Why do Republicans blame Obama for the debt crises? Maybe if the military budget for going to 2 wars wasn't so much we wouldn't have such a huge debt.
Why do Republicans blame Obama for the debt crises? Maybe if the military budget for going to 2 wars wasn't so much we wouldn't have such a huge debt.
It’s not just the Republicans. Just about anyone with a hint of common sense can understand that Obama and the Democrats’ spending of money we don’t have on their pet projects that drive taxpayer money into the pockets of campaign contributors is a ridiculous policy. Obama and the Democrats have spent our money like drunken sailors, and all they have to show for it is higher unemployment rates and higher deficits that taxpayers will have to pay for generations to come. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is now over 100% thanks to Obama and the Democrats. Yes, wars are expensive, but at least the government is given the right and duty to tax so they conduct wars in the US Constitution. I have asked many times, but I have never been given a credible answer as to where in the Constitution Obama and the Democrats have been given the right to force taxpayers to buy private products from Obama and the Democrats’ campaign contributors. If you find it, let me know.
sorry i don't buy it.
You can live with your head in the sand all you want, but the facts are quite clear. In fact, Obama and the Democrats continue to spend like crazy and aren’t happy that their reckless spending has caused the US’s historic credit rating downgrade for the first time ever. Despite concerns about runaway debt they want to raise the debt ceiling even more. What is even the point a debt ceiling if the Democrats just keep raising it when they want to funnel some money to their campaign contributors?
Source = http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/after-delay-obama-asks-congress-for-debt-limit-hike/2012/01/12/gIQAA3ADuP_blog.html
how is he suppose to handle a war that cost millions every day that was handed to him by a former president with a criminal for a VP trying to make more money for his Halliburton?
if we didn't have to pay for this "war for oil", we'd be alright. you can post 20 more charts and figures, but I don't buy it. you can spin visuals any way you like and the reality is Cheney is a criminal and Bush was his puppet.
Umm, as Commander in Chief it is his job to manage the military. Obviously he was not - and continues to not be - up to the job. Sorry, I thought you were interested in facts. But carry on with your conspiracy theories. And don't let the tin foil hats chafe your noggin too much.
Ah, the 'blame Bush' defense... it never gets old.
Heck, I bet the next president after Obama will still blame Bush for things.
But, it takes away my favorite part of the graph...
The arrow that shows 'OBAMA' going all the way to 2020. ^.^
The graph assumes he'll be in power for three terms!
Years ago, I had heard that the US national debt was at 3 trillion dollars, before Obama came in, and now its a staggerring 16 trillion dollars. (or probably more and increasing)
Blaming bush is easy, but Obama had made a promise to resolve it, even though its a daunting task.
No matter who you blame, i.e. Bush or Obama, the fact is that USA still needs someone to resolve the issue with a really good economic plan, to bring the country out of this mess.
The below youtube link shows a few reasons why the US economy is in turmoil
, which is quite interesting and educational presentation and explanation.
I think increasing the taxes for the rich may help to a certain extent, but will it be enough to fix the economic crisis?
WHo among the new candidates for the 2012 presidential elections do you think has a good economic plan?
From a non-partisan source:
At least Bush had a war to show for it. And of course plenty of indirect employment of the military and armaments industries. Historically wars have always been good for the US economy. Not that I'm advocating war as a solution, however I'd like to know precisely where all of Obama's debt has gone to as all of that is very untransparent. There is lots of talk about jobs that have been created etc etc. but I have not seen any accounting of all the debt and expenditure that has been incurred by Obama that can make sense to me and that I can understand. Keeping me dumb and unenlightened seems to be the ideal for hiding the truth. Obama is of course not an exception as quite a number of politicians seem to have done that. Bush is not that good with marketing presentations, creating reasons for war was more his kind of thing.
Question about handfleisch's chart: Is that inflation adjusted or not?
So did Obama.
...Anyway... News flash: This just in, politicians like to spend money.
Also, 'spend less on the military' is not a golden ticket to solving the US government's financial issues.
For one thing, if you're going to keep playing world police, you have to spend a lot on the military... but even if military spending was reduced to zero, there would still be financial problems. Less severe, yes, but even completely defunding the military would not balance the budget.
Cash by the planeloads like this just disappeared during the Iraq war hysteria:
Remember that the next time someone complains about how Obama is using taxpayer money to save the US economy.
Well, summarize it this way: Obama has an economic recovery to show for it, a saving of the country from depression to show for it, a new healthcare system that will help lower the deficit in the future to show for it, job creation to show for it, infrastructure rebuilding to show for it, investment in future technologies to show for it, car industry saved from collapse to show for it...
Also, to be fair, remember that much of the debt increase under Obama is the continuation of the bailouts and other measures started by the Bush white house. In other words, Obama came right in the middle of the bailout process and continued it. This is not to reassign "blame", just to point out that you should take that into account when looking at the numbers.
Or look at it this way: What price would you put on keeping the US from economic collapse? Because that's what was going on when Obama came into office.
LOL. Nice try, but once again, you can’t run from Obama’s record or sugarcoat his failures from the facts. Even according to Obama and the Democrats’ justification for his trillion-dollar, pork-filled “stimulus” handout to his campaign contributors, the unemployment rate should now be around 6%. But Obama has to show for his “stimulus” bill is another trillion dollars in debt that hardworking taxpayers will have to pay for. Plus an unemployment rate that is higher than when Obama took office and forced his “stimulus” bill down our throats. It even went over 10% thanks to Obama and the Democrats’ anti-business and anti-job creation policies. And remember how we weren’t given any time to actually read the bill because it was sooooooooo imperative that it was passed right away to keep unemployment from reaching 8%? Well three years and trillions in taxpayer money later, and we are still seeing even higher unemployment. And to claim Obamacare has reduced the deficit is beyond hilarious. It has added more than another trillion to the debt, plus has resulted in higher premiums (rates have increase in the double digits), more wasteful bureaucracy and more government involved in the most intimate and personal decisions between patients and doctors. No matter how much the Left tries to sugarcoat Obama and the Democrats’ failed policies and payoffs to their campaign contributors, Obama and the Democrats have been a disaster for America.
Did you get this info and graphic from abovetopsecret.com again? You never answered the question about your user name at that site. Don't be ashamed, your interest in UFO conspiracies fits perfectly with your political ideas. And how exactly can this graph predict what would have happened without the recovery plan? Did they use recovered alien technology from a UFO?
Since we're not being serious, let me try my hand at predicting what would have happened if McCain had won and Republican policies had continued from 2008 to today:
How to bankrupt your country - learn from our leaders.
Now, to be fair, that estimate came from Obama's staff.
I remember that when they first released (a less updated) version of that very graph.
That graph is just the original white house publication of their predictions, with the actual results overlayed on top.
It is true that they oversold the effectiveness of their stimulus plans. (and/or underestimated how bad the situation was.)
And it's also true that Republicans, had they been in office, probably would have made even worse decisions. That's just speculation though.
The Republicans like to spend money on the military. The Democrats like to spend money
on social programs. They both like to spend too much money. Right now, the Democrats
are the worse offenders...mostly because they control the White House and the Senate.
The last budget that Obama put forth was more of the same ridiculous deficit spending.
Of course the Republicans jumped all over him, but they too have been guilty of
spending too much when they were in power. The big problem is that it is politically
popular to spend money.....offering programs to people is always popular (it gives
them help economically when they don't have to pay for things themselves but have
the government pay for it instead.) Spending money on the military, and keeping
bases open (which has economic impacts on the community( is also popular. The problem
is not just with our leaders, Obama and Bush who both spent way too much money.
The problem is with US, the voters, who keep voting these clowns who promise us the
world and swear they won't deficit spend into office. I told everyone I could
before the last election, that Obama could not POSSIBLY do everything he wanted to
do and still follow his 'Paygo' pledge, you just can't do it. Implementing the
new programs he wanted, not raising taxes on anyone that makes less than $250
thousand a year, and following his "Paygo' principle is just not possible,
even if you drastically raise the taxes on the rich (which of course the
Republican's blocked, which was an error on their part in my opinion). The
American public as a whole, needs to wake up and realize these 'Santa Claus'
candidates on both sides of the aisle who offer us no new taxes, and new programs
are just not realistic. We are going to HAVE to either pay higher taxes (not just
the rich, but the middle class as well!) and/or drastically cut spending! That
is all there is too it!
Great to see you posting again Alaska. This article is tops - articulates it extremely well! Just shows how the political system with two domineering parties is not doing the US that much good. Maybe time for a change? Or are people just too comfortable with the devils they know?
Yeah, I got a new Super 35mm HD cinema camera and been very busy learning it and
working for clients. Interestingly, one of my new clients was a group called
'United for Travel Freedom' which is a bunch of politicians of BOTH parties that
want to combat invasive TSA practices....proof that the parties CAN work together
if they really want to.
However, my personal opinion is not very optimistic on this whole thing.
The two party system leads easily to the 'dehumanized other' in which the
'other guys party' is responsible for everything bad. I mean, look at
how Obama blames Bush for everything and the Republicans now blame Obama
for everything. Sorry, but no ONE person has that much power in the US
system. There is plenty of blame to go around. But, if you can lay the
blame on 'the other party' you can inflame your voters......and you never
have to take your share of responsibility for things. The two party system
is GREAT for both the Democrats and Republicans, and they will fight to ensure
it stays....and they both have money! I think the system is SO entrenched
and people are using it to 'lay blame' on the other guy so well, that it
will take something big.....like the US economy going belly up or huge inflation,
or default on the national debt to get enough people to consider voting for
someone other than a (D) or (R). And even then, they will just both blame
each other for 'getting us in this mess'.
However, I've worked covering politics before and so am VERY cynical of all
politicians and people involved, so I really hope that is coloring my opinion
and hope I am totally wrong.
This is a false equivalency. As you can see from the graph, the US government does not really spend too much on social programs per capita/GDP compared to all the other first world countries and it has been steadily going down over the last few decades. But I don't have to tell you how much the US spends on the military (more than all other countries combined). Those are the facts and there's no other way to put it.
% of GDP in social expenditures:
edit to shrink graph
Well, according to to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the numbers are
a little different.
2010 budget numbers show:
* Defense and security: In 2010, some 20 percent of the budget, or $705 billion, paid for defense and security-related international activities. The bulk of the spending in this category reflects the underlying costs of the Department of Defense and other security-related activities. The total also includes the cost of supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which totaled $170 billion in 2010.
* Social Security: Another 20 percent of the budget, or $707 billion, paid for Social Security, which provided retirement benefits averaging $1,175 per month to 34.6 million retired workers in December 2010. Social Security also provided benefits to 2.9 million spouses and children of retired workers, 6.4 million surviving children and spouses of deceased workers, and 10.2 million disabled workers and their eligible dependents in December 2010.
* Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP: Three health insurance programs — Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) — together accounted for 21 percent of the budget in 2010, or $732 billion. Nearly two-thirds of this amount, or $452 billion, went to Medicare, which provides health coverage to around 47 million people who are over the age of 65 or have disabilities. The remainder of this category funds Medicaid and CHIP, which in a typical month in 2010 will provide health care or long-term care to about 60 million low-income children, parents, elderly people, and people with disabilities. Both Medicaid and CHIP require matching payments from the states.
Two other categories together account for another fifth of federal spending:
* Safety net programs: About 14 percent of the federal budget in 2010, or $496 billion, went to support programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship.
These programs include: the refundable portion of the earned-income and child tax credits, which assist low- and moderate-income working families through the tax code; programs that provide cash payments to eligible individuals or households, including Supplemental Security Income for the elderly or disabled poor and unemployment insurance; various forms of in-kind assistance for low-income families and individuals, including food stamps, school meals, low-income housing assistance, child-care assistance, and assistance in meeting home energy bills; and various other programs such as those that aid abused and neglected children.
* Interest on the national debt: The federal government must make regular interest payments on the money it has borrowed to finance past deficits — that is, on the national debt held by the public, which reached $9 trillion by the end of fiscal 2010. In 2010, these interest payments claimed $196 billion, or about 6 percent of the budget.
So Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP programs both spent about the same
amount as the military and when you add 'safety net' programs to that, you are
talking about 55% of our government spending on social programs according to the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. So this nonsense about it only being the
military spending which is too high can go jump out the window. If we really want
to get the budget under control, we are going to have to cut social program spending
as well as military spending. But you do a good job of proving my point about
the 'dehumanized other'. Just blame the other party, it must be all their fault.
As a matter of fact, Obama is surely on track to get us out of this mess that Bush
and the evil Republicans put us in, just look at the responsible budgets he has
You have misunderstood the point and your argument about the stats doesn't make a lot of sense. My point compared social spending between countries. I showed that the US spends relatively little in comparison to all the other first world industrialized countries.
Your point is about social spending as a percentage of the US budget, something different. If you want to say what you think the percentages should be, go ahead. If you want to say the percentage is too much, you have to say too much compared to what. Are you actually against the minimal, shredded safety nets that exist in this country? Are you against Medicare? Are you complaining social spending is too high, though I have shown it is lower than in most other rich countries?
By they way, the stats of that think tank look relatively okay, though I think they probably included such things as military pensions and DOE nuclear weapons research in the nonmilitary items. If you include those things as military, over 50% of the US budget going to military spending.
You charge me with dehumanizing the other party when I did not even mention parties in my message. Are you sure you don't have a chip on your shoulder?
Just because other countries do something, it doesn't mean that people in the US
want to do the same things. Greece comes to mind.....but I'm sure their spending
problems are because of their 'military spending' as well right? The problem is
we are spending too much money. When I said that the Republicans want to spend too
much on the military, and that the Democrats want to spend too much on social
programs you said 'That is a false equivalency' You then said our government
does NOT spend too much on social programs but that it does on the military.
In other words, you are saying that the Democrats and their social spending ways
are not the problem, but it is the Republicans and their military spending.
Sorry, this is just not true. Look at the numbers, we spend so much on social
programs.....more than we do on the military. We can't get out of this deficit
just cutting military spending. If you want to know my thoughts on specific
steps we could take, which social programs to cut, I do actually have a suggestion.
The first thing I would do, is look at Social Security. Social Security is
supposed to be a safety net for the older generation right? The first thing I
would do, is to make it a 'needs based' program. In other words, 'rich' people
(and I realize this is going to have to be an arbitrary definition) would no
longer receive Social Security. Why take money from poor, working families and
give it to rich, retired people? And yes, I would cut military spending drastically
as well as Social Programs.
Wait a minute. The countries that are fine are also spending money on social programs. You mention Greece, but Greece is being bailed out by Germany, which has one of the strongest social support programs in the world.
No, I didn't say that. In fact, military spending goes up no matter which party has temporary power and the social spending cuts have been steady regardless of party also.
Sorry but my point still stands -- our safety nets and social spending is not extravagant at all. Many if not most first world countries have free or almost free universities, have no limit to unemployment insurance, etc etc. They manage to have enough money. The US is the wealthiest country in the world and yet it's cutting unemployment insurance, national park funds, etc etc. The problem is obviously not just as simple as too much social spending. Sorry.
Can you understand that using the percentage method does not work? Even if the total amount of money (the pie) were half as much, and we were still giving the same percentage to everything, the seemingly scary 50% fact would still be there, even though we were in fact spending much less. So just to say "we spend 50% of the budget on X and that's wrong" doesn't make sense. You have to actually look at the dollars per person, per capita, per GDP or per something. And that, as I have shown, reveals that we do not spend too much on social programs in the USA.
What a load of bullshit!!!
Republicans/Conservatives in almost every nation are responsible for the largest increases in debt.
This is not to say that Democrats/Liberals/Labour haven't created debt and run large deficits, but to skew the truth with this GDP crap (when Bush took eight years to ruin the economy) is misleading.
So the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget are lying? It is a simple fact that Obama and the Democrats have been spending money we don’t have and using debt to finance their pet projects and payoffs to campaign contributors.
Republicans aren't so different from Democrats. They are two arms of the same beast.
But here's something for you: if Republicans really want to balance the budget, why do they like the Bush tax cuts so much?
Why has the most recent expenditure of Obama's not been included in the graph?
How about a more realistic visual graph like this one - and Clinton does the best, Obama the worst?
In alll honesty if Bill could run for a third term im pretty sure the american public would take it as a better option than Romney or Obama. I would take him over those two anyday and i'm not even a huge Bill Clinton fan tbh.
I'm not exactly sure how to interpret the above graph. I mean the US National Debt was apparently at over $40 trillion before Obama took power so I'm a ittle unsure how it can have only grown $11 trillion in the first 230 years. Could be clearer. Anyway thats pretty deceptive anyway, of course the last 4 years is going to look rather shocking when compared to even a long period of time such as the first hundred years of the republic due to inflation alone. I think the US national debt was at $25,000 at one stage.
Anyway its important to keep in mind that Obama took power at a point in time when the economy had just collapsed. With an increased demand for benefits and slumping revenues the deficit is going to blow out no matter what. The real elephant in the room in terms of differences between Bush/Obama and previous administrations in terms of deficit however is the Bush era tax cuts which the Republican Congress have extended. Thats the big difference maker. Spending hasnt actually increased particularly dramatically, at least in terms of new policies (Obama stimulus was IIRC the only notable new uptick). Look at that flat GDP though as we go from Bush to Obama in deanhills graphic.[/img]
As a not particularly interested (in this particular debate) bye-stander I would just like to say
something about graphs. Take it or leave it.
a) Where a graph is without clear axes and scale then I tend to think it isn't worth looking at and is
almost certainly junk, misleading or inaccurate (or multiples thereof).
b) Where a graph has a discontinuous axis then I regard it as probably an attempt to deceive - likewise with discontinuous scale factors.
c) I find that many graphs don't say what the poster thinks they do - it is important to read the blurb that accompanies most graphs and this is why posters are encouraged
strongly to provide citations.
I suggest that if posters look at graphs in future with these filters they will be far less likely to be
misled or misinformed....
The Wall Street Journal's Marketwatch:
I know this won't make a dent in the majority of willful ignorance, but those interested can read the rest here http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor
Nutting’s blog post has already been debunked. Apparently it is easy to sweep Obama’s record spending under the carpet if you are willing to assign money Obama spent to others. As expected, Obama’s followers would rather parrot the usual refrain of “it’s all Bush’s fault” rather than own up to Dear Leader’s mismanagement and corruption.
But I think most rational people can all agree that spending has gotten out of control, and deep cuts in the size and reach of the federal government are needed. But spending more money we don’t have on programs that line the pockets of campaign contributors while adding more and more to our debt is not the way to go.
Source = http://blog.american.com/2012/05/actually-the-obama-spending-binge-really-did-happen/
Wall Street Journal vs. neocon think tank full of ex-Bush staffers?
WSJ in a landslide.
What a crock of shit. Your partisanship blinds you to reality. The Republicans, starting with Reagan, have grown the debt more than Democratic presidents. While true, Obama has been the worst Democratic when it has come to increasing the debt - but George W. Bush was far worst.
You can't have tax cuts and increase military/security spending at the same time. Stop the Military Industrial Complex - google it if you havent heard of it dude - it was termed by a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, in reference to the growing influence of military contractors on military spending.
Eisenhower, the last good republican president.
The last acceptable one, maybe.
To find a good one, I'd say you have to go as far back as Theodore Roosevelt.
I guess your right on that one. But Eisenhower did warn of the millitary-indistrial complex taking hold and he WAS COMPLETELY right... *sigh*
hmmm.. its just political views.. politics do everything to make some other people down.. if you are in politics expect everything is possible from negative view to positive views..
Any way you turn it, the fact that it usually takes longer to fix something than to break it applies. Of course, the debt will increase before it is fixed, however one can not fix an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Money will have to be spent so that the debt can be paid. Overall it does not matter who caused the debt but who will fix it. Just because the current president has not been successful during his term does not mean things are not being done about it. It all depends on how much can be done and how fast it can be done.
It is not a partisan issue. Both parties have been racking up the debt!
But, you see, they'll make it a partisan issue, convincing their loyal voters that it's the other guys racking up the debt. No matter which side wins, the system as a whole is thus preserved.
Using PERCENTAGES to show that Obama isn't as 'bad' a spender as some generic
(or specific) Republican President, could be a bit misleading.
OK, say my household budget deficit (credit card debt) last year was $100.
I increased it this year to $200. OMG I just DOUBLED the 'family debt'.
My neighbor on the other hand, ran a 'household deficit' of $100,000 last year.
This year, he 'only' increased it to $105,000, adding 'only' $5000 to his
'household debt'. Therefore, I am a 'much worse' offender as he added only
5% to his total debt and I added 100% to mine. See how that works?
According to CBS News, in total numbers, The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during
the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.
That's why anytime there are claims by anyone on either side of the
political aisle, it's best to get real numbers, not just percentages.
Obama certainly hasn't been GOOD for our national debt, just as Bush
was not. For some comprehensive numbers:
This shows growth rate increase, but also as a percentage of GDP and also as
total number of dollars. Once the amount you owe is so high, even when you
increase it, the PERCENTAGE goes down.
Not exactly. The fact that Obama has increased spending only 4% is significant. The large increase in the deficit is not due to spending. It is because of a lack of revenue, stemming from the tax cuts and the slower economy which produces less tax revenue. These are facts the GOP wants nobody to know, and they have been successful (a compliant media helps).
Your example is interesting but it doesn't work too well. If the two households are separate, and using a maximum of their income, then a 100% increase from $100 to $200 is indeed devastating, and the other house's 5% increase is indeed small. But as I said, it's not all about spending, but revenue, or in your example, income.
There are other factors at play. Among them, debt a country owes itself in the form of deficit spending is not the end of the world. It's not great, but it can be handled. This is part of the economist Paul Krugman's point that the reason we have such a sluggish recovery is that we should have spent much more than that 4% in the last few years.
Your point about a slower economy is
duly noted, however, Obama bears blame
for the slow economy as well....so that
doesn't get him off the hook.
As for my example, you are making assumptions
about the household income. Let's say both
households had an income of 30,000 dollars.
Household 1 spent $30,100 the first year and
$30,200 the second. Household 2 spent
$130,000 the first year and $135,000 the
second. Which is being more responsible?
Some percentages can be misleading.
I would agree income is very significant
as well and would even say I am not against
higher taxes on the rich. Unfortunately, we
cant get out of this mess by taxes alone.
We will need spending cuts as well.
That was why I was floating ideas such as making
Social security 'needs' based. Obama certainly
isn't proposing responsible budgets. I think
he should take lessons from Clinton, who I
think did a better job with budgets.
How so? What possible thing could Obama have done that he hasn't already done? If the GOP had a real answer to that question, it would be headline news.
Cut where? Spending on almost everything has already been cut to the bone. The education system that made this country great is being eviscerated. Our infrastructure has been crumbling for 30 years, though the Stimulus helped that a bit.
There is only one place with a ton of money that could be saved -- military spending. We could cut that in half and pay for everything else and pay down the debt. We still spend billions on warships that we never use and will never use in modern warfare.
And if the other side had a solution, it would also be headline news. ^.^
The real answer is neither side has a solution.
That's because neither side is willing to look for and solve the actual source of the problem... and because even if they did, the solution would be slow and gradual, and things would probably get worse before they got better... Not the kind of thing you can accomplish within a 4 year term limit.
Really? There's NO other place where money could be saved?
That's what you really believe, or are you just saying that?
Actually, you could cut military spending to zero, and the country would still be insolvent.
(The budget deficit is greater than the entire military budget.)
Sorry, 'cut the military' is not a complete solution to the problem.
Just change the constituion and bring back Clinton. He is definitely missed
You can have 'him' back soon, I'll bet.
Hillary was the brains behind that administration, and it sure looks like she's angling to be the first female president... I wouldn't be surprised at all to see her as one of the main candidates an election or two from now.
...On a completely off-track, but possibly more amusing side-track:
If a female president is elected, what do they call the 'first lady'?