Hey, the last couple of weeks have been tough since Obama returned from his vacation. I think he and the family are about due for another one soon."
Another childish attack by a trained attack parrot. Obama's vacation record is not out of line with that of other presidents. Bush made 77 trips to Crawford. Did you make comments about his vacations?
"Excellence by example. The rest of us struggle to provide an honest living for our families while the President spends money and leaves us to pay the bill."
Congress spends money. Perhaps you should take a civics course at a local junior college and learn how our government actually works. Then spend some time considering what the alternative to raising the debt ceiling would entail.
Your ignorance? I agree, it's pathetic to attack Obama for perfectly ordinary things other presidents have done for decades, such as take vacations and asked to have the debt ceiling raised.
Got to get some money to give the big bonuses to his Solyndra buddies.
Yes, fred, it is lame. Unable to articulate legitimate criticisms they like to use words they think will evoke a negative emotional reaction.
yes. solyndra was a mess. but you do realize that you're talking about 0.04% of what president obama is asking for in debt ceiling increases don't you. while it may be fun and politically advantageous to poke fun of the administration's mistakes, pulling out failed projects that have relatively moot impact on the budget/deficit really just make you look foolish. remember - every time you point a finger, there are 3 of your own pointing back at you.
The percentage does not matter. It is still a half billion gone! The previous administration made some terrible mistakes too. We just need to stop covering up! My major issue is private investors will be the first to get repaid and we the taxpayer will get the crumbs! Yeah 0.04% sounds a whole lot better than $500,000,000 but the results are the same. What is amazing is folks are still shaking their fists at Bush but are more than willing to give Obama a pass! When Obama fails the first thing supporters do is bring up Bush instead of addresing what Obama has done. Vice versa!
steveo: "What is amazing is folks are still shaking their fists at Bush but are more than willing to give Obama a pass!"
Bush led us into a war to keep us safe from WMDs no one ever found. In the end the cost of the war in Iraq will be about 2000 times what Solyndra cost the taxpayers, not to mention 4,500 American lives and tens of thousands wounded or disabled veterans of that war.
What is amazing is folks on the right are always shaking their fists at Obama but are more than willing to give Bush a pass.
"When Obama fails the first thing supporters do is bring up Bush instead of addresing what Obama has done. "
I'm more than happy to discuss what Obama has done, but I'm not going to pretend we aren't still dealing with consequences of Bush's policies and decisions.
Bush lead us to war with the consist of Congress and that would include DEMOCRATS! Congress (to include DEMOCRATS) voted to fund the wars!
You realize BOTH parties go us here, right? The quicker we realize it is BOTH parties at fault, the better off we will. Are we suffering from the misteps of the Bush administration, yes! Just like we are suffering from the missteps of the Clinton admnistration! Has the current admnistration has their share of misteps? Yes! This country is in real trouble and the blame goes to both "D"s and "R"s!
Make that CONSENT of Congress and not consist!
steveo: "Bush lead us to war with the [consent] of Congress and that would include DEMOCRATS! Congress (to include DEMOCRATS) voted to fund the wars!"
Key point: He led us into war. The fact that he managed to convince Congress to support his decision, in part by using intel fabricated by an Iraqi to trick us into taking down Saddam Hussein in no way changes the fact that Bush led us into starting a war that was a disaster. Trying to absolve Bush of his responsibility in that foolish decision by pointing out that Democrats went along with it is just pathetic.
As I said, you'll give Bush a pass for anything while attacking Obama for everything. Such bias destroys any hope you might have at having your views taken seriously.
"You realize BOTH parties go us here, right?"
I do. Very much so. What I don't understand is why you aren't pointing this out to all the people on the right who try to blame the Democrats for everything.
"The quicker we realize it is BOTH parties at fault, the better off we will. Are we suffering from the misteps of the Bush administration, yes! Just like we are suffering from the missteps of the Clinton admnistration! Has the current admnistration has their share of misteps? Yes! This country is in real trouble and the blame goes to both "D"s and "R"s!"
I agree. Every administration has made mistakes and there are always consequences for them. Unfortunately, the delusion that all our problems are the other party's fault and all we need to solve them is for my party to be in control is virtually guaranteed to lead to more problems. Why? Because if you tell yourself it was all someone else's fault you don't consider what your contribution could have been, and hence you don't learn from your mistakes. If you don't learn from them it's almost certain you'll repeat them.
We're seeing this now. Vast numbers of people on the right believe the key to "fixing America" is having Republicans in charge, as if Republicans are always right and their ideas always work. Well, they aren't always right and their ideas don't always work, and that kind of arrogance is dangerous.
How long have you been reading what I post? You would know that I am neither left nor right. I am independent! Truth is both sides think they are right and everyone else is wrong!
Yes bush led the country into war but he had help! But you make it sound like the Dem had no choice! I admit Bush caused damage and I will admit Clinton did as well! I am not sure why you think I absolve Bush of anything.
"As I said, you'll give Bush a pass for anything while attacking Obama for everything. Such bias destroys any hope you might have at having your views taken seriously".
If that is what you think, you don't know how wrong your are!
" What I don't understand is why you aren't pointing this out to all the people on the right who try to blame the Democrats for everything"
Many times I have stated BOTH PARTIES have failed us. BOTH PARTIES. Neither party is totally innocent nor guilty! Again, Both have failed us.
I think we have more agreement than first realized. II have stated McConnell's plan to make the President a one termer . The goal should have been to make this country better! I have been on this blog since October and I have been consistent in my criticism of both parties. I admit I have probably been harsher on the left but trust me when I say the right has been almost no help! So your criticism of me, is noted!
Steveo: "How long have you been reading what I post? You would know that I am neither left nor right. I am independent!"
I was responding to your emphasis on "Democrats." Sorry if I got the wrong impression.
"Yes bush led the country into war but he had help!"
I have a very simple take on our invasion of Iraq, best summed up by something Ronald Reagan said:
“The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: the United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to defer and defend against aggression to preserve freedom and peace.” — Ronald Reagan
I don't care what the intel, accurate or not, said. America should not start wars. Period. I blame Bush for not understanding this and I blame any member of Congress who didn't understand this, but at the end of the day the President is commander-in-chief. The buck stops there. He's not some old lady being helped across the street to war.
"But you make it sound like the Dem had no choice!"
I never suggested any such thing. Members of Congress in both parties were convinced by the Bush administration that we needed to go to war. Politically, though, they had little choice given the mentality at the time. To oppose it would have made them look weak on defense and terrorism, which would have been political suicide.
"I admit Bush caused damage and I will admit Clinton did as well! I am not sure why you think I absolve Bush of anything."
Your comments seem designed to absolve Bush of the final responsibility for taking us to war. Congress didn't convince him, he convinced them, and it was his decision.
"I think we have more agreement than first realized. I have stated McConnell's plan to make the President a one termer . The goal should have been to make this country better!"
Agreed. What worries me is the mentality that all we need to "fix the country" is to put Republicans back in power, as if Republicans can't screw anything up and all their ideas work great. There is no historical evidence to support such a belief. There have been good and bad presidents from both parties. Bad legislation has frequently had broad bipartisan support.
In believing their ideology is incapable of error Republicans foolishly risk marching off on some damned fool idealistic crusade (to quote Obi-Wan Kenobi) that could do serious harm to the country.
" “Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,” he told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
“You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, chairman of the committee. “Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?”
Mr. Greenspan conceded: “Yes, I’ve found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact.” "
The LeftyLibDem's rules for engaging the past is you can't do it unless your attacking Bush or Republicans.
pot meets kettle
President Obama is still for reigning in the nation's debt. However as a reminder, when a Senator he had a vote to influence spending which he did. As President he only has the bully pulpit to persuade Congress/Senate to curtail spending. His only option is the veto pen. If the Republican Congress sends him a legitimate bill with real cuts in it e.g. $500 billion off the defense budget, I'm sure he'd have no problem signing it.
one must not for get as a senator obama was just present. He sat on the fence. As our president we are getting more of the same. He only can think spend and just can't get a handle on the fact is is not a revenue problem it is a spending problem and goverment has grown totally out of control. It wants to dictate to you your every move. It called being
Sonnie2: What you have is a bunch of right-wing propaganda and uninformed rhetoric. Obama was not "just present." If you're referring to Obama's time as an Illinois state Senator, he voted "present" 129 times out of more than 4,000 votes cast. I understand that attack drones on the right have been brainwashed in their ignorance to believe 129 out of more than 4,000 means he never took a stand on anything, but here in the real world it means nothing of the kind.
Voting "present" does not mean one is "sitting on the fence," as you say. It is effectively a "no" vote, but with a bit of a political twist, so to speak.
"He only can think spend and just can't get a handle on the fact is is not a revenue problem it is a spending problem"
You people just can't get a handle on the fact that revenues dropped as a result of the recession and the increase in the number of unemployed. Revenues were down $500 billion in 2009 compared to 2007. Now, to my way of thinking a 20% drop in revenue is a revenue problem. If you had any sense you'd think of it that way too, but you've been brainwashed to believe Republican rhetoric without even questioning it. Thankfully revenues have recovered somewhat since 2009 as the economy has recovered, but they are still below the record revenues collected in 2007. So the Republican "is not a revenue problem it is a spending problem" sound bite you parrot so well is actually a myth that ignores hard data regarding revenues.
Furthermore, I'd like to point out that we had a $550 billion deficit in 2007, even with those record revenues, and all but three months of that was under a Republican budget signed by a Republican president. And for the record, all of 2005 and 2006 were under Republican budgets and the national debt grew more than $500 billion in each of those years as well.
It is incomprehensible to me that so many people have been bamboozled by Republican and right-wing rhetoric that so blatantly flies in the face of facts, historical evidence, and hard data.
"It called being a dictator."
What rubbish. In case you've forgotten, Congress controls the spending, not the President.
I agree – Why don't some of our "Leaders" take a pay cut, or maybe we need to lay some people off. . . we have 435 representatives, 100 sentators plus each congressman and senators are allowed, I believe 24 staff, then Chief of Staff and on down the line . . . and guess what White House Staff received raises. . Maybe a little stiffer requirements for welfare! Those two alone would definately help the debt problem. REALLY, if I ran my checkbook the way Obama runs the country's I would be in jail!
Congressional pay is a tiny drop in a very large bucket. Perhaps you should spend some time studying the federal budget so you can discuss it knowledgeably. Of course, maybe you don't care enough about your country to see any value in that.
Different circumstances. End of story.
Obama already has increased federal deficit by 4 trillion dollars since he came into office in 2009 we cannot continue to depend on China to buy our debt.
utahsang: "Obama already has increased federal deficit by 4 trillion dollars since he came into office in 2009"
This is not accurate. Obama has been president while the *debt* has increased about $4.6 trillion, but being president during a period during which something happens is not evidence he caused it. For the record, the national debt grew by $1.44 trillion during the last 12 months Bush was in office, more than the $1.22 trillion it has increased over the past 12 months under Obama. That $1.44 trillion wasn't Bush's fault and this $1.22 trillion isn't Obama's fault.
"we cannot continue to depend on China to buy our debt."
True enough in the long run. But what's your alternative, slash government spending by half? Not feasible.
So, is any liberal going to comment on Obama's 2006 comment about the debt ceiling or just throw more random insults at Republicans?
Anyone, anyone, Bueller?
Maybe I'm missing something, but I was of the understanding that Congress held the purse strings. Nothing the President spends or asks to spend can happen until Congress approves the funds. Rep or Dem, this is an issue for congress to address and get under control. If they can't make decisions that get us to where we need to be, they need to step aside and let a new Rep or Sen take their place. Nobody forced them to take the job they hold. Do your job or get another job. I don't like paying employees who do not do their assigned work. That's not how employment is meant to work.
this is a nightmare. someone please save us from this....oh wait....we get what we deserve. we're the idiots that voted this guy in. What a bad move that was on our part....
It was a lot of debt for a president to inherit. My guess is this would've needed to happen regardless of who we elected president. And its not like anyone running for the opposition has a real, substantial plan for cutting the budget other than Ron Paul who wants to cut everything. There's no way out of this w/out letting the bush tax cuts expire. Increase revenue, decrease spending. Republicans refuse to budge on taxes so we're left with very few options.
Republican stategy: block Obama at every turn, then blame him for getting nothing done.
I wonder if it better then obama's blame everybody but myself for my failures. Nothing can ever be my fault obama.
The Republicans have conceded to everything Obama is doing. They never should have raised the debt limit to start. You are right Ron Paul is the only one who will balance the budget. And even then I think he should soften on the cutting and open up to some tax raises.
Who was blocking him his first 2 years in office?
Every president has inherited dept. Obama has done nothing but write checks that his ass can't cover. Him and his monkey Pelosi. It is time for change alright. It is time to clean out Congress from top to bottom and start over with John Doe farmer, homeless, unemployed etc. and do away with the lobbyist and all their buying power. New president who doesn't hold his race card. Not Democrat or Republican, they act like children. Pick someone off the street who has balls enough to stand up against the pressure from other counties and the bullies in Washington.
DId Bush have his two wars? Obama has bombed Libya, sent troops to Africa, maintained a war in Afghanistan, and only ended the Irag wear because he knows he said he would and its election time. GET OVER BLAMING BUSH. He had majority for two plus years in office and used that to get out Credit rating dropped, bail out wall street, spend a kazillion dollar, break his own record 3 years running for most golf played by a president. Spent 17 million dollars twice this year vacationing in hawaii, closed down Catholic run hospitals (for the poor) because they wouldn't perform abortions. He is horrible, a Muslim, a socialist, a spend thrift, an elitist, an A hole!!!! Anybody but Obama!!!!!
@Joa: Sarcasm is not an acceptable substitute for an intelligent argument. Why can't you accept the reality that Obama inherited a mess that's going to take us years to dig out of? Your snarky responses won't change that reality.
Ron paul must have paid you, or you are part of his team, trying a back handed approach.
If he was not man enough for the job he should not have run. Most anybody that could run a sucessfull business could have handled the job with ease. But our potus did not have any business experience. Just a Chicago community organizer. obama is just a mouth piece for big government and unions. We the people just get in his way!
Sonnie2: "If he was not man enough for the job he should not have run. Most anybody that could run a sucessfull business could have handled the job with ease."
"But our potus did not have any business experience."
Bush had business experience and an MBA. He and his Republican Congress turned a balanced budget into a $500 billion deficit in four years even with low unemployment and record tax revenues. More than a year before he left office we entered the worst recession since the Great Depression and lost more jobs than in the previous four recessions combined, with unemployment at 7.8% and climbing fast when he left. The national debt grew more than $1.44 trillion in the last 12 months of his presidency, compared to $1.2 trillion in the past 12 month's of Obama's.
When rhetoric meets reality the results are never pretty.
"Just a Chicago community organizer. obama is just a mouth piece for big government and unions. We the people just get in his way!"
You're just another brainwashed fool who thinks there is no value in educating yourself about anything because you have some right-wing talking head feeding you what you believe.
b440: "DId Bush have his two wars?"
"Obama has bombed Libya, sent troops to Africa"
Nothing Obama has done even compares to that disaster of a decision to invade Iraq.
"maintained a war in Afghanistan, and only ended the Irag wear because he knows he said he would and its election time."
So clueless. The agreement for drawing the troops out of Iraq was worked out by Bush. Obama would have left some troops there but could not get the Iraqi government to agree to certain stipulations regarding those troops and legal immunity for their actions.
"He had majority for two plus years in office and used that to get out Credit rating dropped"
And the cluelessness continues. Nothing in Standard and Poor's explanation for lowering our credit rating puts any responsibility on Obama. It does, however, mention two factors that are directly attributable to Republicans in Congress:
"We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the ****prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling**** and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, ****or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues**** is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process."
Obama asked for a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling. It was Republicans who insisted on making it a political football. Obama wants to raise revenues. It was Republicans who en masse signed a pledge opposing any revenue increases.
Sorry, but the reality is that Obama had no responsibility for the credit downgrade, but Republicans clearly did.
"bail out wall street"
TARP was enacted under Bush.
"spend a kazillion dollar"
Oh yeah, that's an intellectually compelling argument. LOL
"break his own record 3 years running for most golf played by a president."
So what? I'm pretty sure that Bush's 77 trips to Crawford set some kind of record for time clearly brush on a private ranch.
"Spent 17 million dollars twice this year vacationing in hawaii"
These kinds of attacks are pathetic. Presidents have always taken vacations, and they're always expensive because it's the President of the United States. He needs security details, special vehicles, Air Force One to go anywhere, and he's never actually not working. Even when he's on vacation he gets daily security briefings and had to conduct other business as part of his job. Obama's vacation record is not at all out of line with that of other presidents. Attacking him for it just makes you look desperate for a reason to criticize him.
"closed down Catholic run hospitals (for the poor) because they wouldn't perform abortions."
He did no such thing. I don't know where you're getting your information but someone is feeding you a lot of nonsense and you're not protecting yourself from it by educating yourself about the issues.
"He is horrible, a Muslim, a socialist, a spend thrift, an elitist, an A hole!!!! Anybody but Obama!!!!!"
How can anyone be fool enough to believe this? You've been brainwashed.
matt is right. Given the economic realities it wouldn't have mattered who was elected president. It's a shame you haven't educated yourself about this issue enough to realize that. Your ignorance aside, the fact is that Republicans were running $500 billion deficits in the mid-2000s, which only got far worse as a result of the recession. At that point a large deficit was unavoidable, so you can't legitimately pin this on Obama regardless of what propaganda you've been fed to the contrary.
The upcoming elections will tell who the stimulus lovers are. 2012 will be a big sweep just like 2010 and then maybe we can down size the government, close the tax loop holes and gut the entitlement programs to a level that promote the dead beats to get back to work. Unemployment benefits are also high enough that some would like to not work.
We must encourage work, Not discourage it. the corrective cycle will not be easy, but it will only get worse the longer we continue to KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD!!
I'm astounded people can be this clueless. What you advocate would require us to come up with a combination of tax increases and spending cuts equal to nearly half of all current government spending. Obviously the vast majority of that would have to be cuts in spending, the bulk of which is spent either directly or indirectly on goods and services in our economy.
What you advocate would result is a reduction of that spending amounting to about 10% of GDP, which would throw several million people out of work and plunge us into a severe depression. Is that your great plan? Because people with sense think it's a lousy plan.
You haven't actually thought any of this through, have you? Where do you think that money goes? Have you studied the federal budget at all? Federal aid is a drop in the bucket, maybe 2% of the budget, tops. You can never fully eliminate waste, fraud or abuse, and you can't even reduce them measurably in a short period of time because they are not line items in the budget you can just cut. So where are you going to get $1.3 trillion in spending cuts almost overnight? You can't. It's simply not possible.
If you can't handle reality when it isn't pleasant perhaps you should refrain from taking positions and advocating idiotic ideas born of ignorance.
So itss still Bushes fault? May I remind you that then Senator Obama was a member of the very congress that failed to fully fund the efforts abroad, even though he made statements to the contrary. Part of that "unfunded" war rests on his shoulders as well...
Bill in STL: Bill, you didn't address anything I said. In point of fact, I said nothing about Bush. In the future try articulating responses to people's comments instead of parroting canned responses you think are clever. If you can't show where anything I said was wrong then why are you attacking me for saying it? Is reality not your happy place?
Part of reality is you can't spend more than you take in forever. I also think this kick the can down the road to burden our debt to our children and grandchildren is a selfish and gready thing to do. Lets fix the problem now is my way of thinking, and it is going to hurt, but in the long run it will make real men out of some who were getting hand outs and when that goes away, It will put men to work and paying taxes instead of getting entitlements.More People should be standing on there own and not getting entitlements. To many just plain don't deserve them.
Sonnie2: "Part of reality is you can't spend more than you take in forever."
You are correct. It's important we experience more economic growth so we can put more people back to work, paying taxes, getting off unemployment and food stamps, and so on, and make companies more profitable. That's the most important thing we can do to lower the deficit. Then once unemployment is down the economy will be in a much better position to absorb those who are put out of work by spending cuts.
"Lets fix the problem now is my way of thinking"
It's easy to say "let's fix the problem," but simple statements like this belie the magnitude of the challenges that must be overcome to make this happen.
"and it is going to hurt"
Is it going to hurt like a sore muscle or like having your leg amputated without anesthesia? Is the pain going to be equitably distributed or will some have sore muscles while others have their legs amputated without anesthesia? Have you actually given any thought to what the pain will be or are you just giving lip service to the idea?
"but in the long run it will make real men out of some who were getting hand outs and when that goes away, It will put men to work and paying taxes instead of getting entitlements.More People should be standing on there own and not getting entitlements. To many just plain don't deserve them."
The deficit is not caused by welfare abuse. I'm all for having a real conversation about welfare reform, but these kinds of sound bites don't qualify as a substantive discussion of welfare reform.
You must be one frustrated individual by trying to justify the current administration and trying to blame everyone else for their shortcomings.
John McCain and Paris Palin would've done better?
Oh right....and then you'll turn around and vote for someone who is part of why we are in this mess in the first place. Real logic and sound thinking on your part.
You've described the GOP strategy in a nutshell: Scare and con people into once again voting against their own self-interest. The GOP's fuel is the endless supply of ignoramuses that vote for them.
Thinkagain, who is using scare tactics?? Who is pushing Gradma of the cliff? Who is telling everyone if they don't vote for this then armageddon will happen?? WHO, hint the DEMOCRATS/LIBERALS
Thanks for that Don. Politicians never change, only what they SAY changes, depending on who's listening.
"I would like to raise my debt limit please" http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Li0no7O9zmE
and we do just that every day, want another credit card? we have to carry debt or did you pay cash for your house? its a lot harder to pay cash for running the government
Many of us do not make our house payments on our credit card. . .get it now?
MN – How you pay your mortgage is irrelevant, you're still paying for debt incurred. If we're going to use home-buying as the proxy for how we view government spending, for those advocating an immediate cut in spending to balance the budget, how do you feel about moving from your 2,400 sq. ft. (average American house size) to a 1,400 sq. ft. house...overnight? If you could, power to ya, but most people couldn't/wouldn't.
give him a 2 day increase and tell him congress will review the rest later.
just like the 2 month ss taxes.
WORST president ever....
Hardly... GWB has that distinction.
Yes, yes, raise the debt limit, more buyings and cryings.
No, no, let's default on the National Debt and see what happens!
Well played, sir. Very well played.
sorry obama...nothing without spending cuts from other than cutting the military and national defense to pieces.
Another nail in!!!!
Sorry, but yours is just another fact-free bunch of rhetoric attacking Obama. How about some of the tax increases the American people and economists want? Oh, right, Republicans pledged to oppose that.
So Skytag, whom do the American people want to increase taxes on? Themselves? I doubt it. In cas you have not read articles hear on this very website... the problem is not taxes on salaries.... not matter what you income level those are constant... the problem is with the taxes oninvestment income.... that is where the problem really lies... perhaps a little sunshine on this subject will help you here...
Bill in STL: Your observation doesn't invalidate anything I said.
Youre free to give the government as much money as you want, just like Buffet you talk big and then take every taxdeduction you can. Why dont you say what you mean, YOU WANT OTHER PEOPLE TO PAY MORE TAXES, BUT NOT YOU.
Obama: "gimme more money to spend on wasteful projects and I guarantee the unemployment rate will go down under 8%!!! If you don't agree with me and my socialist views, you are a racist".
When you get to the point you rely on idiotic fabricated quotes to attack him you're really flailing. The end result is to make it clear you lack the ability to discuss this issue intelligently, rationally, or knowledgeably.
sic 'em skytag... bring out your verbal arsenal and make them pay... call them names and they will cower in defeat.
Until we get some revenue to go with tzx cuts the GOP always want for the rich. the debt will continue to rise. Obama is right to cut the military. We can still take care of our interests very well.
Every time I see a comment describing the need for more "revenue" I immediately discredit anything else that is said. Revenue is just the new "nice" and PC word for raising taxes and indication you've been drinking the punch. Bottom line is neither party will actually cut spending (just proposed increases to budgets) and the GOP is trying to protect their interests in banks and big business while the Dens blame the GOP to keep their constituents who largely do not pay taxes at all (50%+ of citizens). It is just all a game to get reellected while running the economy into the ground. Oh yeah, Ron Paul 2012!
"Spend me the money, spend me the money, spend me the money."
Enough money is paid in taxes, he should have to live within his means like everybody else. Cut spending rather than raising debt limit. As long as they make it worthwhile for people to sit at home and not bother looking for work, they will continue to do so, and more taxes will need to be raised to pay these lazy people. I'm talking about the ones capable of working, not the people that worked all their life and deserve their golden years.
Gurgi: Do you pay attention? The president doesn't cut the spending, the congress does. If you had been paying attention, nothing is getting done there. If you want to blame someone for not cutting spending, look to congress.
Yes,nothing can ever be obama fault nothing ever and ever.
Unfortunately.. While the repub in the house would be more than willing (and if i recall correctly) have already done so.
The dipsticks in the senate (Democrats) see CUT.. and won't even talk about it.. Won't even vote on it. While I agree if they did vote it would only be no.. but It seems to me the Democrats haven't offered cr*p.. and expect the other side to give them everything except the kitchen sink.
Vote em out!!!! No democrat gets my vote
Joa: "Yes,nothing can ever be obama fault nothing ever and ever."
If BillSD33's observation had not been accurate you could have explained why, but apparently this childish comment is the best you can do when confronted by unpleasant realities.
Congress passed numerous bills to cut spending.
Congress passed numerous bills to cut spending, but Ried and his buddies blocked/tabled them all. It is all a political game. Ried tries to make congress look bad so the dems and obama can say "see, we are trying, but you know this do nothing republican congress....."
I understand the desire to think of something too complex for you to understand, such as the federal budget, as something much simpler you do understand, such as a personal budget, but the differences are far too great for such comparisons to be useful.
If you cut your spending by half almost no one will notice, but if the federal government cuts spending in half several million people will lose their jobs and the economy will plunge into a severe depression. How can you people not see this?
you don't need to cut spending to cut jobs.. all you have to do is make the economic horizon so bleak that there is no chance a company will feel brave enough to invest... the solution is to raise taxes ... but there are fewer workers to draw from... so the tax increase will have to be massive or borrow more money or both... eventually the only viable solution will be to nationalize all industry/business in this country and the governemnt will be the sole provider of jobs/income..... seems to me this has been tried before.
Bill in STL: "you don't need to cut spending to cut jobs.. all you have to do is make the economic horizon so bleak that there is no chance a company will feel brave enough to invest..."
Hasn't that been the Republican strategy, to claim the economic horizon will be bleak until we elect a Republican president to fix it?
Republicans have a real conundrum on their hands. If they talk up the economy to boost consumer confidence to encourage more spending on goods and services, which in turn would give businesses a reason to hire more people, they would be implicitly suggesting Obama and the Democrats have helped fix some of the mess they inherited from the last administration. While this would be good for America it would obviously be bad for them at the polls. Given a choice between helping the economy and promoting their political agenda it's clear they've chosen the latter.
Once again you use one of my comments as a launch point for an unrelated rant. Nothing you said addresses the points I made. Are you pathologically incapable of actually responding to the points in someone's comments?
@Bill. Agree or disagree you made some good points and they’re worth hearing. More important is your ability stays above the fray, not to get involved in a school yard argument with skytag. He’s the biggest problem in today’s world. He’s incapable of entertaining an opposing point of view. If you don’t side with him you’re on a “rant” or pathologically incapable of a response. Just another self-important little man, alone in mom and dad’s basement.
DBC: "@Bill. Agree or disagree you made some good points and they’re worth hearing. More important is your ability stays above the fray, not to get involved in a school yard argument with skytag. He’s the biggest problem in today’s world. He’s incapable of entertaining an opposing point of view. If you don’t side with him you’re on a “rant” or pathologically incapable of a response. Just another self-important little man, alone in mom and dad’s basement."
What a hypocrite. You talk about not getting involved in a school yard argument and then attack with childish comments about me living in my parents' basement. How pathetic is that?
In point of fact it is people such as yourself that are the problem. Faced with realities you can't handle you immediately attack the messenger. Whether you agree or disagree with my assessments at least I present a reasonable case for them and I back those assessments with facts and data. Bill has done neither, yet you pander to him and attack me. Look, it's not my fault reality isn't your happy place.
And for the record I am more than willing to entertain an opposing point of view *provided* you can make a reasonable case in support of it. You have an unalienable right to your opinion. You have a constitutional right to express it. You have no right to have it respected. If you want people to respect it, that has to be earned, and you don't earn it with unsupported claims and rhetoric.
But if you think I'm going to respect a point of view that flies in the face of known facts, historical evidence, data, and logic you're very much mistaken. That might work for you and Bill, but it's not my way. You and Bill and anyone else here are more than welcome to point out where my information is wrong and correct it with better information. You're welcome to point out flaws in my arguments. I've challenged Bill to do that and I offer you the same challenge. So far Bill hasn't risen to the challenge and I find it unlikely you will either.
Any brainwashed drone can run around attacking people like you and Bill do. If comments about my parent's basement are the best you can do you're wasting your time, unless your goal is to look pathetic.
For the record, I am 56 years old and both my parents are dead. It's not my fault that you can't cope with people who challenge what you've been brainwashed to believe. The fact is that if you arrived at your positions after study and careful consideration you can support those positions with the evidence and arguments that convinced you to hold them. But I never get that from you people. You spout one belief after another and then belittle anyone who won't blindly accept them, as you obviously did.
Gurgi, did you advocate this position when GW Bush cut taxes during wartime, did not fund two wars and did not fund Medicare Part D?
Matter of fact I did. I was not a huge Bush fan, just like I'm not real crazy about Romney, but anybody would be a better president than Obama, probably even skytag would make a better president.
Gurgi: "Matter of fact I did. I was not a huge Bush fan, just like I'm not real crazy about Romney, but anybody would be a better president than Obama, probably even skytag would make a better president."
Wow, that almost sounds like a compliment. LOL I see no objective reason to buy claims that anyone would make a better president or that he's the worst president in history. I don't think he's the best president we've ever had, but I think he's done a reasonable job given the circumstances he's had to deal with, which include:
– Inheriting the worse financial disaster since the Great Depression.
– Having to work with an opposition party who from the very beginning was determined to fight and oppose anything and everything he wanted to do.
– Being continually vilified with the most absurd lies and propaganda any president has ever had to face. Day after day after day people are claiming he's a Muslim, a socialist, that he hates America, that he's trying to destroy America, that he's stupid, and on and on. All nonsense that can't be objectively supported. People claim to oppose his policies, but instead of offering intelligent criticisms of his policies they babble about teleprompters, his vacations, him being a dictator, some four-year-old misspeak based on the false claim he said there were 47 states, and an avalanche of post hoc arguments that boil down to "he was president when it happened so it's his fault."
The right has been brainwashed to believe a lot of nonsense about Obama by people who clearly stand to benefit from turning people against him, be they celebrities like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, opportunists like Sarah Palin, or politicians looking to advance their own power and careers.
You could employ an army of people to address the lies, myths, and bogus arguments used against Obama just in online discussions. And the reason I use the term "brainwashed" so often is that I can see no other explanation for what I see daily online. What I see are a lot of people parroting the same empty anti-Obama rhetoric, the same bogus arguments, the same lies and misinformation, over and over again, even after what they say has been refuted with hard data and valid arguments.
Sorry, but when I hear a mob all chanting the same nonsense in unison and they won't listen to reason they sound brainwashed to me.
So to those of you who parrot the "Worst president ever" chant I would pose the following challenge: Produce a ranking of presidential performances as ranked by credible presidential scholars to back up your claim. I've yet to see one yet that even puts him in the bottom half.
gurgi- i agree. it is "insane" to just keep raising the debt limit everytime we get close to the edge. there are all kinds of waste that can be addressed,like welfare, that would be more sensible than raising the cieling. welfare,lifelong salaries for congress/president,etc.. cuts will hurt but everyone has to understand that it's what has to happen. as well as govt officials!! they got us into this mess, they should suffer like everyone else, and that means republicans,democrats, the whole crew!! if we save only 100 million due to cuts,we didn't go farther into debt!!!!!!
rael: "it is "insane" to just keep raising the debt limit everytime we get close to the edge."
Insane would be cutting federal spending by nearly 40% virtually overnight, which is what we'd have to do if we didn't raise the debt ceiling. Over and over again I see people suggesting we need to stop raising the debt ceiling, and every time I point out what that would require us to do their response is always the same: *crickets*
This tells me they haven't given any thought to the consequences of the drastic measure they're proposing, and I have to question the sanity of someone who advocates something so radical without giving any thought to the consequences.
The numbers are constantly changing, but we borrow nearly a third of what is proposed in the 2012 budget. Thus were we to stop borrowing, which we'd have to do if we didn't raise the debt ceiling, we'd have to come up with some combination of tax increases and spending cuts totaling a third of what we currently spend. Does anyone really believe that's possible? Keeping in mind of course that a lot of government spending simply can't be cut legally, such as interest payments on the debt and various contractual obligations.
But for the sake of argument let's suppose we were to slash spending by almost a third. That money goes to buy goods and services from the private sector, either directly, when government buys all the stuff it uses, or indirectly, through the salaries of government employees and checks to military retirees, government retirees, and Social Security beneficiaries. Medicare and Medicaid buy $700 billion in health care goods and services from the private sector.
What will the impact be on the private sector of reducing demands for goods and services by $1.1 trillion, or more than 7% of GDP? GDP dropped 5.1% in the last recession and unemployment doubled from 5% to 10.1%. It's at 8.5% now. Please project what it will be after will pull spending amounting to 7% of GDP out of the economy virtually overnight. Let me guess: *crickets*
Well, the answer is obvious: millions of people joining the unemployment line. They stop paying taxes, start drawing unemployment, some of them go on food stamps, about half lose their health insurance, and they use other federal programs such as Medicaid that help people with low incomes. In other words, revenues drop and spending increases, and with no borrowing allowed that means even more spending cuts. By the time this vicious cycle stabilizes you're looking at several million people out of work and an economy in a severe depression. How does that "stop raising the debt ceiling" plan sound now?
(Note: I used different figures is some earlier comments, but I looked up the latest numbers for this comment and adjusted my numbers accordingly to reflect the fact that the deficit has actually dropped, both in raw terms and as a percentage of total projected spending.)
"there are all kinds of waste that can be addressed"
Waste is not a line item in the federal budget that can be cut with the stroke of a pen. There is waste in all large organizations, even companies considered to be efficiently run. Identifying waste and addressing it takes time and is a never ending battle.
Welfare is not waste. I'm all for having a real conversation about welfare reform, but calling it waste doesn't qualify and welfare reform takes time. If we don't raise the debt ceiling we have to slash spending immediately.
"that would be more sensible than raising the cieling"
If you think waste accounts for one-third of all government spending you're living in La La Land. You, my friend, are a big part of the problem. You're full of passion and opinions based on ignorance and misconceptions. You clearly don't care enough about your country to spend the time needed to understand the challenges we face. Shame on you.
"welfare, lifelong salaries for congress/president,etc.."
Blah, blah, blah. None of this is based on an understanding of the federal budget. These are just popular talking points. If you eliminated all of this you'd still be left with a huge deficit. And as for "lifelong salaries for congress," that's a myth. Retirement benefits for members of Congress are well documented, yet here you are regurgitating myths that have no connection to reality. Doesn't that embarrass you even a little?
"Under both CSRS and FERS, Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at age 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. Members are eligible for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service. The amount of the pension depends on years of service and the average of the highest three years of salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member’s retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.
As of October 1, 2006, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006."
Do a little math and you'll see that total congressional retirement was costing us 413 x $35,952 = a whopping $14,848,176 in 2006, or less than $15 million. I'm sure it's a little higher today, but not by much. This is your brilliant idea for cutting $1.1 trillion = 1,000,000 x $1 million?
"cuts will hurt but everyone has to understand that it's what has to happen."
Based on how little you appear to understand federal spending I don't think you're in a position to tell people what they understand, nor do I think you have a real understanding of the kind of pain you're advocating. It wouldn't be "sore muscle" pain, it would be "having your leg amputated without anesthesia" pain.
"as well as govt officials!! they got us into this mess, they should suffer like everyone else, and that means republicans,democrats, the whole crew!! if we save only 100 million due to cuts,we didn't go farther into debt!!!!!!"
Nonsense. And for the record, the people who got us into this mess do what they think the people who elected them want them to do so they can get reelected. That's how our political system works. The big flaw in it is widespread ignorance among the electorate. The following quotes together sum up the problem in a nutshell:
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people...they are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." — Thomas Jefferson
"The truth is, as much as we want to focus on politics, the American people would rather watch television. As much as we want to talk about substance they'd rather listen to music." — Republican political consultant Frank Luntz
As long as Congress keeps spending money, the President will be put in the position of raising the debt ceiling. This applies regardless of who is President. Irresponsible people spend money (congress) and one executive authority (who we choose to be responsible) makes it possible for us as a country to pay our bills on time (and sustain or improve our credit standing). Why is it that so few people understand this?
Right on sir! Apparently there are just a few informed individuals that understand how this debt cieling actually works! He is just trying to keep us from defaulting on promises that CONGRESS has made to pay for what they basically bought already!!!
Because they are trained attack parrots. They can't intelligently discuss any issue, which makes it easier to brainwash them into believing everything about Obama is bad. Everything is his fault. Didn't you get the memo from Rush?
According to you the President does nothing, he is supposed to LEAD, put forth ideas, bring everyone together, not divide, blame everyone else, and pay off your buddies claiming the need a bailout, or try to be a venture capitalist if you have no clue on what to do, just throwing money, thats not yours, out the window, but i guess your ok with all of that.
Madness. When are you liberals going to wake up and realize that Obama is coming trying to destroy the middle class NOT help it. Who do you morons think will be paying the bulk of the National Debt, which by the way is driven by DEFICIT SPENDING????!!!! Vote 2012. The emperor has no clothes. One and done.
When are you right wing idiots going to realize YOU created this problem with your damned voodo economics. You CAN NOT raise revenue by cutting taxes, jackasses.
RESTORE THE CLINTON-ERA TAX RATES NOW.
what are you smoking? That is just too dumb to believe. Obama is the only one that is consistently working to help middle Americans. Turn down Faux Noise and take a nap.
Maybe you should look over a list of Obama's largest campaign contributors and see how concerned he is with the middle class. Talks out of both sides of his mouth. Wake up dude!
Help the middle class by watching the number of unemployed Americans almost double in three years? Yielding to the rich unions controlling the politicians? 15 million unemployed Americans can easily disagree with that uneducated assumption.
AmericaStand: "Help the middle class by watching the number of unemployed Americans almost double in three years?"
The unemployment rate was rising rapidly when Obama took office and peaked at 10.1% in Oct 2009 as a result of the recession that started more than a year before Obama took office. You can't legitimately blame that on him. Unemployment was already at 7.8% and rising fast when he took office. Since it peaked it has come down 1.5 percentage points. Isn't it dishonest of you to ignore these realities and try to make it sound as if Obama is somehow responsible for the unemployment rate being as high as it is?
Skytag ... A question for you .... what company was the leading creator of jobs in 2011????
Answer McDonalds.... so I ask you this ... would you like fries with your belief in this president?
Bill in STL: Bill, the fact that McDonald's may have created the largest number of jobs of any one employer doesn't prove they created the majority of jobs. God, are you always this lame? If the information I'm presenting is wrong, show where it's wrong. If my logic is flawed identify the flaws. But this idiotic nonsense you post thinking you're being clever is just a waste of time.
AmericaStand's information was both factually inaccurate and misleading, yet you say nothing to him. What's wrong with you? What happened in your life that you find reality so frightening? Why do you defend people telling lies and attack people telling the truth?
For the record, the unemployment rate is highest for low wage, low skill workers, so I have to wonder why you'd have an issue with McDonald's creating jobs for them. Would you rather have them on food stamps and unemployment?
Just as an FYI, Bill, Republican candidate Rick Perry, governor of Texas, likes to tout his state's record of job creation. It doesn't seem to bother his supporters that Texas has the highest rate of minimum wage jobs in the country.
As an aside, Texas implemented tort reform measures in 2003 and more in 2005. Today Texas has the highest percentage of people of any state without health insurance and health care spending didn't come down. And I'm supposed to think Republicans have all the answers. Yeah, right.
Get back to me when you think you're prepared to actually discuss an issue intelligently.
SteveO: who authorizes spending? Who can make cuts to spending? The CONGRESS, not the PRESIDENT. What has congress cut? How have they increased revenues? They cut the taxes on the 1% and never made that up.
Okay BillSD333 .... what tax did they cut? I know ... but do you??? I doubt it.
Brainwashed troll talk. Nothing but right-wing rhetoric. Spend some time studying the effects on the economy of cutting federal spending by nearly half. Then tell us what they are and why they'd be good for America.
Watch skytag stomp his feet and calll them names....
Well bill in STL most of you ´have simply earned yourselves those names hands down!
Bill in STL: "Watch skytag stomp his feet and calll them names...."
Watch Bill avoid addressing any point I make because he has no counter arguments. Perhaps you'd care to take my challenge: Spend some time studying the effects on the economy of cutting federal spending by nearly half. Then tell us what they are and why they'd be good for America.
Surely you don't expect people to take someone seriously who would advocate something as drastic as not raising the debt without even a minimal understanding of the consequences, do you?
Since it has not been done before skytag, how can you study the results? Everything you are talking about is theories, and theories are like opinions, which are like.......well you get the idea.
Gurgi: "Since it has not been done before skytag, how can you study the results?"
It hasn't been done here, but Greece implemented some pretty severe austerity measures as a result of their debt crises and their unemployment rate went from 12.2% in August 2010 to more than 18% a year later.
"Everything you are talking about is theories, and theories are like opinions, which are like.......well you get the idea."
Yeah, I get the idea. You're desperate. Unable or afraid to provide your own analysis you produce this unbelievably lame argument. Dismissing someone's opinion by claiming it's just an opinion is lame. Really lame.
Theories are opinions, and the ones with the most credibility are the ones that have sound reasoning behind them and/or are most consistent with the empirical evidence.
I invite you to examine the arguments for not raising the debt ceiling, or at least I would if anyone who advocates it were offering any reasoning. Go ahead, just try to find a single attempt by any of those people to provide a reasoned analysis of what would happen. I've made multiple requests here for such an analysis and none have been forthcoming. Name one respected economist who advocates it.
I've offered a reasonable scenario based on actual numbers. You've offered nothing. My theory is the one that's consistent with what's happened in Greece. My theory is the one held by economists. My theory is the one most Republicans hold, which is why after they're done with their posturing and posing for their base they'll raise the debt ceiling just as they always have.
On the other hand, the opposing theory is based on likening the federal budget to the budget of a college student by people who lack the ability to understand the federal budget and who can't begin to predict the consequences of what they propose.
No real conservative would advocate such a drastic measure without extensive study to understand the consequences because real conservatives (not the posers on the right who dominate the political sphere right now) are leery of change. They understand change takes us into unknown territory where unexpected consequences can be dire. Yet none of the people who advocate this drastic step has even begun to try to understand what the consequences would be.
This is not religion, my friend. Your faith that everything will just work out if you're true to your beliefs just isn't enough.
You're right the GOP and all the loony clowns running have absolutely no clothes.
You, sir/maddam are a shame! You are not the real SteveO. 1) Your post is ignorant and vapid, lacks thought 2) the person you are impersonating (very poorly I might add), tends to blame both parties....I don't agree with him, but at least he's honest about it. and 3) your cowardess betrays you into trying to push Faux news bumper sticker insults during these very difficult times. Go away now and leave the intelligent conversation to the adults....i.e. skytag
All of you bashing the President again on this really show your true colors. This again is for money already spent and guess who spends that money...that's right – CONGRESS! Get a hold of yourselves please.
The Senate majority wimp (Reid) will not allow any spending cuts authorized by the House.
What cuts did they propose? It was Obama that challenged Boehner to cut 400B and they didn't do it. Harry Reid is not a chump and will take a raw deal.
And what happened in that vaunted bi-partisan committee to cut the deficit.... Playground foolishness on both side... Oh and where was Obama during that time.... Thats right... he tried and 11th hour save..... Such tireless effort on his part.
sofork / Bill in STL,
You two are now on notice to justify your comments. Your aspersions and false innuedos are now being exposed. I am so happy to see the comments of "skytag". I have a full time job, but neither the patience nor the interest in debunking all the false hoods, Bill in STL posts. I hope skytag will continue with this re-education of the least fact based posts on this site. Intelligence and debate is much better than non-fact based rhetoric.
Aside from that, I'm so happy to see people like you to, get hammered with the facts....it exposes the GOP/Tea Potty for the cranks they really are
@sofork: Republicans in the House refuse to consider any revenue increases. If we don't increase taxes on the highest income earners — people who pay a lower average tax rate than they did 15 years ago, by the way — then the proposed cuts would effectively place all of the burden for reducing the deficit on the lower- and middle-classes.
Only 20% of Americans, 26% of Republicans, and 12% of economists want a cuts-only approach to reducing the deficit, yet 277 Republicans in the House signed a pledge to oppose any revenue increases. If they'd come to their senses the Senate would be more receptive to their proposals to cut spending.
Dear skytag.... please look up where the tax inequality really is... Raising tax on income hurts all.... raising tax on investment income targets the people you want to target.... its really simple... but you have been taken in ... hook line and sinker.
Bill in STL: "Dear skytag.... please look up where the tax inequality really is..."
Don't tell people to look things up. If you have information, present it. If you have a valid case to make, make it. Telling people to look stuff up is just lame.
"Raising tax on income hurts all.... raising tax on investment income targets the people you want to target.... its really simple... but you have been taken in ... hook line and sinker."
Nothing here but an unsupported claim and some rhetoric. How does raising taxes on the highest incomes (cutoff to be determined) hurt everyone?
Your problem is that you've allowed talking heads to feed you what you believe so long you lack any ability to articulate valid arguments supporting any of it. Instead they've conditioned you to believe what you've been told is just so obvious that anyone who doesn't believe it is an idiot, so you accept it unquestioningly since questioning it would imply you're an idiot, and then you pass on what you've learned by treating everyone who isn't part of your mob as if he's mentally inferior. Those tricks won't work with me. If that's the best you can do you're wasting your time.
In fact Boehner had agreed to $800B in revenue increases with Obama as part of the grand $4T deal. That deal fell apart when Senate Democrats reacted 'volcanically' at the proposed entitlement cuts that were part of the deal.
Ahhhhh, skytag, you have given yourself away.
Mike, formerly from Syracuse: "In fact Boehner had agreed to $800B in revenue increases with Obama as part of the grand $4T deal. That deal fell apart when Senate Democrats reacted 'volcanically' at the proposed entitlement cuts that were part of the deal."
I think there was a lot of spin and "he said, she said" regarding that deal, and there was more to it than you're letting on. Boehner didn't offer any tax increases, just a willingness to go along with reforms to the tax code that would eliminate deductions, subsidies, and other breaks in the code and so on. You know the schtick, make it simpler, more uniform, lower rates, broaden the base, and so on, with the end result producing more revenues.
All well and good, but the problem the Democrats had with it was that it wouldn't take effect right away. It would have required fairly significant reforms to the tax code, something you and I and anyone with any sense knows would almost certainly involve yet another protracted battle in Congress.
In other words, the deal was cuts now, revenue increases when they get around to reforming the tax code. Democrats balked at that, so Obama tried to make the deal more attractive to them by asking for an additional $400 billion in increased revenues, in part because what would be more in line with the recommendations of the Gang of Six. Boehner then rejected that and they never got close to a deal after that.
So my position is that had Republicans been willing to go along with some easily implemented tax increases such as a "millionaires' tax" or eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the highest income bracket Democrats would have been more receptive to the spending cuts in that deal.
Frankly I think left to their own devices Obama and Boehner could work out a deal, but both have to convince their parties in Congress and that's the hard part. Boehner in particular is stuck with having to get the Tea Party caucus to go along with any deal and they seem to be a bunch of extremists, which should come as no surprise given that Michele Bachmann is its founder.
And for the record you've just refuted the common claim from the right that Obama won't consider spending cuts.
Gurgi: "Ahhhhh, skytag, you have given yourself away."
Yet another response that fails to address any point I made while attempting to disparage my credibility with some vague insinuation. zzzzzzzzzzz
Liberals have bashed Bush for almost 12 years eventhough Obama has been in charge for the last three. But under Obama's watch when the number of unemployed increased at a rate twice than under Bush's, and when more czars were created than the entire history of the Soviet Union, liberals now have a problem with Americans commented on the administration which has grown government instead of the economy.
"Liberals have bashed Bush for almost 12 years even though Obama has been in charge for the last three."
Bush's role in the events that led to the recession and hence the mess we have now, which was by and large one of being asleep at the wheel and failing to address any of the problems undermining the foundations of our economy, has not changed in the past three years nor will it ever. It is a matter of history. Deal with it.
"But under Obama's watch"
" 'Correlation does not imply causation' ... is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other
correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship. The fallacy is also known as cum_hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this") and false cause." — Wikipedia
"when the number of unemployed increased at a rate twice than under Bush's"
Nice try. The unemployment rate was 7.8% and rising fast when Obama took office as a direct result of the recession that started more than a year before Obama took office. There was nothing Obama could have done to stop that rise on a dime and you must surely know that. The rate at which unemployment rose peaked around that time, and the rate itself peaked at 10% in October 2009, nowhere near double the 7.8% Obama inherited. The unemployment rate has actually been decreasing for months now.
For the record, the unemployment rate was 4.2% when Bush took office. The 7.8% he handed Obama was closer to "double" that 4.2% than 10% is compared to 7.8%.
"and when more czars were created than the entire history of the Soviet Union"
The very first czar was Ronald Reagan's drug czar. What kind of people get their panties in a twist over a name?
"liberals now have a problem with Americans commented on the administration which has grown government instead of the economy."
Government has always grown. It grew under Reagan and it grew under Bush. Why attack Obama for what is clearly a historical trend? As for the economy, it is clearly doing much better that it was when Obama took office. Instead of losing several hundred thousands jobs a month we're gradually adding jobs. GDP has rebounded and the market is up substantially.
Your assessments of all this seem to have little connection to reality. Why is that? Who has been feeding you this propaganda you parrot so dutifully?
The unemployment rate was 7.8% and rising fast when Obama took office as a direct result of the recession that started more than a year before Obama took office. There was nothing Obama could have done to stop that rise on a dime and you must surely know that. The rate at which unemployment rose peaked around that time, and the rate itself peaked at 10% in October 2009, nowhere near double the 7.8% Obama inherited. The unemployment rate has actually been decreasing for months now.
Skytag ... the question you can't answer is this one ... how many have given up..... that is part of problem ... the math used by the white house does not even take a stab at this... it is sad you don't see that big picture you keep babbling about.
Bill in STL: "Skytag ... the question you can't answer is this one ..."
I have a whole list of questions you can't answer. ;-)
"how many have given up..... that is part of problem ... the math used by the white house does not even take a stab at this... it is sad you don't see that big picture you keep babbling about."
What's sad is that I'm sure you think you have some kind of valid argument here. You're right, I can't answer that question, but since you offered no answer yourself I have to assume you can't either, and hence you can't base a valid argument on it.
More important though is that you people need to learn the basic fact of logic that correlation does not establish causation. In this context it means that just because Obama has been president when something happened it doesn't mean he caused it or could have prevented it.
Just as some people say this and that has happened on Obama's watch I could say that America experienced the worst terrorist attack on American soil in its history on George Bush's watch. If happening on President X's watch means President X is responsible for it, then by that logic Bush is responsible for 9/11. Correlation does not establish causation.
The causes of our current economic situation are complex and go back decades. Obama had the misfortune to replace Bush in the driver's seat just as the bus was heading over the cliff. It's hard to take you people seriously when you can't bring yourself to criticize Bush but you can't do anything but criticize Obama. Such a glaring double standard tells me your criticisms of Obama are manifestations of a bias against him, not legitimate criticisms.
Come on, smart guy, what say you about:
– Republicans inherited a balanced budget when Bush took office. Fast forward four years. The national debt grew more than $500 billion annually in 2005-2007, all but the last three months of which were under Republican budgets signed by a Republican president, with no recession, low unemployment, and record tax revenues. Republicans took us from a balanced budget to a $500 billion deficit in four years and had no problems raising the debt ceiling to do it.
– The national debt grew by $1.44 trillion in the last 12 months of Bush's administration, and $1.2 trillion in the past 12 months of Obama's.
– The recession that produced this mess started in December 2007, more than a year before Obama took office. That recession led to the loss of 7.5 million jobs, more than from the previous four recessions combined.
– Federal revenues in 2009 were down $500 billion from 2007 levels. Please explain how that's not a revenue problem.
– The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were the first wars in U.S. history for which no tax was imposed to pay for them. Spending money without increasing revenues to compensate doesn't seem very fiscally responsible to me.
You've posted a lot of comments here to me, but I have yet to see you actually make a point and present an argument to defend it, nor have I seen you refute anything I've said. All you've really down it treat me as if I'm stupid because I haven't been taken in by the stuff you believe. Is that really the best you can do?
Oh boy the Rethuglicans have another chance at ruining the economy just to make President Obama look bad and Boehner will start crying like the blubbering idiot that he and all Rethuglicans are.
When did you come out of your tent? It must be nearing dinner time!
uhh.... is that all you've got?????? It would appear your side of the argument is being overwhelmed by logic and rational thought. This means the putrid and vile GOP/Tea Potty ideology is in for a real drubbing. Pragmatism, complex problem solving has always been absent for you folks....So Good luck with adding new supporters for promoting the stupidity..... Most people DID finish high school.
Will some one please find ART his meds.... I think I heard the attendents calling his name.
there has been nothing done by the obama administration in these past three years that any thinking person would expect new jobs. This has been a domestic and foreign disaster...nothing has come from this that is good for America..nothing. The obama experiment is over. Now, a president who actually has the resume for the job..thank you very much.
Spend Spend Spend..it's all the Dems know.
Give, Give, Give to maintain the entitlement societies' dependence on them, keeping them in power.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
At least Dems spend on things beneficial to our citizens – not on illegal wars!
LMAO...................so true then deny ever doing so.
Maintaining an entitlement society is not good for its citizens, check out Greece as one example, the rest of western europe as another.
Yeah not on illegal wars. Just illegal aliens....
no he just spends money on arming the Drug Lords, and help the illegals get across the border.
That must explain how spending all that money benefitted this country by watching our national debt almost double in three years and the number of unemployed Americans increase at a rate of over 2 million a year (2008 eight million unemployed, 2011 over 15 million unemployed).
Actually, both the GOP and Dems voted and approved what you refer to as "illegal wars".
Not Illeagal ... just unfunded ... courtesy of the congress Obama was proud to be a member of.
Its called Keynesian Economics ... the bad part of that policy was that FDR found out he could buy votes with it.... viola ... the national debt was born...
AmericaStand: "That must explain how spending all that money benefitted this country by watching our national debt almost double in three years and the number of unemployed Americans increase at a rate of over 2 million a year (2008 eight million unemployed, 2011 over 15 million unemployed)."
Please detail all that spending. I'm sure that won't be a problem for you, right?
Bill in STL: "Not Illeagal ... just unfunded ... courtesy of the congress Obama was proud to be a member of."
The war in Iraq started in 2003 and Obama wasn't a member of the U.S. Senate until 2005, so perhaps you could explain your statement. Or is this just another one of your little snippy comments you mistake for a valid point and supporting argument?
grif99999: "Actually, both the GOP and Dems voted and approved what you refer to as "illegal wars"."
Only because the Bush administration sold them on it, in part using intel fabricated by an Iraqi. Bush and Congress were both wrong to get us into that war.
Only because the Bush administration sold them on it, in part using intel fabricated by an Iraqi. Bush and Congress were both wrong to get us into that war.
What? Stop with the excuses!
1. You mean the SAME intel that France, Germany, and Great Britian believed?
2. Are you saying the Dems who voted for war and the funding of war were mindless drones?
OR are you saying Bush was a Mastermind who placed the Dems in a trace like spell and forced their votes?
Which is it? I see it this way, IF the war was wrong so were ALL the Dems who voted to fight it and who voted to fund it! NOBODY gets a pass! NOBODY! Not Kerry, not Edwards, Not Clinton!
Or try this, not only spend on wars but then cut taxes on the wealthy! I don't remember the constitution saying that Presidents decided spending cuts.
Republicans spend just as well. Democrats tax and spend while Republicans borrow and spend. The former seems more fiscally responsible.
Ok, I will try again to post.
This 1.2 trillion is just enough to cover the current loss in revenue (per year) and the increase in defense spending (per year) that we now have taken on over the decade since Clinton left office. Defense spending has more than doubled and has increased 400 billion per year, from 300 billion to 700 billion per year. Military accounts for MOST of our on-budget spending increases as well. In addition, if you combine this with the loss in "revenue to GDP'" since Clinton had his highest surplus, we are now losing roughly 750 billion in revenue every year (each 1% change being 140-150 billion and we are down 4-5%) and this is added to deficits and debt (each year) – if you combine the increase in defense spending, with the loss of revenue to GDP – that is roughly 1.2 trillion that is added to our deficits and debt each year. Gee, this debt ceiling increase will just cover that – No surprise there, or where it came from. So, yes, we have a spending problem (a military one) and a huge revenue loss problem, as well.
And No, I do not blame Obama for this problem, because due to the recession, it was advised to not increase taxes, but we need to plan to get our revenues back in shape as our economy continues to improve, and as our troops come home, we also need to reduce military spending over time to get things under control, this they already have plans for doing.
They burned through all that credit already!?! Government is worse than a teenager with dad's credit card.
The one thing that Obama, Reid and Pelosi (aka the 3 Stooges) know how to do is to spend and waste money then cry when the money runs out.
The only think you seem to know how to do do is attack them with rhetoric. Feel free to prove me wrong by detailing all this spending you claim they're doing.
You know what, saving economy is never a waste of money!
depends on what your buying??? Votes ... weill not so much eh?
Ain't THAT the truth!
How can people shouting things against the evidence flying on their face?!
The debt does not hurt the economy, period!
It's the job cut that hurts the economy.
Well that one takes me by surprise.... Let me see.... when revenues are down due to fewer people paying taxes but spending levels remain the same .... it becomes more difficult to pay the intrest on that debt.. But that does not hurt the economy.... uncertaintiy fuels the private sector to wait a little while longer before expanding... and perhaps they trim a little more to prepare for the worst... you are right that does not hurt the economy.... WOW what have you been drinking?
The Repugs are at it again. They want the people to forget that they almost put the country in another Great Depression. They want the people to give them the car keys so they can put the car back in the ditch. It's not going to happen. The American people have seen the failed Republican experiment with Bush and will never allow Republicans to drive this great country over the cliff ever again.
I bet all these guys against the debt have paid off their mortgages?? No? You should. Otherwise, you are simply a hypocrite.
Gotta love the liberal "apples and oranges" comparisons.
Obama was against increasing the debt limit before he was for it. Will you call him a hypocrite too? Or can he do no wrong?
and ddblah, you're simply an idiot!
If ordinary people pile up too much debt, they have no way of forcing someone to lend them more money. When the US government piles up too much debt, they just arbitrarily decide to soak the grandkids.
Funny you should say that .... I refied into a 15 year and then made extra equity payments .... so yes my house is paid for and yes ..... I am against the debt... Credit is okay when used properly .... but to deliberately carry a debt without paying anything on the principle????? Unthinkble....
Can we say bend over middle class. hes gonna need the higher debt to pay for obamacare.
The Demise of American Continues. Its going to take 100 years to pay off this debt. Thanks Congress/All Elected officals
Another idiotic step by an idiotic president. And before all of you jump all over my comment ... think about this ... we borrow money from China to give aid to other countries. For this you think we should raise the debt ceiling? Puh-leez!
Take away GW spending for two wars and we back to the Clinton surplus. Please remember GW used the surplus and added more.
Take away GW spending for two wars and we back to the Clinton surplus. Please remember GW used the surplus and added more to the debt. Two wars were fought to appease the Carlyle Group, Harliburton and Bush the father ego on the assasination attemp in Kuwait. How quickly we forget.
Here he goes again raising our Deficit. Not a good thing and I pray to God the Reps say NO
Kevin, They have already spent the last 2 years saying no to everything. Maybe they should say yes to ending the Bush tax cuts and spending cuts!
What did they say no to?
My My ... whom do you think will suffer most by ending the tax cuts???? I can almost guarentee it won't be Warren Buffet or Bill Gates.... perhaps it will be you ....
So the democrats say yes to everything that increases spending, borrowing from the chinese for 4 years, now because someone tells them wait, think before you spend their having a hissy. For 4 years the told the other side shut up sit down get to the back of the bus, the decisions of the democrats will drasticly increase taxes for everyone come Jan. 1, 2013, every think why they deferred all the tax increases till after the election.
Yes,let's give this guy more money to spend to union bosses and soro's. The most corrupted president ever.
Wait .... thats a great idea .... go get some of sorros money .. that will certainly help..... of curse he won't be able to fund much of the liberal pablum that gets published today... Oh wait .... that would be a good thing!
I voted for Obama in 2008 but I'm DONE with this guy. Talk about a habitual liar. ANOTHER debt ceiling increase? Are you frickin kidding me? Why don't we CUT SOMETHING like defense and these endless wars ass clown? I hate Mitt Romney and would rather Ron Paul win but ANYONE is looking better than this complete imbecile. What a disgrace.
Mitt is a FAILED, 1-term Governor with 34% approval, despite all the liberal work he did.
Mitt is a POPULIST (not a conservative, liberal, or moderate), and a PHONY at that. proof: "Mitttsant Replay" youtube -or- mittvmitt .com
SPREAD THE INFO
Funny Mitt was republican gov. with a democratic state house and senate, wonder why anything ever got done in Mass.
We're you by chance seduced by pretend Cash and pretend freedom? Do you support Obama, Romney, and pals?
The debt ticker sugar coats reality. Hundreds of economists will tell you that in reality, we are tens and tens of trillions of dollars in debt. Please understand that our debt is more than the money we print out of thin air. Obama has spent 6.5 trillion dollars. That is nearly as much as what was printed between George Washington and Bush Jr. Apparently, you wouldn't know inflation if it bit you in the face.
Maybe you misunderstood, I don't support Bush, etither. The world to me is not right vs left. I look at the individual, and Bush is in the same boat of atrocities as your Dear Leader.
Taxes? The tax code has been molested for decades and is broken. I give no credit to further molestation, even if it seems nice. You can either print money (inflation,) increase taxes (decrease your income,) or borrow money (china.) We have exhausted all of these things. We are relentless in the way that we spend more money than we generate as a whole. This is reckless and an effective attack on you, me, and the world..
Jobs? I fear that even if they were plentiful, people would still have their reservations about working in Obama nation.
Stimulus? You read reports? All they did was feed crisp hot off the press cash to a broken system. More rich people with special interests that are not productive to 99% of Americans got richer. The fundamental forces that currently drive our economy are ruled by greed and special interests. Interests that do not adhere to the constitution. Don't you get it? Bankruptcy isn't sustainable and doesn't really begin to explain the mess we are in.
Do you still believe that evil doers want to come get you? They are mad because our hummers have been parked on their children's playgrounds for more than 20 years. Some hate us because greed and special interests rule our economy and military industrial complex which surrounds them. Ron Paul is the only candidate to put people in the perspective of 1.5 billion peaceful Muslims. We are not some superior race with a god given right to police the world. If we continue to go around with our preventative wars of peace, looking for trouble, we will probably find it.
What about SOPA and NDAA? We are now on the list of countries that have indefinite detentions of their own citizens. The list includes china, north Korea, Myanmar, Cuba, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, and the United States of America.
Ron Paul 2012
do u want to know what MY answer to that is ? my Opinion would be : NO not until you take care of the 15 Trillion first !! do what Clinton done ! how about a SURPLUS, for a change ??
I agree ... but this time lets not use smole and mirrors to get that surplus like Slick did
Which is what skytag and other liberals leave out when they are bragging about clinton leaving a surplus. smoke and mirrors. Skytag is trying the same, he has given himself away in a couple of these postings. I wonder how much he is getting paid for doing this.
BLOW ME, Bonher... You were one of the goons who voted for the Bush/Cheney debt in the first place! YOU'RE the freak who's got to go!
Then senator Obama was a member of the congress that did not fully fund the efforts abroad... Oh wait I said that already.... SO ... here we are .... Bush debt ceiling was 4.97 or so trillion in 8 years ... if this one goes through This POTUS will have almost accomplished that in less than 4.... so ..... what were you saying again???? This is a good example of kicking the can down the road .... but this time one of the kickers is now our glorious leader!
Wrong again Bill. Get your facts straight before posting nonsense.
Mitt is a FAILED, 1-term Governor with 34% approval, even with all the leftist work he did.
Mitt is a POPULIST (not a conservative, liberal, or moderate), and a PHONY at that. proof: "Mittstant Replay" -or- mittvmitt .com
SPREAD THE WORD
"Socialism is ok until you run out of other peoples money" Margaret Thatcher
It seems to me OUTRAGEOUS that the repubs can stand there and scream about spending and how this is all Obama's fault when the FACTS tell a much different story:
The vast, vast, vast contributor to our huge debt is the result of REPUBLICAN policies. When Bush II got into the White House in 2001, the very first thing he did was to start spending. What he spent on was the endless tax cuts for the rich and the two wars of profiteering with sweetheart, no-bid contracts.
He continued the tax cuts and paid for them by BORROWING the money from China. It was a descent into darkness directly caused by the repubs.
Now, when the check has come due, the repubs not only blame Obama for the debt they caused themselves but now want to Welsh on the debt owed by THEM.
Isn't it time we stop blaming the dems for things caused by the repubs? Isn't time we stop believing that everything was GREAT until Janurary 2009?
Stop assigning blame for things you caused repubs. We have had ENOUGH!
been 3 years in office. WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH!!!!!!
That's why we need to get rid of all the incumbents.
Please see my comments to VIC of New York...
As to China ... the government wanted to borrow money and China was one of the investors ... .it is their right. They continue to purchase American debt under our current POTUS... so how is this a problem then and not now?
FDR is truly th author of the national debt .... Keynesian Economics at play here .... the problem was that FDR figured out he could buy votes... every time you get something from our government it probably payed for with barrowesd money.... You will eventially pay the tab....
The republicans have insisted that spending cuts are part of the overall strategy.... but like their democratic counterparts the cuts that they see are not significant enough to make a difference... The democrats on the other hand want revenue increases .... and what is offered by the republicans is not seen as significant enough to make a difference....
In other words .. the politicians currently in office sound just like you do....
This is cery sad.
solex, a nice argument if Obama had not continued all the policies you mention as bad, and in fact doubled down on some of them. For example, from 2009 to 2011 he proposed budgets that increased discretionary spending 22%.
It's like Rev Al says "they got the blueberry pie all over their face".
First thing he got was 9/11 curtesy of Clintons downsizing the intellegance comunity because noone will ever attack the US even after the first WTC bombing. curtesy of the liberals who would rather have bombs drop on american citizens then the ones responsible for the mess and then sit down with them and have tea or a beer sumit whichever comes first.
Why not have an Alternative Minimum Tax for corporations that pay little or no taxes?
President Bush wasn't worried about spending when he had to have his little war in Iraq now was he?
Well that statement sounds just like the rich inthe 40's ..... they used to say that it was Roosevelts war ... as the looked down their noses.... is that what you are doing???
No ceiling increast. He is going to bankrupt this country. We MUST stop this train and start living within our means.
Too late! Your Rethuglican Party already did that!! : )
The only improvement the CSA Constitution made over the USA Constitution was the one-term, six-year Presidency. America would be better off with a President who did his/her best and got out, instead of pandering for re-election, and James K. Polk did more with four years than many could have done with eight.
My fellow Americans. The debt ceiling has to be raised in order to pay off stuff that has already been signed and bought by congress. It has to be raised, or we will default, which is bad for everyone. So please, cool off on the demands for spending cuts because for one thing, that would take money out of the economy. That could upset our fragile economy. If the economy goes into recession again it will only cause even more debt. That could upset our fragile economy. For another reason, it would further damage our nations credit, which would be bad for all of us. So have patience. The economy will become robust and healthy again, and then serious steps can be taken to tackle the debt. But if you all want these huge cuts... Why not take a good luck at defense, medicare, and social security? They're the worst offenders. We have a greatly over sized military that sucks down our money. And social security and medicare need to be greatly reformed. Unless you just hate old people and want them entirely removed.
Remember when Obama campaigned against the deficit spending of Bush? Well – he has added more to the debt in three years than Bush did in eight. This week, the debt exceeded out total economic output. All Obama has are cuts to the military that are less than a tenth of what is necessray to save our economy, and tax increases which total one half of obe day of his daily deficits. VOTE HIM OUT.
Raise the National Debt celing again? Not until the Senate passes the budget or when Pigs Fly. Whicever comes first.
Sure, let's just cut federal spending by about half. The millions of people who lose their jobs won't have a problem with that, and another Great Depression would do us good, right?
For those of you that don't know it ... Skytags comment is an example of fear mongering ... the job creation engine in this country is the private sector, not the goverment. Of course thehousing bubble burst due to bad debt... I wonder what will happen when the government bubbl bursts???
Bill in STL: "For those of you that don't know it ... Skytags comment is an example of fear mongering ... the job creation engine in this country is the private sector, not the goverment."
For those of you who don't know it, the vast majority of government spending goes to buy goods and services from the private sector. Government buys everything it uses — cars, pencils, light bulbs, computers, desks, weapons, bombers, all of it — from the private sector (that would be the private sector you say is the job creation engine in this country). The income of federal employees is used to buy goods and services from the private sector, as does the income provided to military retirees, federal retirees, and Social Security beneficiaries. Medicare and Medicaid, which consume one-third of all federal revenues purchase health care goods and services from the private sector.
To avoid raising the debt ceiling we'd have to cut federal spending nearly in half, and that would mean cutting more than a trillion dollars in spending that currently buys goods and services from the private sector. If the government suddenly starts buying $1.2 trillion less in goods and services the reduction in demand for those goods and services and services will result in significant job losses. You simply can't reduce the demand for goods and services by 8% of GDP without significant job losses.
This is not fear mongering, Billy boy, this is reality, and it's why no credible economist of any political bent is advocating large spending cuts right now.
During the past recession GDP dropped 5.1% and unemployment doubled from 5% to 10.1% at its peak. It was 8.5% in December. Care to predict what it would jump to if we pull 8% of GDP out of the economy in a matter of a few months?
"But in the short run spending cuts take money out of the economy. In a very weak economy, when you say “cut government spending,” what you mean is you’re laying off school teachers and you’re de-funding various programs that put money into the economy. This means you have more unemployed people that then draw unemployment benefits and don’t pay taxes. This creates a cycle with a very pernicious short-term effect.
Lots of people imagine that the effect of engaging in these draconian cuts would just create so much business confidence that it would turn things around. Again, in the long run, that’s probably a reasonable argument. But in the short run, businesses aren't investing because they see very little demand if people are not buying things. When you lay off people you don’t create more demand; you create less demand." — Fareed Zakaria
Pretty soon we will be just like Greece and our children will be stuck with the tab. time to dump the Obummer.
wasn't it Obama back in like 2006 who said to G. Bush that "asking to raise the debt ceiling is a sign of faliure"?
0bama borrows money from our grandchilden in order to buy votes. He does not care whether America will be destroyed by the huge debt that we have. All he wants is to be re-elected. He needs to be fired ASAP.
Idiotic rhetoric from someone who is clearly not capable of discussing this issue intelligently, and encouraged by Henry Miller, yet another clueless drone.
Oh please exhaulted leader of the clueless brigade, help the o so feeble minds out instead of throwing around insults like a child with a dictionary. Explain how 6 trillion dollars is paid off in three years then?
not rhetoric Skytrag ... truth ... our childrens children will still be paying the intrest only on this debt. Just like we are ... unless something changes....
Bill in STL: "not rhetoric Skytrag ... truth ... our childrens children will still be paying the intrest only on this debt. Just like we are ... unless something changes...."
The nonsense about Obama doing this to buy votes is idiotic rhetoric, as is the claim that Obama doesn't care about America.
Look, I was warning people about the debt six and seven years ago, long before it was a popular national pastime, so I'm well aware of the problem, but as I explained in another comment there is simply no way to lower the deficit significantly with spending cuts unless you want to devastate the economy.
The key to getting the deficit under control is to grow the economy, not shrink it with spending cuts. Growing the economy puts people to work. They start paying taxes, which reduces the deficit. They get off unemployment and food stamps and don't need Medicaid to pay for their health care, which lowers spending. Businesses generate increased profits and pay more taxes as a result. All this has a big positive impact on the deficit.
While we do need to cut spending some, the greater need right now is to grow the economy and put people back to work. Once the unemployment rate is down to reasonable levels we can cut spending. It will still put people out of work, but if unemployment is low those people will be able to find new jobs quickly as opposed to being on unemployment and food stamps for a year or more.
Big Government and Higher Taxes = Less Freedom for Everyone. Our kids should not be paying our bills for us.
Remeber that the wars were not " in the budgets" that Bush signed, they were paid for with suplimental spending bills.
When Obama became POTUS he put them "on the books" those and the Bush tax cuts are why Bush had to increase the debt nine times while he was in office. Most of these debts are on Bush's POTUS credit card but, still it is congress
that spends the money not the POTUS.
Youre right the debt ceiling was raised, but not every 3 months and not by TRILLIONS.
Another debt limit increase, why not. After blaming Bush for adding a trillion dollars a year for 8 years raising the national debt to 8 trillion dollars, the Democrats have increased the national debt to over 14 trillion dollars in just three years! That's 2 trillion dollars a year; and this country's debt is going to increase another trillion. The fact that so many sheepish Americans find this acceptable is embarrasing and displays the ignorance of the administration, Congress, and millions of Americans.
As usual with people on the right you are seriously misinformed. The national debt rose from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion on Bush's watch, with $1.44 trillion of that in the last 12 months of his time in office.
Republicans were running $500 billion deficits in the mid-2000s with no recession, low unemployment, and record tax revenues. The recession nearly tripled that due to lost tax revenues and increased spending on programs that benefit the unemployed.
The Democrats are not responsible for our deficit. It is the result of effects of the recession added to a $500 billion Republican deficit. If you disagree feel free to detail exactly what Democrats have done to increase the deficit. If your best argument is that they were there when it happened, save it. That's a well known logical fallacy known as a post hoc argument.
" 'Correlation does not imply causation' ... is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other
correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship. The fallacy is also known as cum_hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this") and false cause."
We still had to finance the two expensive wars and tax give aways started by Bush Jr and Chaney hope you didn't forget these little details.
Like the detail that the democratically controlled congress failed to fund these efforts .. .Oh and was not our current POTUS a member of that cpngress???? Looks like he caught up with that can....
Sorry it is widely known that the debt limit increase under bush 2 is about 4.97 trillion ... so I wonder where the figure 8 comes from ... som dark hole I am sure... Now if this current request passes ... then the current POTUS willl have increased the ceiling by appx 4.57 trillion ... rounding up... that 5 trillion per.... the only problem here is that the current potus has done this in less than 4 years.....
failed leadership...when the solution is borrow borrow borrow.
Failed understanding. Borrowing is not the solution, it's the thing that buys us time until the real solution, economic growth, can take hold.
This deal was cut last year. While we were suppose to talk about cutting spending. Cutting spending to Obama and ALL politicians in Washington is not spending as much as they planned to in the future. That is not cutting spending. It's b.s.
Clinton gave us a balanced budget on a phony, pumped up by Fannie and Freddie, mortgage market that came crashing down in 2008. And look what the guy who was in charge of Fannie and Freddie is getting – that's right, old Barney Fwank and the like are checkin' out multi-millionares and are exempt from, among other things, Obamacare, insider trading, and many other laws they passed on us. The system is broke and not just financially.
Boner set it up this way just to go through the Kabuki of having an excuse to bash the President again and again.
The spending is ALREADY APPROVED – they (the conservitard -hijacked House) will just deny it a total of three times (sound familiar?) while Obama, the adult in the room, shoulders the job of vetoing their premeditated and politcally calculated tantrums so that the USA does the right thing (pays the bills for CONGRESSES' spending).
Base Rethuglicanism at its disgusting best!!!
i think obama bin laden needs to get of his @$$ and get this country back on its feet he is worst pres ever.
As long as this country wants to stay at war, finance trillion dollar war machines, fund places lik Gitmo, grant trillion dollar tax deals to Wall street, and bail out banks etc there will be no hope for America and there might as well be no cap on the federal debt because we will be in hock even more then we are now up to our ying yangs.
Roy, you overlook the biggest spending entitlements that go on year after year after year after year after year....SSN and Medicare/Medicaid. Not to mention the 48% that pay $0 federal taxes. Somewhere along the way the feds got the bright idea to subsidize laziness and poor decision making.
Why do you call it entitlements, people payed into it, expecting to get something in return. Entitlements are moneys received without contributing ANYTHING.
Get your sticky fingers off my wallet, Mr. POTUS. There's a good reason the government has a waste, fraud, and abuse program...governments can't help but waste your money, fraudulently lie to you about how it's being spent, and abuse your patience. It's bad enough I don't get to keep any of the money I work for until sometime in May.
Fanatical crazy talk.
Come on Obama...this is embarrassing. I voted for this guy once but if he keeps this up I'm going to find it very hard to vote for him again.
Why don't they tax the other 50% of Americans who pay no federal income tax? I'm in the 35% bracket and they want to raise my taxes AGAIN.
Don't you people get it? Clinton had it all wrong. That fool thought if he saved money the economy would do better, but LOOK WHERE WE ARE 20 years later! IS IT THAT MUCH BETTER NOW BILL?
Obama 2012! The only hope for America!
It will be great when we can go back to Clinton era tax rates and bring down the debt. Just need to get rid of that TeaTrash in Congress.
so apparently America's debt is now at 15 trillion while its economy is worth 16 trillion, and money is being borrowed at a rate of 120 billion per month....
Stop the madness. You can't get out of debt by going further into debt. Any HS/College student with a checkbook and/or credit card can tell you that. Both parties have put us here and it is time for both parties to get us out. Here are a few places to start
1) Cut pay for all federally elected, appointed, or hired employee's pay to less than $100K. They keep tell us that they work for us so whay are they make so much more than us?
2) Cut the congress, senate, VP, prez etc retirement plan to social security just like the rest of us. Since they work for us, they should have the same retirement plan os us.
3) Cut the freebee haircuts, drycleaning, parking etc for congress, senate, prez etc. We have to pay for these things, how come they don't?
4) Use American social programs for Americans ONLY.
5) Get the federal gov't out of the education system (except for the military academies). These should be handled by in the home, church, local communities, or private institute. College should be handled by the state, church, or private endowment.
6) Get the federal gov't out of the healthcare business (this belongs to individual or state)
7) Stop FEMA. States have National Guards. Plus, if people are rich enough or silly enough to build homes/businesses/communities is areas known to be areas hit by natural disasters, then they are rich enough or silly enough to rebuild themselves WITHOUT gov't assistance.
8) Stop porkbarrel spending and earmarking. Make each and every bill stand on its own merit.
9) Term limits (4 congress, 2 senate, 2 prez)
10) Balanced budget ammendment is needed badly.
These are just a few things to get the ball started. Once they have eliminated all this wastefulness, then and only then, look at raising taxes or cutting programs.
VRage13: "Stop the madness."
Lead by example.
"You can't get out of debt by going further into debt. Any HS/College student with a checkbook and/or credit card can tell you that."
The point of further debt is to get us by until the economy recovers more and puts more people to work. The most important thing we can do now is to put more people to work so they pay taxes and get off government programs like unemployment, food stamps, and Medicaid. If we stop borrowing money we'll have to cut government spending by more than a third and that will devastate the economy, not grow it. The federal government is not a college student. Any college student can tell you that.
"1) Cut pay for all federally elected, appointed, or hired employee's pay to less than $100K. They keep tell us that they work for us so whay are they make so much more than us?"
This is a childish argument. In a sense your doctor works for you. Should he not make more than you either? Would you hire an attorney that makes less than you?
"2) Cut the congress, senate, VP, prez etc retirement plan to social security just like the rest of us. Since they work for us, they should have the same retirement plan os us."
More foolishness. All of them currently participate in Social Security and have since 1984. Furthermore, Social Security is not intended to be anyone's sole source of retirement income, so why should it be for federal employees? Good luck finding a professional whose only retirement program is Social Security. Your ideas don't make any sense.
"3) Cut the freebee haircuts, drycleaning, parking etc for congress, senate, prez etc. We have to pay for these things, how come they don't?"
Who is "we?" Lots of jobs come with perks. You sound ridiculous talking as if the people with the most important jobs in the country should be treated like McDonald's employees.
"5) Get the federal gov't out of the education system (except for the military academies). These should be handled by in the home, church, local communities, or private institute. College should be handled by the state, church, or private endowment."
Federal involvement addresses inequities between states. Without it poor states will be at a disadvantage compared to rich states. Try to remember what the first word is in the name of our country, the United States of America. We're not the Independent States of America.
"6) Get the federal gov't out of the healthcare business (this belongs to individual or state)"
That's your opinion, but there are very good arguments for a government role in health care.
"7) Stop FEMA. States have National Guards. Plus, if people are rich enough or silly enough to build homes/businesses/communities is areas known to be areas hit by natural disasters, then they are rich enough or silly enough to rebuild themselves WITHOUT gov't assistance."
I don't think you understand what FEMA does.
"8) Stop porkbarrel spending and earmarking. Make each and every bill stand on its own merit."
Earmarks don't actually increase spending, they just designate it, and they represent a tiny fraction of federal spending.
"9) Term limits (4 congress, 2 senate, 2 prez)"
Bad idea for Congress. They cause more problems than they solve. Several states have term-limited legislatures and there is no evidence they produce better legislation or more effective government.
And for the record, the Senate and the House of Representatives are both houses of Congress.
"10) Balanced budget ammendment is needed badly."
Another bad idea. Sounds great in theory but in practice it would be riddled with problems. A very simple one is, how do you enforce it given that neither federal spending nor federal revenues can be known precisely in advance? What happens when you get to the last day of the fiscal year and you're $200 billion short because of a recession, ask people on Social Security to send their checks back? Who enforces the Constitution and its amendments? The courts. You want the courts, staffed by non-elected officials, to handle the situation when revenues are insufficient to cover spending?
Very, very few people, families, or businesses manage a balanced budget every year, year after year. There are times when deficit spending is warranted. Deficit spending isn't bad per se, it's deficit spending every year that's a problem.
When is this loser going to understand that he doesn't get to raise the debt ceiling every time he wants to squander our taxpayer money on his corrupt, failed ,agenda. He still has not returned the taxpayer money that he stole from us and give to failed solyndra in return for campaign donations.Loser obama made his money from solyndra ,he did this at taxpayer expense.
When are you people going to learn to think for yourselves instead of parroting a lot of right-wing propaganda? Please detail exactly what would happen if we didn't raise the debt ceiling, if you think you're up to it.
As for Solyndra, it was an investment, one of about 15 in such companies. Not all investments pan out. Even in the private sector venture capitalists invest in companies that fail. It's just part of the deal. Success in not guaranteed, especially in cutting edge industries. You win some and you lose some.
By insisting that everything Obama touch be a resounding success you are setting the bar so high that no one could achieve it but in truth that's the goal, isn't it? You don't look at the evidence and conclude it makes Obama look bad, you start out wanting to make him look bad and then spin everything you can find to do so. At times there is a legitimate argument to be made, but more often than not all you do is expose the bias in your agenda, which destroys any hope of credibility you might have.
If you look at every presidency you will find failures, sometimes pretty large ones. Johnson got us into the Vietnam war. Nixon resigned in disgrace. Reagan had Iran Contra. Bush started a war to keep us safe from WMDs no one ever found, and we now know some of the key intel behind that decision was fabricated by an Iraqi to trick us into taking down Saddam Hussein. It's hard to take you people seriously when you can harp more on something like Solyndra than starting a full-blown war by mistake, for God's sake. It's like obsessing over fly specks when their are cow piles lying right in front of you.
Oh, and as taxpayer expenses go, the war in Iraq will ultimately cost us something like 2,000 times what Solyndra cost us, and no one died from Solyndra.
"Bush's role in the events that led to the recession and hence the mess we have now, which was by and large one of being asleep at the wheel and failing to address any of the problems undermining the foundations of our economy, has not changed in the past three years nor will it ever. It is a matter of history. Deal with it."
The problem with this statement is that it presupposes 2 things that aren't true. The first is that the signs were readily evident. Yet as late as a few months before the housing bubble burst, the Federal Reserve was predicting continued economic growth, and not sounding any alarms. The second mistake is supposing that even with some foreknowledge, something could have been done. You've repeatedly used this 'asleep at the switch' complaint, yet have never once said what could have been done to prevent the housing bubble bursting and the recession. So let's have some specifics of what Bush should have known (which even the Fed didn't) and what he should have done about it. Recessions are a normal part of the business cycle. This one was worse than most. But to somehow think Bush could have avoided it is just wrong.
I guess with all the economists predicting growth in 2008, Bush should have consulted a Gypsy for better info:
The signs were there for people who were willing to seem them. Warren Buffet, for example, called derivatives "financial weapons of mass destruction" in 2003. There were numerous attempts to get the Fed to address predatory lending practices, as early as 1999, but they were ignored. The personal savings rate was at precariously low levels by 2001 and private sector debt was rising to record levels. There were many who saw dangers in the rapid and unjustified rise in the cost of housing during the bubble. There were people sounding alarms, but no one in key positions was taking them seriously.
“You [speaking to Alan Greenspan] had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, chairman of the committee. “Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?”
Were the signs glaring in the early and mid-2000s, as they were by 2007? No, but they were there and they were ignored. Americans were having the time of their lives spending and borrowing and buying and profiting on home sales and no one wanted to put a damper on it.
As for what the Bush administration could have done, we'll never know since they didn't try. Raising interest rates to cool the economy and the housing bubble was one possibility. Reducing federal spending to reduce the deficit would have helped as well. The economy we foolishly thought was strong during the early- and mid-2000s was actually a product of deficit spending, increased private sector debt, lower savings, and a housing bubble. We should have cooled the economy down. Better to have slower growth or even a mild recession than a major crash like we had.
Had we taken some steps to cool the economy the public would have reacted as they always do when the economy slows. They would have saved more, borrowed less, and paid off some of their debts, all of which are in the interest of a healthy economy in the long term.
I also think we should have raised the tax rates on the highest incomes to what they were under Clinton. We should have done more to address illegal immigration and the outsourcing of jobs. There are actually a lot of things we could have at least tried to do but Bush and the Republicans in Congress didn't try to do any of them.
Folks on the right happily give Bush a pass for doing nothing to prevent the mess we're in while relentlessly criticizing Obama for not curing it. Well, as the old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I have to wonder how one can rationally argue that Bush couldn't have come up with an ounce of prevention while bashing Obama for not having a pound of cure. In other words, if Bush couldn't prevent this mess why should I believe Obama had the power to cure it? And if he didn't have that power, why is he constantly attacked for not doing something he didn't have the power to do?
Excellent post Sky
The Fed kept interest rates low, since inflation wasn't a concern and the economy was humming along. Raising interest rates without any inflation would have sparked a recession in itself. Eliminating the tax cuts due to the wars would have been prudent, but would not have stopped the recession. Cutting spending would have raised unemployment and would have by itself also perhaps sparked a recession. Who is to say it would have been any milder, since the housing bubble still would have eventually burst as they always do. It wasn't just the fed who missed it. Most economists did. To go back now and say the signs were there is Monday morning quarterbacking. they were there at the time, and misinterpreted or missed. To blame Bush is, to use one of your favorite terms, intellectually dishonest. There was no magic bullet that would have prevented this.
Also, any recovery we make will not be due to any government action either. The Stimulus provided temporary jobs as long as the money was being spent. it did nothing to address root causes of the recession, nor has anything else Obama has done. I am being consistent. Bush didn't cause it, nor could he prevent it. obama isn't fixing it, because it can't be fixed by government. you defend Obama plenty, but are inconsistent in attacking bush for not preventing the unpreventable.
Oh, and the economy wasn't overheated, so why would it be cooled down. Usually inflation is a sign of the economy starting to overheat. Inflation was low (except for housing costs) up to the point of the housing bubble bursting. Traditionally the Fed doesn't raise interest rates in that situation.
Laissez faire can be very misleading and in fact implies a chattered road unto the unknown. To also propound that govt intervention does not influence any economic vectors is as foolish, folly and archaic as foolishness itself. While I am impressed that you acknowledged the necessity and impact of the stimulus under the given economic economic environment. It is true then it goes along way to demonstrate the importance and need of intervention under those circumstances. The bandwidth of success thereof of the stimulus is correlated to the size of the stimulus. The bigger the stimulus the better the effect then. It is corruption and fraud along the way that often undermines this deliberation. Look at the American Auto Industry today? Isn't that a clear win for the case of a govt intervention? It is no coincidence that Asian countries are now giving the US a run for their money for the simple reason that Asiatic govt. has been aggressively taken into investing/spending into the economy.
It is an open secret that given the writings on the wall Bush failed to put in place mechanism to address the eventuality. That is not to say that those mechanism would have or not worked no,no,no, the idea here is to address and confront the ensuing threat which he totally neglected and that is the point. Unlike Bush, this President has been like no other. His aggressive intervention in affecting regulations to tame the evil in all fronts is well known. Explains the now stable financial markets and unemployment rate of under 30%. To reason otherwise and give the impression that the current improve in the economy is due to chance is preposterous! Unless we invest in our crumbling infrastructure, Education, research and development, "chance" will not do it for us and we will be just good on the road of the dinosaurs!! Money spent in the US is money well spent and better than money spent building Iraq!!
Mike, formerly from Syracuse: "The Fed kept interest rates low, since inflation wasn't a concern and the economy was humming along."
I know what they did. In hindsight it wasn't a very smart move.
"Raising interest rates without any inflation would have sparked a recession in itself."
Perhaps, but not necessarily, depending on how much they were raised. But as I said, a slowing of the economy, even a mild recession, would have been much better than what we ended up with, the worst recession since the Great Depression and more jobs lost than in the previous four recessions combined.
"Eliminating the tax cuts due to the wars would have been prudent, but would not have stopped the recession."
True, but it would have helped reduce the deficit that grew to more than $500 billion by 2005.
"Cutting spending would have raised unemployment and would have by itself also perhaps sparked a recession."
Unemployment never rose above 4.7% in 2006 and was low all through the mid-2000s. Low unemployment rates meant those put out of work by spending cuts would have been able to find new jobs relatively quickly. The problem with cuts now is that with unemployment rates nearly double what they were in 2006 those newly unemployed people will remain unemployed for far longer, not paying taxes, drawing unemployment, with many of them ending up using programs like food stamps and Medicaid, which increase spending.
"Who is to say it would have been any milder, since the housing bubble still would have eventually burst as they always do."
I think you're trying to avoid obvious conclusions. As for the housing bubble, higher interest rates and a cooler economy would have slowed the rise in home prices. Furthermore, I believe action should have been taken to address some of the core problems that led to the subprime mortgage debacle.
"It wasn't just the fed who missed it. Most economists did. To go back now and say the signs were there is Monday morning quarterbacking."
No. There were signs and some people saw them.
"they were there at the time, and misinterpreted or missed. To blame Bush is, to use one of your favorite terms, intellectually dishonest."
Not even remotely. You're welcome to disagree with my beliefs, but there is nothing intellectually dishonest about them.
"There was no magic bullet that would have prevented this."
Nice try. I'm not talking about a magic bullet. I offered specific suggestions and you can't say with any authority that they wouldn't have helped if implemented. In any case, as I said before, if preventing a disaster like this was impossible why should any reasonable person believe it's been within Obama's power to fix it all in two or three years? After all, it's a mess that was decades in the making. It's an enormous double standard to give Bush and his administration a pass for not doing anything to prevent or at least lessen the severity of this mess while endlessly criticizing Obama for not fixing it in less than half the time Bush had to prevent it.
Mike, formerly from Syracuse: "Oh, and the economy wasn't overheated, so why would it be cooled down. Usually inflation is a sign of the economy starting to overheat. Inflation was low (except for housing costs) up to the point of the housing bubble bursting. Traditionally the Fed doesn't raise interest rates in that situation."
The economy was stronger than it should have been. It was being stimulated by increasing private sector debt, increasing public sector debt (deficit spending), and profits from an overheated housing market. In addition, the personal savings rate was at precariously low levels.
The combination of these factors made us completely unprepared for even a modest downturn in the economy because there was no resource available to continue feeding the economy if if there were a problem. The government was in debt, people were in debt, people had little in savings, we were living on the edge just waiting for a disaster to happen.
And none of the first three were sustainable. You can't continue to borrow more and more money to keep stimulating the economy, nor can you expect home prices to rise significantly faster than inflation indefinitely.
You say Bush and the Republicans couldn't have predicted this and hence should be held blameless. The flip side of your position is that Republicans have no better insight into or handle on the economy than anyone else.
Their newfound devotion to fiscal responsibility doesn't impress me given that as recently as five years ago they were regularly spending over $500 billion annually in excess of record revenues and happily raising the debt ceiling without a whimper to do it. For the record it was Barack Obama who spoke out against raising the debt ceiling in 2006 when there was no excuse for it, not with low unemployment and record revenues, for God's sakes. If you can't balance a budget when the economy is thriving just when in the hell *can* you balance it?
Folks on the right love to remind us of what Obama said back then, as if not one of them has noticed the huge differences in economic conditions between 2006 and what we have now. You folks may be taken in by Republican rhetoric and myths, but I am not. There is nothing in the history of the Republican party over the past 10 years that would lead any rational person to believe they are any more qualified to fix our economic problems than anyone else. I realize the true believers on the right are convinced that's the case, but there is no evidence to support their belief.
Republicans have repented of their foolish ways with a vengeance and would have us all believe they're the party of fiscal responsibility we need to save us, but from where I sit they're just feeding us a fantasy.
What they really are is a party that sees our current economic situation as an opportunity to push their ideological agenda on our society. Cut funding for Planned Parenthood, to save money, of course. Cut funding for education. Cut funding for Medicaid. Cut Medicare spending. Basically cut any funding that only impacts the poor and the middle class. When Republican Senator Tom Coburn said we shouldn't give a deduction for loan interest on luxury yachts and second homes he was attack by these fanatics on the right.
Mike, formerly from Syracuse: "Also, any recovery we make will not be due to any government action either."
You saying is not enough to make it true. Government has a profound impact on our economy in a wide variety of ways.
Our economic prosperity has been the product of a free market effectively regulated and supported by government. Government provides the infrastructure needed to move goods to market. It protects intellectual property so people have an incentive to create and innovate. It regulates business to ensure competition by preventing monopolies and unfair business practices. It offers consumers the confidence that the goods and services they purchase are safe and effective and protects them from fraudulent and unethical business practices. We can export goods and services because government protects our rights in other countries and negotiates trade agreements. Public schools and universities provide a steady supply of educated workers for businesses to hire. It funds research that often leads to commercial products.
In ways almost too numerous to list government provides what businesses need to prosper. That's not to say that government can't make mistakes and do things that hurt businesses, but the suggestion that government has no role in the economy and the notion that less government is always better are fantasies with no connection to reality. Government is essential for businesses to prosper, and if you don't believe it try starting a business in Somalia.
Obama believes government can play a role in economic growth by fostering education, research, improved infrastructure, and crafting trade agreements to expand markets for American businesses. I think that makes sense.
"The Stimulus provided temporary jobs as long as the money was being spent. it did nothing to address root causes of the recession"
This is hardly a comprehensive or objective assessment of the effects of the stimulus. There are many who believe it was helpful on a number of fronts and there is evidence to support that. Even temporary employment to help get more people by until the economy recovered some could be considered helpful. At least those people were off unemployment and food stamps and paying taxes while they worked.
"Thanks to a combination of federal and state incentives for private companies, Michigan is suddenly emerging as a major center of production for advanced batteries — the big ones that can power electric cars.
There are now 16 battery companies building factories in the state. Last month, Ford Motor Co. announced it would spend $135 million to retool a pair of plants to assemble battery packs and build electric drive transaxles.
Nearly half of Ford's investment is being underwritten by the federal government. All told, Michigan has attracted $6 billion in investment over the past 18 months geared toward battery-powered vehicle production.
Last year's federal stimulus package included 30 percent tax credits for clean-energy manufacturing facilities, as part of an effort not only to promote economic growth but to also address climate change. In August, Biden traveled to Michigan to announce that $1.3 billion in Energy Department grants for battery development and manufacturing — more than half the funds available under the stimulus law during its two-year lifespan — would be spent in the state. The plant in Midland he'll be visiting Monday received a federal grant worth $161 million."
"nor has anything else Obama has done."
So you claim. What have Republicans done to address the root causes of the recession, constantly tell us how lousy the economy will be until we elect a Republican president to save us?
"I am being consistent."
But that doesn't mean you're right.
"Bush didn't cause it, nor could he prevent it. obama isn't fixing it, because it can't be fixed by government. you defend Obama plenty, but are inconsistent in attacking bush for not preventing the unpreventable."
There is nothing inconsistent in my positions. If you look at my comments what you will find I do most is expose the fallacies in the attacks on Obama. I don't have a problem when people articulate legitimate criticisms, but 99% of the attacks I read are based on misinformation, cherry picked facts with no analysis, and logical fallacies. It's not my fault most people can't recognize a logical fallacy when they use one or that the majority seem to be woefully uninformed and frequently misinformed. Why attack me for pointing these things out?
Look at all the nasty comments about Obama because he requested an increase in the debt ceiling, when any rational person knows he has no choice. Not raising it would require cutting federal spending by nearly half, which would be devastating to the economy. Why attack him for doing what must be done just because you aren't happy about it? That seems childish to me. Obama didn't cause this situation and you know it, and you've just admitted there is little he could have done about it.
Mike, formerly from Syracuse: "The Stimulus provided temporary jobs as long as the money was being spent. it did nothing to address root causes of the recession"
Skytag, you can's say with authority that your suggestions would have helped either. Each has a potential to do harm and spur the very recession they would try to avoid. Also, as you say, the problems were decades in the making. Assuming that Bush had listened to one of the small minority of 'sky-is-falling' economists; any action would have been hard to politically implement and perhaps have caused what he wanted to avoid. In fact an attempt to tighten up on Fannie and Freddie Mac prior to the crash was rabidly opposed by Democrats led by Barney Frank, who claimed everything was just fine.
Mike, formerly from Syracuse: "Skytag, you can's say with authority that your suggestions would have helped either."
And you can't say with authority that they wouldn't have. I am entitled to my opinion, which I can at least support with a rational argument.
"Each has a potential to do harm and spur the very recession they would try to avoid."
I disagree. I believe any recession resulting from the actions I mention would be mild in comparison to what we ultimately experienced.
"Also, as you say, the problems were decades in the making. Assuming that Bush had listened to one of the small minority of 'sky-is-falling' economists; any action would have been hard to politically implement"
I agree it would have been politically difficult. So what? I'm supposed to give him a pass because he didn't try to do something that would have been politically difficult?
"and perhaps have caused what he wanted to avoid."
See above. The earlier we would have addressed the problems the less severe the downsides would have been. For example, the housing bubble might have peaked sooner and at lower levels, causing home prices to decline by 20% instead of 30% in a given market. For a lot of people that would have meant the difference between owing less on their homes than they were worth and owing more than they were worth.
I'm not saying we could have completely avoided any problems. That's unlikely, but I think it very possible that by intervening we could have lessened the severity of their effects.
"In fact an attempt to tighten up on Fannie and Freddie Mac prior to the crash was rabidly opposed by Democrats led by Barney Frank, who claimed everything was just fine."
You folks need to give the Barney Frank thing a rest. I hear this a lot but based on what I've read what Bush tried to do with Fannie and Freddie would have had little impact on the problems that led to the subprime mortgage debacle. Trillions of dollars were invested in MBSs by private investors, institutional investors, foreign investors, none of which had any connection to Fannie or Freddie.
In any case, it sounds to me as if you're just making excuses for Bush. If it were Obama you'd be saying he was a weak leader and attacking him relentlessly for not addressing the problems. When we're talking about Bush all I hear is about how those mean Democrats wouldn't let him do anything. The double standard is palpable, but that's typical. Deficit spending under Republican presidents is blamed on Congress, but deficit spending under Obama is blamed on Obama. Bush made 77 trips to Crawford but Obama's critics can't stop bringing up him taking a few vacations.
How many times have I pointed out that Republicans were running $500 billion deficits in the mid-2000s with low unemployment and record revenues and not one Obama critic has the integrity to be critical of that? Not one!
At the core of my argument is the belief that prevention is easier than cure. If you're going to give Bush a pass for not preventing the problems then why shouldn't Obama get a pass for failing to cure them?
More importantly, given the Republican record on the economy and the deficit, by what rationale should I trust them to fix any of our problems? They supported NAFTA, a Bush Sr. initiative. They authored and supported the repeal of Glass-Steagal. They gave us $500 billion deficits at a time when the economy was strong and tax revenues were at record highs. A Republican president led us into an unjustified war and Republicans in Congress failed to enact a tax to pay for either the war in Afghanistan or the war in Iraq. According to you they had no better instincts about the coming recession than anyone else. They couldn't do anything to prevent the mess we're in right now.
So do tell, Mike, just why should I believe Republicans are poised to be our economic saviors? Because they share your ideology? Sorry, not good enough.
Mike, formerly from Syracuse: "I guess with all the economists predicting growth in 2008, Bush should have consulted a Gypsy for better info"
Thanks for the reference. I don't have time to read it all now but I will.
For now I'll point out that Obama goes on the best estimates of economists too. Would you mind explaining why Bush gets a pass when he relies on faulty estimates but Obama is excoriated when he relies on faulty estimates? How many times have I seen people on the right attack Obama because he said without the stimulus unemployment would hit or exceed 8%? When the estimates Obama gets are off he's crucified by the very same people who give George Bush a pass regardless of how bad the consequences of his mistakes. Why is that?
Don't bother trying to rationalize the glaring double standard. Obama's critics have been brainwashed listening to fairytales in which Obama is cast as the villain to the point all they know how to do is hate and attack him. It doesn't even matter to them if their attacks are fair, reasonable, or valid. All that matters is the attack.
Bush the Republican could do no wrong. Obama the Democrat can do no right. It's a simple rule for simple-minded, uninformed people.
So the flip side could easily be brought up. how many on the left accuse Bush of destroying the country and leaving the mess for Obama? You may think signs were there, but in fact as the links I've provided show, most economists had no clue. Sure, there will always be some who when they say the sky is falling may actually hit a time when the sky is falling. But no one seems to be around fact checking them all the times they are wrong. You blame the right for blaming Obama for not being able to fix the problems, and for listening to economists yet want to blame Bush for doing the same thing. You accuse the right of a double standard, yet apply one yourself. Either both Bush and Obama have the power to fix it or they don't. Which is it?
Mike, formerly from Syracuse: "So the flip side could easily be brought up. how many on the left accuse Bush of destroying the country and leaving the mess for Obama?"
How is this the flip side? It just looks like you're trying to change the subject to avoid answering my question.
"You may think signs were there, but in fact as the links I've provided show, most economists had no clue. Sure, there will always be some who when they say the sky is falling may actually hit a time when the sky is falling. But no one seems to be around fact checking them all the times they are wrong."
"You blame the right for blaming Obama for not being able to fix the problems, and for listening to economists yet want to blame Bush for doing the same thing."
Preventing and fixing are not the same thing, not by a long shot. The latter is almost always far more difficult than the former. Surely you know that to be true.
Look, we both know Obama spoke out against the deficit and raising the debt ceiling in 2006 when there was no justification for spending $500 billion more than the record revenues we were taking in. I hadn't even heard of Obama back then and I thought it was nuts too. Why don't you address this reality of history all you folks are so determined to ignore? What's your excuse for Bush and Republicans in Congress not trying to curb government spending in the mid-2000s when there was no recession, unemployment was low, and tax revenues were at record levels? Obama was on the right side of that issue and Republicans were on the wrong side, but not one of you has the integrity to admit it. Instead you try to use a quote from 2006 to condemn him in 2012. What a bunch of weasels.
Ditto for the war in Iraq. Obama thought it was a bad idea and Bush led us into it. These are historical realities you folks want everyone to forget, but I'm not willing to forget just to embrace your faith in Republicans to be our saviors.
"You accuse the right of a double standard, yet apply one yourself. Either both Bush and Obama have the power to fix it or they don't. Which is it?"
Sorry, but I don't accept your premise. Preventing, or at least lessening the impact of an economic disaster would have been far easier than fixing the aftermath of one. For example, measures to address the housing bubble could have lessened the consequences of it by causing it to inflate more slowly or peak sooner. Balancing the budget in the mid-2000s would have seen us entering the recession with a balanced budget and at least a trillion dollars less debt. Then we'd have been looking at maybe $1trillion deficits as a result of the recession, not $1.5 trillion.
Finally, I note that you don't deny the fact that you embrace a double standard, you just try to claim that I have one too. I'll take that as a tacit admission that you embrace a double standard, but feel only you should be allowed to do that.
Mike, formerly from Syracuse: "I am being consistent."
I'd like to see you admit that there was little Bush could do to prevent it. That would be honest.
There's only one candidate who is talking about cutting real spending. He's been labled "dangerous." $1 Trillion in budget cuts in his first year! Ron Paul 2012
$1 trillion in cuts means pulling almost 7% of GDP out of the economy. During this last recession GDP dropped 5.1% and unemployment doubled from 5% to 10.1%. Ron Paul is suggesting an even bigger drop in GDP.
Thanks for reminding us of just how dangerous Ron Paul's ideas are.
I don't think anybody understands what is going on, to be perfectly honest. Unless you want to do away with the current money we have now (ie : the dollar bill ) and go with another type of paper money -or another type of monetary system. ( maybe we can start with "monopoly" money) WE ARE SUNK, FOLKS ! period. None of those GOP clowns that were on that stage ( other than Ron Paul) wants to cut down the Debt – NONE of them ! They talk like they can reduce a trillion or two, in 10 or 12 or 15 yrs. That is NOT going to Cut it, period. By the time the next POTUS is elected, and by the time they are into their 3rd yr in office, the debt will be from 15 Trillion, to 17 Trillion. So, IF he's on the ticket in November, (otherwise Obama 2012)
RON PAUL 2012
Obama :-( 2012
We need to keep spreading the message and hope the sheep wake up!
Instead of playing the blame game, how about they focus on the problem and balance the budget? Is it so hard to accept that the government should actually pay for what it spends instead of financing it through debt and printing money therefore reducing the value of the money you earn and save? Whether its a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, whoever, they should balance the freakin budget.
It's easy to chant "balance the budget." In practice it isn't that simple. In practice you have to deal with a large interconnected web of cause and effect in the economy. The best way to lower the deficit is to grow the economy so we can put more people to work, paying taxes, and getting off government programs. Spending cuts will shrink the economy and put lots of people out of work, the exact opposite of what we need.
Must. Spend. More. Money.
Obama never brought his game to Washington because he never had one. When he was lected it was the first time in American history that America elected a President with absolutely no experience. When asked on his campaign trail what experience he had Obama said " Well running this campaign" He is still a third year apprentice reading a teleprompter. Not what we needed in a time of economic distress. Played more golf and goofed off more than any other president, lavished himself with disgusting opulance and then talks about how much Americans should detest the wealthy. Just a complete conceited left wing extremist/ hypocrite.
What a bunch of nonsense. Look, Bush had six years experience as governor of Texas, had experience as a business owner. had an MBA, and how did that turn out?
Instead of discussing his policies and what he advocates all you have are some lame attempts to disparage him personally.
I swear to god this man is intentionally trying to drown us in debt, intentionally trying to sink our economy in an ocean of debt, intentionally trying to destroy America. I'm seriously beginning to consider the notion that Obama, Barak Hussein, is the Arab world's very clever solution to American imperialism.
brian mchugh: "I swear to god this man is intentionally trying to drown us in debt, intentionally trying to sink our economy in an ocean of debt, intentionally trying to destroy America. I'm seriously beginning to consider the notion that Obama, Barak Hussein, is the Arab world's very clever solution to American imperialism."
We both know you can't begin to attribute the deficit to Obama by detailing what he's spending, because even an idiot should know that Congress controls spending, not the President. How can people be this stupid?
The bulk of the current deficit is attributable to lower revenues because of the economy and high unemployment, combined with higher spending on programs that help the unemployed — unemployment insurance, food stamps, Medicaid, and so on. There are other components of the deficit, such as the $500 billion deficits we ran under Republicans in the mid-2000s and which spending continued after the recession hit, as well as the usual factors that increase government spending over time such as inflation, general population growth, and the growing number of elderly using programs like Medicaid and Medicare.
The upshot of all this is the following:
– Obama is not responsible for the current deficit. In fact, the national debt grew by $1.44 trillion in the last 12 months of Bush's presidency, less than the $1.2 trillion it grew in the past 12 months under Obama.
– A large deficit is unavoidable until the economy recovers and more people go back to work. Trying to cut the deficit significantly now with spending cuts would throw several million people out of work and plunge us into a severe recession. How can so many people not realize that the vast majority of federal spending either directly or indirectly goes to buy goods and services from the private sector economy? Cut that spending out of the economy and you reduce demand for goods and services, and that means putting millions out of work. I don't like it either, but that's reality.
There's no question but that we have a serious problem here, but you brainwashed fools need to get a clue and realize Obama didn't cause and he most certainly has no desire to worsen it or hurt the country. You've been brainwashed to believe that, and your ignorance about these issues has made you easy prey for those who have fed you the nonsense you believe.
Please stop listening to Rush Limbaugh or whoever is filling your head with nonsense and spend some time studying issues and thinking for yourself. Your country deserves that. Your country needs that.
You do realize that you make the case that President Obama is not responsible for the deficit because Congress is responsible for the budget and spending and then go off the rails and blame the financial mess we're in on the Bush Administration...?
Nothing like talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time...
J R Brown: "You do realize that you make the case that President Obama is not responsible for the deficit because Congress is responsible for the budget and spending and then go off the rails and blame the financial mess we're in on the Bush Administration...?"
There is no inconsistency here. I said Congress controls spending, not the president, which is true. So all this talk about Obama spending simply has no factual basis.
That said, at this point Congress can't really cut spending significantly because doing so would put millions of people out of work. Remember, government spending buys goods and services from the private sector. Spending cuts = reduced demand for goods and services = job losses. And while this is always true, the point is that the negative effects of job losses are far worse when unemployment is high than when it's low, as it was in the mid-2000s. When it's low those people can just find new jobs. When it's high they'll draw unemployment and pay no taxes for months on end.
Back in the mid-2000s there was no good reason to be spending $500 billion more annually than we were taking in, not with record revenues and low unemployment. Indeed, when you have record revenues you don't have a revenue problem.
We should have been cutting spending then, but Republicans didn't, they just raised the debt ceiling. Here we are four years later and revenues still haven't rebounded to 2007 levels and unemployment is still nearly four percentage points higher than it was in 2006. So while cutting spending was a viable option in the mid-2000s, today it really isn't.
The primary blame I lay on the Bush administration is for not doing anything to address the problems that were eating away and the foundations of the economy. I firmly believe it would have been far easier to prevent or at least lessen the effects of this mess had the proper measures been taken than it is to fix this mess after it's already been made. That's pretty much how it always is with messes, much easier to prevent than to clean up.
"Nothing like talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time..."
I'll have to take your word for it, as I'm not doing that.
The Pickpocket-in-Chief and his chums are baaaaack! America, hold on to your wallets. This moron of a president and his clueless supporters think that the way to solve America's economic and other problems is to throw money at them.
So far it has not worked; and it will NOT work. Maybe if the Permanent Campaigner-in-Chief paid as much attention to being reelected as he does to the problems affecting America; we could see some improvements down the road. He also needs to stop the blame game and take full responsibility for HIS administration's actions.
I will not hold my breath, though. America, do we need another four years of this false Hope & Change and false Transparency? I would think NOT!!!
ANOTHER debt increase?! And the Dems don't believe we have a "spending problem".....give me a break. Get this Administration out of Washington ASAP.
The alternative is to cut about half of all government spending virtually overnight, which would devastate the economy and throw several million people out of work. Anyone who doesn't understand this obvious reality shouldn't embarrass himself by making comments such as yours.
Here comes Mr. Hope & Change the Affirmative Action project failure
Says yet another troll who can't begin to discuss this issue intelligently.
No increase...let's bankrupt the fed govt! Then they can't fund anything and we can be FREE!!! No more tyranny :)
Someone please explain to me the point of making a law that Congress gets to vote its disapproval of the increase but the President can just veto their disapproval anyway...
sounds like we have some really stup!d people negotiating here....
Republicans know full well that not raising the debt ceiling would be a disaster, but for political reasons they want the option to say they opposed it, and just in case the Tea Party caucus tries to block it the president can do what needs to be done.
It's purely political. Not raising the debt ceiling would require cutting federal spending by nearly half virtually overnight, which would put several million more people out of work and plunge us into a severe recession. I would, quite literally, be an economic disaster and deep down Republicans, at least the ones who have a clue how all this works, understand this.
Now Skytag seems like a good fellow folks but I think he has been up in the thin air too long. The Huge National Debt will have to be paid sometime somewhere. Today the bill is more unemployment and ever higher food prices among others. The problem is real and borrownng more money iwill not fix the problem. If you are out of a job you know what i mean. Obama doesn't have a clue of the real problem. The people do. It would be nice if we could all get rich doing nothing. It doesn't work that way. Happy landings!
Ray E. (Georgia): You're wasting your time. I've been discussing politics online for years and I'm well accustomed to people such as yourself who belittle me because you don't like what I'm saying but you can't refute it. All you have is a string of sound bites. Raising the debt ceiling is simply unavoidable at this point unless you want to devastate the economy.
our dolllar is worth nothing, its the spending stupid......
Do you even read what you post? You sit there whining about people belittling you when all you are doing is throwing insults around and stepping on them like they are a doormate. Honestly the majority of your posts are just blaming the Bush administration for the debt. Instead of just running around pointing fingers and insulting people about how they didn't receive a proper education like yourself, how about you actually develop a constructive comment.
So tell me Skytag. After 75 years of Big Left Wing Liberal Social Programs why are we in the mess we are in? Everything should be fixed by now. So Wha Hoppen?
the probleme is not in raising the debt ceiling, this has been done many times during both conservative and liberal administrations, the problem is that govt doesn't want to cut back spending. Govt doesn't create jobs, they take in money and redistrube the wealth of others. The govt is responsible for seeing that we have an enviornment that is conducive to the private sector creating wealth.
Seriously???: "Do you even read what you post?:"
"You sit there whining about people belittling you"
No whining, just observing.
"when all you are doing is throwing insults around and stepping on them like they are a doormate."
This is, of course, a bald-faced lie. In point of fact anyone can read over my comments and see I articulate more arguments to support my positions and back them with more data and facts than everyone else combined. Save your fairytales for your children. And yet the only responses I get to historical facts and logical arguments are baseless personal attacks like this. zzzzzz
"Honestly the majority of your posts are just blaming the Bush administration for the debt."
Another lie. It's true I've pointed out a number of historical facts about our debt and deficit during that time period Obama's critics would rather people not know, but I haven't blamed the Bush administration for the debt.
"Instead of just running around pointing fingers and insulting people about how they didn't receive a proper education like yourself, how about you actually develop a constructive comment."
Oh, like this one of yours?
Ray E. (Georgia): "So tell me Skytag. After 75 years of Big Left Wing Liberal Social Programs why are we in the mess we are in? Everything should be fixed by now. So Wha Hoppen?"
Is this your idea of an intelligent analysis of the problems? Really?
Suppose I pose similar questions to you:
After decades of historically low taxes on the wealthy why are we in the mess we are in? Everyone should be employed by now. Wha happened?
The subprime mortgage debacle was the product of irresponsible and unethical practices at all levels of the private mortgage industry. Lenders retaining no risk in the loans they made, concealing the risks to investors by bundling bad mortgages into mortgage-backed securities, getting rating agencies to give securities backed by toxic mortgages AAA ratings, appraisers inflating appraisals, loans made to people who were clearly not qualified for them. The free market is suppose to fix everything. Wha happened?
Republicans are supposed to be fiscally conservative, yet they didn't raise taxes when we took on added spending to fight one and then two wars. Wha happened?
Republicans are supposed to be fiscally conservative, but they took a balanced budget in 2001 and turned it into deficits exceeding $500 billion annually in 2005-2007, a period of low unemployment and record tax revenues. Wha happened?
Republicans tell us malpractice reform will lower health care spending. Texas implemented tort reform measures in 2003 and more in 2005. Not only did health care spending not go down, today Texas has the highest percentage of people without health insurance in the country. Wha happened?
Get back to me when you think you're ready to discuss an issue intelligently. Babbling about left-wing liberal blah, blah, blah doesn't interest me.
Too bad individuals can't go so far in debt with no intention of ever paying it back.
HELL NO... How many time have you raised the ceiling Mr. President? TOO MANY Times! Put on your big boy pants and actually create a budget that works. Us citizens have to do that and be accountable its due time that our government does the same.
The federal budget is not a personal budget, and the debt ceiling has been raising many, many times before Obama took office. Unless you're prepare to offer an analysis of the effects on the economy of not raising the debt ceiling you shouldn't be attacking him for doing what clearly needs to be done.
obama and his wife is killing this country, and the dems are too stupid to see this,im a dem. and we need to get the obamas out of office.how can anyone follow this dictator.
What a load of nonsense. Who feeds you this tripe?
They heard it first on Faux News
During the 2008 campaign, Czar Obama said, "The first thing you do when you're in a hole is what? ... You stop digging. So the first thing that we're going to have to do is to stop adding to our deficit.” Three years later, Czar Obama and tax-spend big-government politicians are driving the U.S. bus closer to the same cliff that Greece and Italy plunged over. During the 35 full months of Czar Obama's reign, the national debt increased by $4.59 trillion to $15.22 trillion, at an annual rate of $1.57 trillion. The increase in the last 12 months was $1.20 trillion. http://www.newsandopinions.net
Do you think that even if a replublican wins the White House we are going to suddenly stop paying our bills? There will be continued increases in the debt ceiling becuase there has to be. It does not matter who is in the WH. You people stuck on the left and the right need to pull you head out of your....assets. The FED is a well disguised Payday Loan company...and the only person who is telling you truth about it is Ron Paul. Andrew Jackson refused to renew the charter on the 2nd central bank way back when....know what happened? We paid off the national debt. (The last time USA was debt free.)
Harding/Coolidge also paid off 1/3 of the debt while lowering taxes, slashing govt and easing regulations. They inherited almost 20% unemployment and high inflation. It CAN be done if somebody has the guts to do it but I don't think anyone does.
We'd recently emerged from WWI, the top tax rate was 77%, and the economy was much more labor driven. Much has changed in the past 80 years. It's not enough to simply say it worked then so we should do it again now.
Lets see if the House GOP/TP can cause another downgrade of Americas credit rating. Remember the House GOP/TP and GOP/TP candidates saying last summer "Let American Default on its debts"
One of the most common sense observations I saw about the downgrade is that when a bunch of people, both citizens and elected representatives, approach defaulting on obligations with a "fine by me" attitude it doesn't inspire confidence in people judging your creditworthiness.
Its always the GOP fault it never obama fault....
The House GOP/TP said "Let America debault on its debts" Remember?
trumantiger: "Its always the GOP fault it never obama fault..."
For the record, nothing in Standard and Poor's explanation for why they lowered our credit rating assigns any blame to Obama, but it does specifically mention two things directly attributable to congressional Republicans:
And here we are again, with the clueless still claiming we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling. *sigh*
really............this is shocking........
I guess the Defense budet, millitary , education, welfare, social security and everything will have to be closed down to keep the top 1% to never ever ever pay taxes. I find it so interesting that all of congress are millionaires and presidents running for election. It's good to have coverage of their own taxation program taking care of from the top.
This congress needs to be replaced and put in term limits to two terms to stop the career politicans who work for self profit.
The other thing that would aide this country would be to disolve the party system and make them congressional members of their state only as this dual party splitation is killing the USA.
I like my president he the best we ever had
I can't believe we're having this argument again. A debt limit increase isn't 'more spending', it's paying off current commitments. To not increase is to default and downgrade our credit. And if we remember the last round, to argue this emphatically and endlessly will also downgrade our credit. If anything we should just eliminate the debt ceiling.
As I understand it there is only one other country in the world that has a debt ceiling and they set it so high it's never an issue. Indeed, we would be much better off with one less thing on the political front to bicker about.
Too little, too late Barry. You should of thought of cost cutting the day you won the nomination. Sad thing is that "Barry" is just a cardboard cut-out of a president. There's nothing there. He personally has no power (the elite in the shadows tell him what to do) and his administration knows congress is not going to do ANYTHING for him because they want him out. The hope is that, when congress tells him to go fly a kite, Barry can use that against Repubs for re-election. Congress is not exactly performing well either but we all know this proposal of consolidation won't get passed for Cardboard Barry.
Right-wing troll talk. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
The Bush-era tax cuts expire at the end of this year, before the end of the President's term. Bye bye!
Oh wait... the Congress could pass tax reform that passes in both houses and is signed into law by the President before then–we're saved! ... lol that was a good one, right?
I can't believe we're having this argument again. A debt limit increase isn't 'more spending', it's paying off current commitments. To not increase is to default and downgrade our credit. And if we remember the last round, to argue this emphatically and endlessly will also downgrade our credit. If anything we should just eliminate the debt ceiling.
For those uneducated hateful liberals who think Obama is our savior and continue to blame Bush for our current financial crisis please read the following. I know it may be difficult for you to understand but read it anyway.
It was Clinton who killed the Glass-Steagall, and it happened under a Democratic president. Barney Frank and his committee, they, they kept propping up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac saying everything's fine, everything's fine, everything's good. And it was his job to know everything wasn't fine. And Barney Frank let you down and let us down as well. And so, but I want to say there's blame to go both ways. But I will say, I want to, I maybe keep beating this to death, but I still think anyone in this Congress who voted to add $140 billion to that bill, they should be ashamed of themselves. That is a disgrace. It's a disgrace. This Congress is a disgrace, Democrat and Republican.
The Financial Modernization Act is better known under the names of its authors Gramm-Leach-Bliley - which, amongst other things:
• Repeal[ed] the restrictions on banks affiliating with securities firms contained in sections 20 and 32 of the Glass-Steagall Act.
• Create[d] a new "financial holding company" under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act. Such holding company can engage in a statutorily provided list of financial activities, including insurance and securities underwriting and agency activities, merchant banking and insurance company portfolio investment activities. Activities that are "complementary" to financial activities also are authorized. The nonfinancial activities of firms predominantly engaged in financial activities (at least 85% financial) are grandfathered for at least 10 years, with a possibility for a five year extension.
For those unfamiliar, the Glass-Steagall Act was the 1933 legislation separating the functions of banks, brokerage firms, and insurance companies designed to prevent another crash like what occurred in 1929. Congress has been whittling away at these restrictions since 1980, and finally removed the last vestiges with Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 1999.
Readers are advised that this bill passed by a vote of 362-57 in the House, and 90-8 in the Senate. As such, it passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.
Maybe more important, as it was signed into law on November 12, 1999, despite all the blame disgraceful Democrats and media members have been assigning President Bush during this financial crisis, he had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the legislation that allowed financial institutions to engage in the activities that have led to and caused the current banking and lending meltdown. Clinton and congress are responsible for subprime lending.
Dean: "For those uneducated hateful liberals who think Obama is our savior and continue to blame Bush for our current financial crisis please read the following. I know it may be difficult for you to understand but read it anyway."
Comments that lead off with an attack on liberals are guaranteed to contain flawed arguments, and yours is no exception. I would urge you resist the temptation to indulge your irrational hatred liberals with such comments. They only undermine your credibility.
"It was Clinton who killed the Glass-Steagall, and it happened under a Democratic president."
Glass-Steagall was repealed by the Gramm-Bliley-Leach Act, also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. Gramm, Bliley, and Leach were all Republicans. By what logic can you claim Clinton killed something when the legislation that killed it was produced by Republicans?
"Barney Frank and his committee, they, they kept propping up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac saying everything's fine, everything's fine, everything's good. And it was his job to know everything wasn't fine. And Barney Frank let you down and let us down as well. And so, but I want to say there's blame to go both ways."
The problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were caused by the same things that caused even bigger problems in the private mortgage sector. They were not the cause of the subprime mortgage debacle, the private mortgage industry was. The right loves to try to blame Barney Frank for the problems but the facts of the situation simply don't support that assessment.
"The Financial Modernization Act is better known under the names of its authors Gramm-Leach-Bliley – which, amongst other things:"
Its authors were all Republicans. Funny you failed to mention that.
"For those unfamiliar, the Glass-Steagall Act was the 1933 legislation separating the functions of banks, brokerage firms, and insurance companies designed to prevent another crash like what occurred in 1929. Congress has been whittling away at these restrictions since 1980, and finally removed the last vestiges with Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 1999."
I think it's widely recognized that repealing Glass-Steagall was a mistake that contributed significantly to the subprime mortgage debacle.
"Readers are advised that this bill passed by a vote of 362-57 in the House, and 90-8 in the Senate. As such, it passed with overwhelming bipartisan support."
Yep, so let's not try to pin it on Clinton, okay? After all, realistically he couldn't have been expected to veto legislation passed with bipartisan support and those kinds of voting percentages, which were far in excess of what would be needed to override a presidential veto. The claim that Clinton killed Glass-Steagall is nothing more than dishonest spin. Congress killed it, led by Republicans.
"Maybe more important, as it was signed into law on November 12, 1999, despite all the blame disgraceful Democrats and media members have been assigning President Bush during this financial crisis, he had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the legislation that allowed financial institutions to engage in the activities that have led to and caused the current banking and lending meltdown."
True, but he was president during the time the effects of this mistake were being manifested and failed to address them, as did Congress during that time. That's why I say Bush's role was failing to act to address any of the problems that were undermining the foundations of our economy and ultimately led to the mess we're in today.
"Clinton and congress are responsible for subprime lending."
Uh, no. The private mortgage industry is responsible for subprime lending. They invented every component of it, pursued it with a vengeance because it was so profitable, to the point of engaging in irresponsible and unethical practices to grow that segment of their industry. Don't mistake failing to prevent with causing.
By the way, the law that allowed lenders to make adjustable rate mortgages, a common form of subprime mortgage, was the Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act, enacted in 1982 and signed by Ronald Reagan, also with broad bipartisan support.
For the record, subprime mortgages are not a problem if handled responsibly. In particular, it is essential that all participants be fully aware of the risks involved. By bundling these high risk mortgages in with lower risk mortgages to sell them in the form of mortgage-backed securities and having those MBSs given AAA ratings the risks involved were hidden from the investors who bought them, both private and public, foreign and domestic.
This in a nutshell is what caused the problem. Investors were paying top dollar to gobble up what they thought were very secure, triple-A rated securities with high returns. Private investors, pension funds, foreign investors, banks, even Fannie and Freddie after a time, trillions of dollars worth of them. When the truth finally came out the damage was already done.
For the record, the subprime mortgage debacle was not the only thing undermining the health of our economy. Increasing public sector debt, increasing private sector debt, precariously low personal savings rates all contributed to created a fragile economy that would be unable to handle even the slightest downturn without a problem. The outsourcing of jobs for decades has contributed to the slow recovery as well.
So one CNN story says he wants smaller government and the other says he wants more.
Has anyone noticed that he is preparing to hold a U.S. garage sale that is open to international friends and foes?
The selling of America will not cover the cost of selling out our Liberty to his 'New World Order' faction.
I noticed your comment contained a lot of rhetoric.
Where in the h*ll is all this money going?!
It's all well documented. If you really wanted to know it wouldn't take much to find out. The big ticket items are the military, Social Security, and health care spending, each of which consumes about one-third of current revenues. Next is interest on the debt, about a third of which is paid to other government agencies, such as Social Security.
Then there's spending required to operate government agencies such as the FBI, the CDC, FEMA, the CIA, the NTSB, the FAA, the FDA, the Justice Department, the EPA, the State Department, the Patent Office, and a whole host of others. Then there are programs like food stamps, agricultural subsidies, educational grants, research grants, and so on.
It's rather massive and complex. Most of the people spouting off about it and what should be cut from it really don't understand it very well at all. A Pew Research poll released November 18, 2010 found that only 28% of Republicans surveyed knew the government spends more on national defense than on education, Medicare, or interest on the debt. 29% wrongly believed we spend more on the interest on the debt than on defense.
It amazes me that we have all this bickering between the right and the left when it is clear they are BOTH responsible for this mess. BUSH and OBAMA as well as congress going back many years.
What I cannot understand is why, when we all agree this is a problem, we do not do anything to change it. There is a person running now that plans to cut $1 trillion in the first year. HE IS THE ONLY person running that is seriously addressing this issue. He should be winning by a landslide as both Republicans and Democrats should be voting for him. Yes, I will agree, Paul's foreign policy does not match my own but at this point, he is the only one willing to address the problems at home. To me, our major spending problems at home are much more important then foreign policy.
We have a path to a solution but sadly seems only 20% of American's see it. Truth is, Obama, Romney (or any other republican candidate except Paul), and all of congress is just a continuation of the past. EVERY incumbent should be thrown out (regardless of party)!
Cutting $1 trillion would be insane. You're talking about pulling 6.7% of GDP out of the economy almost overnight. GDP declined by 5.1% in this last recession and the unemployment rate doubled from 5% to 10.1%. You're talking about reducing GDP by even more at a time when unemployment is 8.5%. Care to project what it will jump to if we cut $1 trillion in spending?
No true conservative would even think about advocate something so drastic without thoroughly studying the potential consequences.
Ever notice how the liberal media will take a story like this and hide in the middle of its stories even though the economic crisis is the biggest issue facing our country. Guess they don't want to hightlight that our tax and spend liberal president is asking for the trough to be refilled again.
CNN takes and incredible amount of time to "approve" the posts on its stories. Everything in moderation/ censorship I guess.
I think they go through and approve them in batches. They're only trying to censor the trolls whose only desire is to get people riled up and bickering. Some form of moderation is essential in online forums if there is to be any hope of productive discussion. Without it every political discussion will devolve into a food fight poisoned by foul language and insults. People who would contribute substantive comments won't bother and you'll just have a lot of junk. Just look at the comments under any video on YouTube where the subject is political to see how bad it can get.
A debt ceiling increase is the sign of a weak leader according to Obama.
You are incorrect. He never said that as a universal rule. He said that in the context of the economic environment of 2006, and under those circumstances he was correct. In 2006 unemployment was 4.7% or lower, there was no recession, and tax revenues were at record levels. The economic landscape is drastically different now. Why do you need me to explain this to you, has Rush failed to mention it?
Perhaps if you were to educate yourself about these issues instead of just buying into flawed, overly simplistic arguments just because you can use them to attack Obama you wouldn't make a fool of yourself parroting such seriously flawed arguments. This isn't 2006. Get out of your bunker and start educating yourself about issues so you can discuss them intelligently.
This discussion should be front page news. That is a large increase and we need to put a stop to these automatic debt increases. Cut spending and promote more efficiency...something government can't seem to do.
You need to spend some time educating yourself about these issues. Spend some time learning what spending cuts do in a slow economy with high unemployment. It isn't pretty.
Then spend some time studying the federal budget to understand it. Inefficiency in government is a drop in the bucket. Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare, all very efficient, consume two-thirds of current revenues. The military consumes another third. Making government more efficient won't have a significant impact on the deficit.
Follow the Harding/Coolidge model, they inherited almost 20% unemployment and high inflation. They also paid off 1/3 of the debt. It could be done if politicians had courage, but they don't.
Joey: "Follow the Harding/Coolidge model, they inherited almost 20% unemployment and high inflation. They also paid off 1/3 of the debt. It could be done if politicians had courage, but they don't."
The top marginal tax rate at the time of the Harding-Coolidge tax cuts was 77%, not 35% as it is now. Not to dismiss what they did, but this is not 1920. Much as changed. The actions they took should be evaluated with the differences in situations in mind, not simply advocated because they worked in the 1920s. At the very least it seems foolish to ignore the contribution of having been engaged in a world war immediately prior to this period. Add to that a very different economic base and other factors and it's just not enough to say it worked then.
The government tax credit pertaining to energy-efficient substitution house windows had been greater as part of ... Cup physician can be dealing with it's substitution eye-port suppliers ...Working Tax Credit
Yes but this DA wants to "Streamline Government". Notice its Streamline, not make it smaller. I'm sure its the Republican Party's fault or one of the Bushes fault but we can only hope "he" goes back to Chicago in 2012 and stays there with the rest of his cronies.
just exactly what has obama done to alleviate this crushing govt debt? Three years is a long time. When you have to post a book to defend him something is wrong.
Fact is from an economic standpoint we as a nation have never been fragile...even obamas foreign policy has the potential to throw this country and the world into a horrible depression. If Israel has to protect itself as it did in 1967 they will have to use their nukes. There is NO clear domestic or foreign policy...just flowering teleprompter speeches from a man who simply does not have the background, brain, or education to be an effective president of this country.
People are forgetting that OUR DEBT IS NOT THAT BAD. Sure, we're $15 trillion under, but the true measure of a nation's economy is it's national debt as a percentage of its Gross Domestic Product. In that case, the debt is only about 63% of the US's GDP. That means that America beats out Germany, France, the UK, Japan, and Canada, only to name a few. If our GDP can keep growing at the right rate (which it will, unemployment is falling and nonfarm payroll employment is up about 200,000), then raising the ceiling should not be a risk. BESIDES, if we don't raise the ceiling, WE WILL DEFAULT. That means we can't pay people back. So, we look like complete crap to eery investor in the world, and we'd get a huge hike in interest when we need the loans to get back on track.
Oh, and everybody is also forgetting that IT'S NOT ALL OBAMA'S FAULT. Really, guys? If you actually think that the wellbeing of a nation hinges upon the capabilities of one man, then go back to history class, because that would make America a monarchy/dictatorship. We have THREE BRANCHES to balance each other out. You are also forgetting the Republicans in Congress whose only goal is to get Obama out of office and to benefit 1% of America. So that means they say no to everything. Even stuff that might actually work. It's IMPOSSIBLE to get anything done when you have people like that shoving you to the ground.
And to the "November 2012" comment, you are an ass. Obama doesn't have the background? He was a Senator for muliple years. He doesn't have the Brain? He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. He doesn't have the education? He was also an editor and president of the Harvard Law Review. Know your facts before you type.
nExt to individual bankruptcy, owning an accounts throughout selections could be the most detrimental accessibility you can have on the credit file. It will lessen your rating, making it difficult- or else ...debt management