Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-20-2012, 08:06 AM
 
Location: St. Louis
7,443 posts, read 6,989,683 times
Reputation: 4601

Advertisements

of Obama then under 8 years of Bush, according to this report from CBSnews:

National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-20-2012, 08:09 AM
 
Location: South Carolina - The Palmetto State
1,161 posts, read 1,855,571 times
Reputation: 1521
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUTGR View Post
of Obama then under 8 years of Bush, according to this report from CBSnews:

National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Yeah, but CBS news???? Those right-wing hacks????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2012, 08:12 AM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,082,097 times
Reputation: 9408
Quote:
If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87 percent, or $9.34 trillion, during his two terms.
If I were Barack Obama, I believe i'd call it quits after this first term if for no other reason than NOT being the President with the above statistic tagged to his name. He has a legacy to think about now. It might be time to cut bait.....cut his losses and move on.

After 8 years, he will own every single penny of that debt and his successor will absolutely pin it to him in the same way he has pinned the blame on GWB. Except this time it will be done under the auspices of an Administration who did absolutely nothing to reign in spending. "The Barack Obama Administration did this to us." Is that a legacy to aspire to?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2012, 08:18 AM
 
Location: St. Louis
7,443 posts, read 6,989,683 times
Reputation: 4601
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
If I were Barack Obama, I believe i'd call it quits after this first term if for no other reason than NOT being the President with the above statistic tagged to his name. He has a legacy to think about now. It might be time to cut bait.....cut his losses and move on.

After 8 years, he will own every single penny of that debt and his predecessor will absolutely pin it to him in the same way he has pinned the blame on GWB. Except this time it will be done under the auspices of an Administration who did absolutely nothing to reign in spending. Is that a legacy to aspire to?
He will take responsibility for nothing. Absolutely nothing. He will say most of the debt was simply planned increases he could do nothing about and he of course had to enact the stimulus, Tarp, etc. to save the economy.

And then he will blame foxnews:

Obama blamed troubles on Fox News, book says - Mackenzie Weinger - POLITICO.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2012, 08:22 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,917,756 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUTGR View Post
of Obama then under 8 years of Bush, according to this report from CBSnews:

National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Would it have been any different had McCain won?

As I've said previously, it's the economy not Obama, per se. Contrary to what the right-wing suggest, there has been no big increase in government under Obama. That's the big lie talking point that the GOP pedals.

The implications of this big lie is that Obama vastly expanded the government to the tune of trillions. If so, where are the great big programs? Obama did pass the ACA, but that mainly goes into effect in 2014. He also passed a stimulus package, that was $787 billion, with 40% tax-cuts, spread over two years.

There was no "Obama spending." Deficits arose from specific areas, namely, a drop in tax-revenue due to the Great Recession; and additional spending that automatically kicks in during bad economic times (e.g. the Great Recession) -- such as unemployment benefits; food stamps; Medicaid, etc.

What we’re seeing isn’t Obama's expansion of Big Government; we’re seeing the government we already had, responding to a terrible economic slump. It would have been about the same had McCain won -- but probably longer lasting as McCain would have mimicked the austerity disaster that Europe decided upon.

Incidentally, it's a good thing we had these safety nets that didn't exist during the Great Depression, or we would have repeated the severity of the Great Depression -- that's what we have to show for it! We don't have millions of people begging in the streets; we don't have widespread hunger; we don't have people dying for lack of medical treatment, like we did during the Great Depression.

As an aside, although the amount of federal debt has doubled since 2006, the amount of interest the federal government pays has not increased over 2006 levels.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2012, 08:26 AM
 
Location: St. Louis
7,443 posts, read 6,989,683 times
Reputation: 4601
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Would it have been any different had McCain won?

As I've said previously, it's the economy not Obama, per se. Contrary to what the right-wing suggest, there has been no big increase in government under Obama. That's the big lie talking point that the GOP pedals.

The implications of this big lie is that Obama vastly expanded the government to the tune of trillions. If so, where are the great big programs? Obama did pass the ACA, but that mainly goes into effect in 2014. He also passed a stimulus package, that was $787 billion, with 40% tax-cuts, spread over two years.

There was no "Obama spending." Deficits arose from specific areas, namely, a drop in tax-revenue due to the Great Recession; and additional spending that automatically kicks in during bad economic times (e.g. the Great Recession) -- such as unemployment benefits; food stamps; Medicaid, etc.

What we’re seeing isn’t Obama's expansion of Big Government; we’re seeing the government we already had, responding to a terrible economic slump. It would have been about the same had McCain won -- but probably longer lasting as McCain would have mimicked the austerity disaster that Europe decided on.

Incidentally, it's a good thing we had these safety nets that didn't exist during the Great Depression, or we would have repeated the severity of the Great Depression -- that's what we have to show for it! We don't have millions of people begging in the streets; we don't have widespread hunger; we don't have people dying for lack of medical treatment, like we did during the Great Depression.

As an aside, although the amount of federal debt has doubled since 2006, the amount of interest the federal government pays has not increased over 2006 levels.
I think we are seeing government expansion on steroids and it is a matter of degree. McCain would likely not have expanded government as much. I think it is very debatable whether the stimulus did much good at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2012, 08:26 AM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,082,097 times
Reputation: 9408
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Would it have been any different had McCain won?

As I've said previously, it's the economy not Obama, per se. Contrary to what the right-wing suggest, there has been no big increase in government under Obama. That's the big lie talking point that the GOP pedals.

The implications of this big lie is that Obama vastly expanded the government to the tune of trillions. If so, where are the great big programs? Obama did pass the ACA, but that mainly goes into effect in 2014. He also passed a stimulus package, that was $787 billion, with 40% tax-cuts, spread over two years.

There was no "Obama spending." Deficits arose from specific areas, namely, a drop in tax-revenue due to the Great Recession; and additional spending that automatically kicks in during bad economic times (e.g. the Great Recession) -- such as unemployment benefits; food stamps; Medicaid, etc.

What we’re seeing isn’t Obama's expansion of Big Government; we’re seeing the government we already had, responding to a terrible economic slump. It would have been about the same had McCain won -- but probably longer lasting as McCain would have mimicked the austerity disaster that Europe decided upon.

Incidentally, it's a good thing we had these safety nets that didn't exist during the Great Depression, or we would have repeated the severity of the Great Depression -- that's what we have to show for it! We don't have millions of people begging in the streets; we don't have widespread hunger; we don't have people dying for lack of medical treatment, like we did during the Great Depression.

As an aside, although the amount of federal debt has doubled since 2006, the amount of interest the federal government pays has not increased over 2006 levels.

Obama says adding $4 trillion to debt is unpatriotic. - YouTube

Care to try to explain this away? Thanks!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2012, 08:30 AM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,670,896 times
Reputation: 14737
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUTGR View Post
He will take responsibility for nothing. Absolutely nothing. He will say most of the debt was simply planned increases he could do nothing about and he of course had to enact the stimulus, Tarp, etc. to save the economy.
Are you saying that's not accurate?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2012, 08:34 AM
 
Location: St. Louis
7,443 posts, read 6,989,683 times
Reputation: 4601
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post

Obama says adding $4 trillion to debt is unpatriotic. - YouTube

Care to try to explain this away? Thanks!
Thank you! I was going to post the same thing from a blog:


So, Is Barack Obama Irresponsible and Unpatriotic? | Power Line

By candidate Obama's own standards, incurring this national debt is both irresponsible and unpatriotic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2012, 08:35 AM
 
Location: St. Louis
7,443 posts, read 6,989,683 times
Reputation: 4601
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
Are you saying that's not accurate?
Yes, it's not accurate.

Obama should be judged by his own standards:


So, Is Barack Obama Irresponsible and Unpatriotic? | Power Line
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:41 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top