Debt under Obama in America has gone from $9,000,000,000,000.00 to $20,000,000,000,000.00 (minimum wage, Pelosi, regular)

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by chad3

Obama added $2.7 trillion dollars to our national debt from 2013-2022 by making permanent 82% of the Bush tax cuts.

Budget Deal Makes Permanent 82 Percent of President Bush

Something confuses me here. When there is a Republican president and something bad happens, conservatives are quick to point out that there was a Democratic Congress -- and then blame Congress. But when the President is a Democrat, these same conservatives place all the blame on the President. Doesn't the GOP Congress, that passed the bills to make those tax-cuts permanent, at least share in the blame?

I remember the time quite well. Obama wanted unemployment insurance extended, which although that has never been a controversial decision historically, the GOP controlled Congress refused it until Obama agreed to extend the upper income tax-cuts and pass the rest as permanent. That's using the unemployed as hostages.

[fisheye]

Originally Posted by pknopp

Q.E. caused the problem you describe and Citizen United had nothing to do with campaign financing. Nothing.

I always love this site: U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time. I just watch the dollars coming our pockets! I really like the US total debt listed as over $65 trillion. As a Nation we cannot go into debt quick enough! What people do not understand is that this debt is the modern version of slavery - we owe our government or we owe the banks. We are still working for a long time to pay this mess off. If we don't pay it off our dollars are worth nothing.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

Something confuses me here. When there is a Republican president and something bad happens, conservatives are quick to point out that there was a Democratic Congress -- and then blame Congress. But when the President is a Democrat, these same conservatives place all the blame on the President. Doesn't the GOP Congress, that passed the bills to make those tax-cuts permanent, at least share in the blame?

This is true and visa versa.

I remember the time quite well. Obama wanted unemployment insurance extended, which although that has never been a controversial decision historically, the GOP controlled Congress refused it until Obama agreed to extend the upper income tax-cuts and pass the rest as permanent. That's using the unemployed as hostages.

Obama wanted to extend the tax cuts himself.

The package, brokered by Obama and Republican leaders in the wake of the November elections, angered many Democrats, who have long argued that the Bush tax cuts were skewed to benefit the wealthy. But their last-minute campaign to scale back the bill's benefits for taxpayers at the highest income levels failed, and the House passed the measure 277 to 148 Thursday night, with 112 Democrats and 36 Republicans voting "no."

Obama signs bill to extend Bush-era tax cuts for two more years

You aren't really one that should be pointing out the hypocrisy of others.

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by pknopp

Always excuses even when you have no idea what you are talking about. The "left" would have had a total conniption fit if QE would have happened under a GOP president and again, campaign donations rules never changed. All restrictions on campaign donations that were in place pre McCain/Feingold are still in place.

What you are doing is misrepresenting the truth by carefully choosing your words. Yes, there are still limits on donating to a campaign but Citizen United made it possible for individuals or shadow PACs, that don't have to disclose their donors, to spend an unlimited amount of money for the benefit of a candidate. In 2012, as much money was spent by shadow organizations, like Karl Rove's American Crossroads, than the political parties themselves.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, "Of the $283 million raised by outside groups in 2015, $273 million was raised by what the study calls “shadow campaigns” — groups that have reported ties with the candidates they support. These ties include the candidate fundraising for the group and candidates’ former high-level staff working for the group, among others." That wasn't legal before Citizen United.

As for blaming the rise in wealth concentration to the ultra-rich on QE, that concentration has been going on for 30 years prior to QE, so I can't see how any thinking person can attribute the trend to something that didn't exist at the time.

Perhaps it is not me who has no idea what they are talking about?

[fisheye]

Many of our Presidents graduated from Harvard. Of course, in today's news: Harvard's prestigious debate team loses to NY inmates. Perhaps the inmates would do better balancing our budget? It is hard to picture them doing worse!

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

What you are doing is misrepresenting the truth by carefully choosing your words. Yes, there are still limits on donating to a campaign but Citizen United made it possible for individuals or shadow PACs, that don't have to disclose their donors, to spend an unlimited amount of money for the benefit of a candidate.

This is not true. What a group does might help the argument of one candidate or not but that should not be the standard we set about how people spend their money.

Example. We currently have the debate concerning Planned Parenthood. So groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood pool their monies and create ads that they use to support their point of view. Yes, this would most likely help the more liberal candidate but why exactly should it be illegal for them to create ads to present their side while candidates can raise and spend a billion dollars freely to demean and attack them?

In 2012, as much money was spent by shadow organizations, like Karl Rove's American Crossroads, than the political parties themselves.

How exactly are they a "shadow" organization but yet you are fully aware of them?

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, "Of the $283 million raised by outside groups in 2015, $273 million was raised by what the study calls “shadow campaigns” — groups that have reported ties with the candidates they support. These ties include the candidate fundraising for the group and candidates’ former high-level staff working for the group, among others."

Any ties would be illegal. If there are any illegal activities going on, charge and prosecute them.

As for blaming the rise in wealth concentration to the ultra-rich on QE, that concentration has been going on for 30 years prior to QE, so I can't see how any thinking person can attribute the trend to something that didn't exist at the time.

Perhaps it is not me who has no idea what they are talking about?

Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush

This isn't coming from some right wing mouth piece.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/10/...-problem/?_r=0

Right from the horses mouth.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-1...lth-inequality

[hawkeye2009]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

Something confuses me here. When there is a Republican president and something bad happens, conservatives are quick to point out that there was a Democratic Congress -- and then blame Congress. But when the President is a Democrat, these same conservatives place all the blame on the President. Doesn't the GOP Congress, that passed the bills to make those tax-cuts permanent, at least share in the blame?

I remember the time quite well. Obama wanted unemployment insurance extended, which although that has never been a controversial decision historically, the GOP controlled Congress refused it until Obama agreed to extend the upper income tax-cuts and pass the rest as permanent. That's using the unemployed as hostages.

Do you mean when Democrats point to the "clinton surplus", which was created by the Gingrich Congress?

Of course both parties are to blame. They are politicians and they are fiscally irresponsible. It is just that the democrats are more fiscally irresponsible, but both are to blame.

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

Do you mean when Democrats point to the "clinton surplus", which was created by the Gingrich Congress?

Of course both parties are to blame. They are politicians and they are fiscally irresponsible. It is just that the democrats are more fiscally irresponsible, but both are to blame.

That's a good example of why Clinton deserved ALL the credit. Gingrich had to be dragged into passing the tax increases (that caused the surplus) kicking and screaming.

In 1993, Republicans Said Clinton Tax Increase On Rich Would Lead To A 'Recession' - The Economy Boomed Instead - Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC)

THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Heritage, the go-to think tank for the Republican Party, argued that the tax increase would somehow lead to "higher deficits" and that it served as a "recipe for a recession." The organization also predicted that the tax increase would "destroy jobs" and "undermine America's international competitiveness."

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH): "The problem in not that we do not tax enough, it is that Government spends too much. The President has reverted to true form, that of a tax and spend, old-time Democrat. He has abandoned tens of millions of middle-class voters that trusted him. Raising taxes on the middle class is not patriotic, it is idiotic." (From the Congressional Record on February 17th, 1993)

SENATOR ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): "Mr. President, taxpayers will adjust to these new taxes by shifting investments into ones that generate fewer taxes by working less and by taking fewer risks. The consequences will punish far more than just the wealthy. Economic growth will slow and fewer jobs will be created." (From the Congressional Record on August 6th, 1993)

SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): This package contains the largest tax increase in history, and promises deficit reduction. This package will not reduce the Federal debt, or even balance one annual budget for that matter. (From the Congressional Record on August 6th, 1993)

SENATOR CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA):
Mr. President, I really do not think it takes a rocket scientist to know this bill will cost jobs. (From the Congressional Record on August 6th, 1993)

REPRESENTATIVE PETE HOEKSTRA (R-MI): "Mr. Speaker, I hear, once again, like 1989, claims that by increasing taxes we will be able to shrink the deficit and fund new programs. But as history has shown us over and over, the only result of more taxes is more spending and bigger Government. Let us cut spending, not raise taxes." (From the Congressional Record on March 16th, 1993)

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ARCHER (R-TX): "I would much rather be here today supporting the President and I would do so if his proposals could expect to increase jobs and the standard of living for Americans, but I believe his massive tax increases will do just the opposite." (From the Congressional Record on May 24th, 1993)

REPRESENTATIVE NEWT GINGRICH: "I believe that that will in fact kill the current recovery
and put us back in a recession.
It might take 1 and a half or 2 years, but it will happen." (From the Congressional Record on February 2nd, 1993)

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

No one else responded to this post, so I will.

The above are debt numbers, not deficit numbers, they are different.

You with in your home home have a monthly budget, the (+) or (-) of that budget is not the same as your total debt.

Let me see if I can help you out with an example.

You buy a car and your monthly payments are 300 a month, but your total debt to that car isnt 300, its 15,000(not including interest).

that 300 dollars, plus utilities and home cost amount to 1000 dollars of your 2000 dollar budget.

Your budget deficit(surplus) is 1000 dollars, but your total debt actually grew by 15,000.

I think it is sad no one pointed this out to you before hand.

not sure where you are getting your math


let's use easy numbers

you have a projected income (revenue) of 50,000
you currently have a debt of 10,000

you make a projected budget, which includes paying JUST the interest on the debt of 48,000

you now have a projected surplus of 2,000

during the year, unexpected bills come in...your transmission on your car goes..the hotwater heater's bottom falls out, and the washer/dryer end up being replaced... total of these ADDITIONAL expenses is 4000

so at the end of the year your projected surplus of 2000 turned into a defit of 2000, increasing your outstanding debt now up to 12,000




the fact is that clinton/newt (I say it that way because the budget is not credited/blamed on the POTUS as budgets come out of the house of reps...) had projected budget surpluses...but they( the country) SPENT that surplus adding to the debt.....
when the pennies were all counted they had deficits...to say they had a surplus is a real crooked twist of the truth.... because they spent it and increased the debt

[OICU812]

Originally Posted by ESK85

And counting....

Debt under Obama in this (once, no longer great) country has gone from $9,000,000,000,000.00 to $18,000,000,000,000.00 and soon to be $20,000,000,000,000.00.

I'd like for ONE PERSON in this thread - liberal or conservative - that can tell me that is in any way acceptable?

You know, I used to chuckle at conspiracy theorists who said Obama is trying to destroy America (financially and morally, among other ways) but no longer do I believe it is a conspiracy; America has almost been destroyed by his (not yet over) fiasco...

Ask Obama what he thinks about even half that amount of debt being added:

“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents -- number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child,” Obama said on July 3, 2008, at a campaign event in Fargo, N.D.

“That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic,” said candidate Obama.