National Debt Explodes $6 Trillion Under Obama

[Oldstyle]

Again, we went through the worst recession since the Great Depression. We lost about 4.7% of GDP and no less than 12 million jobs to un/under employment during that period.

How quickly do you think it takes to recover from that?

One climbs out of a deep hole at the same rate that one climbs out of a shallow hole. We are not climbing out, we are thrashing around at the bottom, while the President blames everyone in sight for hiding the ladder.

We lost over a million jobs in a single month when Obama became president. We're now gaining jobs. GDP was negative 9% when he became president. It's now positive.

To deny that we're climbing out of the abyss Bush left is to deny reality.

With all due respect, Faun...we're not even close to creating enough jobs to keep up with population increases and GDP growth is averaging an anemic 1.5%. That's after four years of massive spending on stimulus and the Fed doing quatitative easing nonstop the whole time. Trying to paint what Barack Obama has done with the economy since taking office as "positive" is being generous at the least. Bush did more to stave off "the abyss" then Obama did when he pushed through TARP. Obama was in position to reap the benefit of taking over the Presidency when we'd reached the worst of the recession. The recovery we SHOULD have gotten would have made him look like a rock star. Unfortunately for Barry...he chose to go after ObamaCare which puts a damper on economic growth...and he pushed things like Cap & Trade which threatened businesses with massive new energy costs. The "reality" is that Barack Obama has been his own worst enemy when it comes to the economy. His stimulus was badly conceived and carried out in an even worse way. Our credit downgrade because we haven't addressed deficit reduction (even though he promised he would!) lies at his feet. And the recent tax increases that he pushed for will cause us to lose even more jobs. Then as the cherry on the whole mess...he calls for higher minimum wage in his State of the Union speech...just one more thing to worry the Private Sector employer.

Sorry...but Barry and his crew don't seem to have a clue when it comes to jobs and the economy.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Again, we went through the worst recession since the Great Depression. We lost about 4.7% of GDP and no less than 12 million jobs to un/under employment during that period.

We lost over a million jobs in a single month when Obama became president. We're now gaining jobs. GDP was negative 9% when he became president. It's now positive.

To deny that we're climbing out of the abyss Bush left is to deny reality.

Uh no. Wrong again. In 2010 the GDP was 3.0% - FACT In 2012 the GDP was 1.2% FACT and in the final report of 2012 it was -.2% FACT.

Additionally, this crap about blaming Bush for everything has to stop. DEMOCRATS were in control the last 2 years of his administration. Barney (light in the loafers) Frank and Chris Dodd were probably MORE responsible for the fiasco that was the Bush administration than the moronic Bush was. Again, for all of you who flunked Civics - The president DOES NOT pass laws. The House and the Senate do.

Your boy is a liar.

 

[Faun]

One climbs out of a deep hole at the same rate that one climbs out of a shallow hole. We are not climbing out, we are thrashing around at the bottom, while the President blames everyone in sight for hiding the ladder.

We lost over a million jobs in a single month when Obama became president. We're now gaining jobs. GDP was negative 9% when he became president. It's now positive.

To deny that we're climbing out of the abyss Bush left is to deny reality.

With all due respect, Faun...we're not even close to creating enough jobs to keep up with population increases and GDP growth is averaging an anemic 1.5%. That's after four years of massive spending on stimulus and the Fed doing quatitative easing nonstop the whole time. Trying to paint what Barack Obama has done with the economy since taking office as "positive" is being generous at the least. Bush did more to stave off "the abyss" then Obama did when he pushed through TARP. Obama was in position to reap the benefit of taking over the Presidency when we'd reached the worst of the recession. The recovery we SHOULD have gotten would have made him look like a rock star. Unfortunately for Barry...he chose to go after ObamaCare which puts a damper on economic growth...and he pushed things like Cap & Trade which threatened businesses with massive new energy costs. The "reality" is that Barack Obama has been his own worst enemy when it comes to the economy. His stimulus was badly conceived and carried out in an even worse way. Our credit downgrade because we haven't addressed deficit reduction (even though he promised he would!) lies at his feet. And the recent tax increases that he pushed for will cause us to lose even more jobs. Then as the cherry on the whole mess...he calls for higher minimum wage in his State of the Union speech...just one more thing to worry the Private Sector employer.

Sorry...but Barry and his crew don't seem to have a clue when it comes to jobs and the economy.

That may be your opinion, but here's the reality ... private sector growth is growing at the same rate as before the recession ...



... it's just that not enough time has passed to make up for all the jobs lost due to the recession.

 

[Faun]

We lost over a million jobs in a single month when Obama became president. We're now gaining jobs. GDP was negative 9% when he became president. It's now positive.

To deny that we're climbing out of the abyss Bush left is to deny reality.

Uh no. Wrong again. In 2010 the GDP was 3.0% - FACT In 2012 the GDP was 1.2% FACT and in the final report of 2012 it was -.2% FACT.

Umm, just a word of advice ... when you delare something as FACT, check your facts first.

The fact is, GDP in Q4 in 2012, while nominal, was still positive ...

BEA: GDP Percent change from preceding period

2012q1: 2.0
2012q2: 1.3
2012q3: 3.1
2012q4: 0.1

Additionally, this crap about blaming Bush for everything has to stop. DEMOCRATS were in control the last 2 years of his administration. Barney (light in the loafers) Frank and Chris Dodd were probably MORE responsible for the fiasco that was the Bush administration than the moronic Bush was. Again, for all of you who flunked Civics - The president DOES NOT pass laws. The House and the Senate do.

Your boy is a liar.

Sorry, but when Democats took over the Congress in 2007, one of the very first things Barney Frank did was to push oversight, that was needed from years before, through the House.

 

[RandallFlagg]

We lost over a million jobs in a single month when Obama became president. We're now gaining jobs. GDP was negative 9% when he became president. It's now positive.

To deny that we're climbing out of the abyss Bush left is to deny reality.

Uh no. Wrong again. In 2010 the GDP was 3.0% - FACT In 2012 the GDP was 1.2% FACT and in the final report of 2012 it was -.2% FACT.

Umm, just a word of advice ... when you delare something as FACT, check your facts first.

The fact is, GDP in Q4 in 2012, while nominal, was still positive ...

BEA: GDP Percent change from preceding period

2012q1: 2.0
2012q2: 1.3
2012q3: 3.1
2012q4: 0.1

Additionally, this crap about blaming Bush for everything has to stop. DEMOCRATS were in control the last 2 years of his administration. Barney (light in the loafers) Frank and Chris Dodd were probably MORE responsible for the fiasco that was the Bush administration than the moronic Bush was. Again, for all of you who flunked Civics - The president DOES NOT pass laws. The House and the Senate do.

Your boy is a liar.

Sorry, but when Democats took over the Congress in 2007, one of the very first things Barney Frank did was to push oversight, that was needed from years before, through the House.

Indeed, when the White House heard of the Q4 GDP figures, the BEA was ordered to "re-work" the figures and nearly IMMEDIATELY, they came up with "revised" figures. Now, if you'd like to make a ridiculous point that 0.1% is "growth", then there isn't much that I can do to help you.

U.S. GDP Growth Revised Up to 0.1% in Q4
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Anna Fedec, [email protected] | 2/28/2013 1:38:09 PM
Real gross domestic product in the United States increased at an annual rate of 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012 (that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to the "second" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP increased 3.1 percent.
The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for the "advance" estimate issued last month. In the advance estimate, real GDP declined 0.1 percent. The upward revision to the percent change in real GDP is smaller than the average revision from the advance to second estimate of 0.5 percentage point. While today’s release has revised the direction of change in real GDP, the general picture of the economy for the fourth quarter remains largely the same as what was presented last month.

The increase in real GDP in the fourth quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), nonresidential fixed investment, and residential fixed investment that were partly offset by negative contributions from private inventory investment, federal government spending, exports, and state and local government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, decreased.

The deceleration in real GDP in the fourth quarter primarily reflected downturns in private inventory investment, in federal government spending, in exports, and in state and local government spending that were partly offset by an upturn in nonresidential fixed investment, a larger decrease in imports, and an acceleration in PCE.

As to Barney Frank. Of course he began calling for "oversight". That piece of human excrement was doing anything he could think of in an attempt to deflect his direct involvement in the housing crash of the early 2000s by insisting that the Fed carry paper that was worthless. I give you:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo]Democrats were WARNED of Financial crisis and did NOTHING - YouTube[/ame]


Now you can blame Bush all you like (and I'm sure you will). But how about laying just a "little" of the blame on that worthless piece of human excrement that you communists call "Barney Frank"?? Are you guys men and women enough to do that??

 

[Faun]

Uh no. Wrong again. In 2010 the GDP was 3.0% - FACT In 2012 the GDP was 1.2% FACT and in the final report of 2012 it was -.2% FACT.

Umm, just a word of advice ... when you delare something as FACT, check your facts first.

The fact is, GDP in Q4 in 2012, while nominal, was still positive ...

BEA: GDP Percent change from preceding period

2012q1: 2.0
2012q2: 1.3
2012q3: 3.1
2012q4: 0.1

Additionally, this crap about blaming Bush for everything has to stop. DEMOCRATS were in control the last 2 years of his administration. Barney (light in the loafers) Frank and Chris Dodd were probably MORE responsible for the fiasco that was the Bush administration than the moronic Bush was. Again, for all of you who flunked Civics - The president DOES NOT pass laws. The House and the Senate do.

Your boy is a liar.

Sorry, but when Democats took over the Congress in 2007, one of the very first things Barney Frank did was to push oversight, that was needed from years before, through the House.

Indeed, when the White House heard of the Q4 GDP figures, the BEA was ordered to "re-work" the figures and nearly IMMEDIATELY, they came up with "revised" figures.

I can't help that you are so paranoid, you think Obama can can have numbers fudged at the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Nor was it immediately, but about a month later, which is about when the BEA typically releases their 2nd report on the previous quarter's GDP.

The fact of the matter is, after nearly every quarter following their initial report, the BEA revises their numbers as more data becomes available. This is nothing unusual and neither Obama, nor any president, has has that kind of influence over the BEA that they can get the BEA to revise the GDP numbers upwards.

Now, if you'd like to make a ridiculous point that 0.1% is "growth", then there isn't much that I can do to help you.

I'd appreciate it if you would read my posts for clarity. At the very least, don't add erroneous conclusions that I DO NOT make and then ascribe them to me.

I said the growth was "nominal." But growth it was. That other poster [wrongly] claimed GDP was negative last quarter.

As to Barney Frank. Of course he began calling for "oversight". That piece of human excrement was doing anything he could think of in an attempt to deflect his direct involvement in the housing crash of the early 2000s by insisting that the Fed carry paper that was worthless. I give you:

Democrats were WARNED of Financial crisis and did NOTHING - YouTube

Now you can blame Bush all you like (and I'm sure you will). But how about laying just a "little" of the blame on that worthless piece of human excrement that you communists call "Barney Frank"?? Are you guys men and women enough to do that??

Sure, Barney Frank was wrong at that time. Dead wrong. But Barney Frank was but one member of the minority party and could not prevent Republicans, who controlled the Congress, from passing the much needed oversight that could have prevented the economic meltdown. I posted 2 bills, one in 2003 and the other in 2005, which could have averted the disaster. Was Frank wrong for being against them? Yes. But he couldn't stop them. It was Republicans who let those bills die in the Senate. It doesn't matter if Frank was right or wrong; Conservatives used him as a scape goat rather than accept that the Republican party fucked up royally.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Umm, just a word of advice ... when you delare something as FACT, check your facts first.

The fact is, GDP in Q4 in 2012, while nominal, was still positive ...

BEA: GDP Percent change from preceding period

2012q1: 2.0
2012q2: 1.3
2012q3: 3.1
2012q4: 0.1


Sorry, but when Democats took over the Congress in 2007, one of the very first things Barney Frank did was to push oversight, that was needed from years before, through the House.

Indeed, when the White House heard of the Q4 GDP figures, the BEA was ordered to "re-work" the figures and nearly IMMEDIATELY, they came up with "revised" figures.

I can't help that you are so paranoid, you think Obama can can have numbers fudged at the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Nor was it immediately, but about a month later, which is about when the BEA typically releases their 2nd report on the previous quarter's GDP.

The fact of the matter is, after nearly every quarter following their initial report, the BEA revises their numbers as more data becomes available. This is nothing unusual and neither Obama, nor any president, has has that kind of influence over the BEA that they can get the BEA to revise the GDP numbers upwards.

Now, if you'd like to make a ridiculous point that 0.1% is "growth", then there isn't much that I can do to help you.

I'd appreciate it if you would read my posts for clarity. At the very least, don't add erroneous conclusions that I DO NOT make and then ascribe them to me.

I said the growth was "nominal." But growth it was. That other poster [wrongly] claimed GDP was negative last quarter.

As to Barney Frank. Of course he began calling for "oversight". That piece of human excrement was doing anything he could think of in an attempt to deflect his direct involvement in the housing crash of the early 2000s by insisting that the Fed carry paper that was worthless. I give you:

Democrats were WARNED of Financial crisis and did NOTHING - YouTube

Now you can blame Bush all you like (and I'm sure you will). But how about laying just a "little" of the blame on that worthless piece of human excrement that you communists call "Barney Frank"?? Are you guys men and women enough to do that??

Sure, Barney Frank was wrong at that time. Dead wrong. But Barney Frank was but one member of the minority party and could not prevent Republicans, who controlled the Congress, from passing the much needed oversight that could have prevented the economic meltdown. I posted 2 bills, one in 2003 and the other in 2005, which could have averted the disaster. Was Frank wrong for being against them? Yes. But he couldn't stop them. It was Republicans who let those bills die in the Senate. It doesn't matter if Frank was right or wrong; Conservatives used him as a scape goat rather than accept that the Republican party fucked up royally.

Good Lord.....

So, Congress wasn't controlled by Democrats the last 2 years of Bushs' term? You know - When the doo doo hit the damn fan?? And they had been warned REPEATEDLY, OVER AND OVER that this was coming!?!?! With Barney Frank at the helm of the committee that PUSHED for these LOANS!?!?! Are you seriously kidding me!?!?!?

My God in Heaven - Yeats was, indeed correct!!! Liars write history.....

 

[Faun]

Indeed, when the White House heard of the Q4 GDP figures, the BEA was ordered to "re-work" the figures and nearly IMMEDIATELY, they came up with "revised" figures.

I can't help that you are so paranoid, you think Obama can can have numbers fudged at the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Nor was it immediately, but about a month later, which is about when the BEA typically releases their 2nd report on the previous quarter's GDP.

The fact of the matter is, after nearly every quarter following their initial report, the BEA revises their numbers as more data becomes available. This is nothing unusual and neither Obama, nor any president, has has that kind of influence over the BEA that they can get the BEA to revise the GDP numbers upwards.


I'd appreciate it if you would read my posts for clarity. At the very least, don't add erroneous conclusions that I DO NOT make and then ascribe them to me.

I said the growth was "nominal." But growth it was. That other poster [wrongly] claimed GDP was negative last quarter.

As to Barney Frank. Of course he began calling for "oversight". That piece of human excrement was doing anything he could think of in an attempt to deflect his direct involvement in the housing crash of the early 2000s by insisting that the Fed carry paper that was worthless. I give you:

Democrats were WARNED of Financial crisis and did NOTHING - YouTube

Now you can blame Bush all you like (and I'm sure you will). But how about laying just a "little" of the blame on that worthless piece of human excrement that you communists call "Barney Frank"?? Are you guys men and women enough to do that??

Sure, Barney Frank was wrong at that time. Dead wrong. But Barney Frank was but one member of the minority party and could not prevent Republicans, who controlled the Congress, from passing the much needed oversight that could have prevented the economic meltdown. I posted 2 bills, one in 2003 and the other in 2005, which could have averted the disaster. Was Frank wrong for being against them? Yes. But he couldn't stop them. It was Republicans who let those bills die in the Senate. It doesn't matter if Frank was right or wrong; Conservatives used him as a scape goat rather than accept that the Republican party fucked up royally.

Good Lord.....

So, Congress wasn't controlled by Democrats the last 2 years of Bushs' term? You know - When the doo doo hit the damn fan?? And they had been warned REPEATEDLY, OVER AND OVER that this was coming!?!?! With Barney Frank at the helm of the committee that PUSHED for these LOANS!?!?! Are you seriously kidding me!?!?!?

My God in Heaven - Yeats was, indeed correct!!! Liars write history.....

With all due respect, you're fucking nuts. YOU post a video of Barney Frank from 2003, and when I point out that he was but one member of the minority party (which he was in 2003), you shift to 2007 -- when as a member of the majority party, Barney Frank got a bill passed in the House to add some of the oversight we needed Republicans to pass years earlier. By 2007, it was too late, the housing market had already begun its descent that would lead to its ultimate demise.

 

[Oldstyle]

I can't help that you are so paranoid, you think Obama can can have numbers fudged at the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Nor was it immediately, but about a month later, which is about when the BEA typically releases their 2nd report on the previous quarter's GDP.

The fact of the matter is, after nearly every quarter following their initial report, the BEA revises their numbers as more data becomes available. This is nothing unusual and neither Obama, nor any president, has has that kind of influence over the BEA that they can get the BEA to revise the GDP numbers upwards.


I'd appreciate it if you would read my posts for clarity. At the very least, don't add erroneous conclusions that I DO NOT make and then ascribe them to me.

I said the growth was "nominal." But growth it was. That other poster [wrongly] claimed GDP was negative last quarter.


Sure, Barney Frank was wrong at that time. Dead wrong. But Barney Frank was but one member of the minority party and could not prevent Republicans, who controlled the Congress, from passing the much needed oversight that could have prevented the economic meltdown. I posted 2 bills, one in 2003 and the other in 2005, which could have averted the disaster. Was Frank wrong for being against them? Yes. But he couldn't stop them. It was Republicans who let those bills die in the Senate. It doesn't matter if Frank was right or wrong; Conservatives used him as a scape goat rather than accept that the Republican party fucked up royally.

Good Lord.....

So, Congress wasn't controlled by Democrats the last 2 years of Bushs' term? You know - When the doo doo hit the damn fan?? And they had been warned REPEATEDLY, OVER AND OVER that this was coming!?!?! With Barney Frank at the helm of the committee that PUSHED for these LOANS!?!?! Are you seriously kidding me!?!?!?

My God in Heaven - Yeats was, indeed correct!!! Liars write history.....

With all due respect, you're fucking nuts. YOU post a video of Barney Frank from 2003, and when I point out that he was but one member of the minority party (which he was in 2003), you shift to 2007 -- when as a member of the majority party, Barney Frank got a bill passed in the House to add some of the oversight we needed Republicans to pass years earlier. By 2007, it was too late, the housing market had already begun its descent that would lead to its ultimate demise.

With all due respect, Faun...George W. Bush was cautioning that the way we were running Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac we were setting ourselves up for a major disaster and it was Barney Frank who pooh poohed that idea, repeatedly accusing Bush of exaggerating the potential problem. Bush sought tighter regulations and both Democrats AND Republicans resisted because giving people liar loans backed up by Federal loan guarantees was so politically popular.

Now here's my question for you.

Do you think Barack Obama would have had the courage to seek those politically unpopular but obviously needed reforms to Fannie and Freddie? Quite frankly he's never demonstrated that to me. I think he would have let the "game" that they were playing at Fannie and Freddie to continue along like usual.

 

[Lakhota]

The Absurd Zombie Lie About the Economy Right-Wingers Desperately Cling To -- And Why It's Totally Wrong

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Via Politico:


The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that President Barack Obama’s tax and spending policies will yield $6.4 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than double the shortfall in CBO’s own fiscal baseline — even after taking credit for reduced war costs.

House Republicans, slated to unveil their own plan next week, are sure to seize on the numbers, yet the mountain of data gives reason for both parties to pause going into what’s expected to be a major fiscal crisis after the November elections.

The federal debt held by the public would still nearly double again from $10.1 trillion at the end of 2011 to $18.8 trillion at the end of 2022. For the current fiscal year ending Sept. 30, CBO is now projecting a shortfall of $1.3 trillion. In fiscal 2013, the deficit will still hover near the $1 trillion mark — about $977 billion. And while it will fall to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2017, it then begins to grow again to 3 percent of GDP by 2022.

To be sure, CBO’s baseline isn’t perfect as a standard against which to measure fiscal decisions.

The nonpartisan office is bound by rules that require it to assume that all of the Bush-era tax cuts will end in December, for example. At the same time, it must build-in spending assumptions that major health programs like Medicare and Medicaid continue to grow unchecked.

[Excerpt]

Read more:
CBO: Exploding debt under Obama policies - David Rogers - POLITICO.com

 

[ScienceRocks]

Don't be suprised if Obama explodes it another 6 trillion another 4 years. We voted for more suffering and bs.

 

[Care4all]

That graph is misleading as it attributes none of FY2009 to Obama other than the stimulus, even though Bush signed a continuing resolution which only covered the first half of FY2012. Obama owns the second half of FY2009, which that graphs omits.

No, it is not deceiving and Obama is not responsible for the 2009 fiscal budget...it is YOU who is mistaken and have not taken the time to research it for yourself and are just mouthing off what you have been told and time and time again you all are corrected on this false assumption or yours yet you neglect to absorb the truth.

Please, for the love of God, read the full link below...it is very informative and enlightening....read it all, it is very thorough.

FactCheck.org : Obama?s Spending: ?Inferno? or Not?

------------------------------------------------

If you want to take the 200 billion at most, that Obama affected bush's budget with, then you would in turn have to count what President Bush did when he first took office and take that spending and tax cuts out of Clinton's last budget for fiscal 2001....since president Bush gave us all a tax break and stimulus before Clinton's last fiscal budget for 2001 was over on September 30th.

You're being ridiculous. You can't just blindly look at FY2009 and attribute it all to Bush.

Under normal circumstances, that would be acceptable. Normal circumstances being that an incoming president inherits the annual budget from their predecessor which would have begun the previous October.

But FY2009 was not a normal circumstance. There was no annual budget signed by Bush for FY2009, therefore, he doesn't own it, as you are trying to claim.

At the end September, 2008, as FY2008 was coming to a close and the federal government still could not get a budget signed, Bush signed a continuing resolution to keep the government functioning for the first half of FY2009.

The following March, Obama then assumed the budget when he signed a continuing resolution, that went into effect on March 12, 2009.

From that date forward, you cannot blindly attribute the budget to Bush simply because FY2009 started under his watch.

READ THE LINK, pretty please....

none of obama's budgets have been signed yet you all blame it all on him don't you?

President bush's fiscal budget for 2009 brought us to 1.3 trillion dollar deficit all by itself....most of the stimulus that obama passed was NOT SPENT in fiscal 2009 so not even the full amount of that of obama's is in the numbers of fiscal 2009....so please STOP IT....educate yourself and read the link from factcheck....do it, do it for yourself, so YOU know the truth....it's not that hard to do....

honesty is the best policy, not staying ignorant, as you have purposely chosen....no matter what side of the aisle you are on....

 

[RandallFlagg]

Good Lord.....

So, Congress wasn't controlled by Democrats the last 2 years of Bushs' term? You know - When the doo doo hit the damn fan?? And they had been warned REPEATEDLY, OVER AND OVER that this was coming!?!?! With Barney Frank at the helm of the committee that PUSHED for these LOANS!?!?! Are you seriously kidding me!?!?!?

My God in Heaven - Yeats was, indeed correct!!! Liars write history.....

With all due respect, you're fucking nuts. YOU post a video of Barney Frank from 2003, and when I point out that he was but one member of the minority party (which he was in 2003), you shift to 2007 -- when as a member of the majority party, Barney Frank got a bill passed in the House to add some of the oversight we needed Republicans to pass years earlier. By 2007, it was too late, the housing market had already begun its descent that would lead to its ultimate demise.

With all due respect, Faun...George W. Bush was cautioning that the way we were running Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac we were setting ourselves up for a major disaster and it was Barney Frank who pooh poohed that idea, repeatedly accusing Bush of exaggerating the potential problem. Bush sought tighter regulations and both Democrats AND Republicans resisted because giving people liar loans backed up by Federal loan guarantees was so politically popular.

Now here's my question for you.

Do you think Barack Obama would have had the courage to seek those politically unpopular but obviously needed reforms to Fannie and Freddie? Quite frankly he's never demonstrated that to me. I think he would have let the "game" that they were playing at Fannie and Freddie to continue along like usual.

This is the problem with "faun's" thinking. Bush repeatedly WARNED the democrats that trouble was looming. The Democrats IGNORED the warning. Alan Greenspan WARNED of impending disaster. The Democrats IGNORED the warning. Every time the republicans attempted to tighten regulations that would slow Barney Frank down, they were shot down at every turn. EVERY TIME. From 2002 through 2008.

There was no political will from EITHER side, to reign in FANNIE and FREDDIE. The republicans never had the votes to do a damn thing to stop the impending doom. It was just a matter of time until the whole thing came crashing down - which it did.

Bush takes the "lion's share" of the responsibility for not doing more. The democrats (who again, were in control of BOTH Houses) share the rest. Funny, however, that they have never accepted ANY of the blame for putting this country in it's current condition. NONE of the blame and, the mainstream media has conveniently "forgotten" about that fool Barney Frank.

Senator Barry Obama was seldom ever seen or heard from in those days. He was busy planning his "fundamental transformation" of the United States.

 

[bripat9643]

Breitfart? What a joke!

Try an actual legitimate source, until then GTFO.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2012

Obamalama has exploded the debt, deficit and spending

Not true. Obama has spent less, and expanded the debt less than any other president since Ike.

Unlike the "spend us into oblivion" right wingers like Reagan and W,..

That lie was exposed months ago.

 

[bripat9643]

Here's the article it's from you fucking idiot

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

You right wingers are the dumbest of the dumb, but you seem to take pride in that.

The author is a left-wing hack. The title of the article even says so.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong again. W expanded the debt more than any other president in the nation by a longshot.

Hell W took the biggest surplus in US history, and turned it into the biggest deficit.

It take a real idiot to pull that one off, and those idiots are W and the GOP.

There was no surplus you dumb fuck, Clinton raided SS and left Bush with a recession. I'm not here to defend Bush, he was a horrid President, he was by definition a progressive.

Then again, Obama spending more on military is ok with you because Obama a Democrat.

Obama can expand Homeland security and that's ok because once again, Obama is a Democrat

Obama gave us the NDAA, tax credits, failed stimulus, dumps billions on the rich, more wars and not a single repeal of the evil vile costly Bush era and yet you support it all because Obama is a Democrat.

Just stop talking, lol.

Yes, there was a surplus

Clinton gave us a booming economy from simple democratic fiscal plans. Fair tax rates, and controlled spending.

W threw this in the trash and went straight back to epically failed, give everything to the rich "trickle down" plans on steroids that completely destroyed the economy.

Thank god the democrats whooped the GOP's asses in 06' taking back both houses and the presidency in 08', otherwise the nation would likely cease to exist.

Here's the chart you should be looking at. The party in control of Congress is what counts.

 

[Faun]

Good Lord.....

So, Congress wasn't controlled by Democrats the last 2 years of Bushs' term? You know - When the doo doo hit the damn fan?? And they had been warned REPEATEDLY, OVER AND OVER that this was coming!?!?! With Barney Frank at the helm of the committee that PUSHED for these LOANS!?!?! Are you seriously kidding me!?!?!?

My God in Heaven - Yeats was, indeed correct!!! Liars write history.....

With all due respect, you're fucking nuts. YOU post a video of Barney Frank from 2003, and when I point out that he was but one member of the minority party (which he was in 2003), you shift to 2007 -- when as a member of the majority party, Barney Frank got a bill passed in the House to add some of the oversight we needed Republicans to pass years earlier. By 2007, it was too late, the housing market had already begun its descent that would lead to its ultimate demise.

With all due respect, Faun...George W. Bush was cautioning that the way we were running Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac we were setting ourselves up for a major disaster and it was Barney Frank who pooh poohed that idea, repeatedly accusing Bush of exaggerating the potential problem. Bush sought tighter regulations and both Democrats AND Republicans resisted because giving people liar loans backed up by Federal loan guarantees was so politically popular.

That was what, around 2003? Republicans controlled the Congress for the next 4 years ... what bills did they pass to add the oversight needed of the GSE's that would have prevented the meltdown? You can't blame one member of the minority party in the House because he did not have the power to block the majority party. That's just ridiculous. Also, while Bush did implore Congress to add oversight, he still signed 2 bills to lower downpayment requirements and still pushed millions of loans for minorities onto Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Do you think Barack Obama would have had the courage to seek those politically unpopular but obviously needed reforms to Fannie and Freddie? Quite frankly he's never demonstrated that to me. I think he would have let the "game" that they were playing at Fannie and Freddie to continue along like usual.

Don't know and don't care as Obama has nothing to do with this.

 

[Faun]

Via Politico:


The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that President Barack Obama’s tax and spending policies will yield $6.4 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than double the shortfall in CBO’s own fiscal baseline — even after taking credit for reduced war costs.

House Republicans, slated to unveil their own plan next week, are sure to seize on the numbers, yet the mountain of data gives reason for both parties to pause going into what’s expected to be a major fiscal crisis after the November elections.

The federal debt held by the public would still nearly double again from $10.1 trillion at the end of 2011 to $18.8 trillion at the end of 2022. For the current fiscal year ending Sept. 30, CBO is now projecting a shortfall of $1.3 trillion. In fiscal 2013, the deficit will still hover near the $1 trillion mark — about $977 billion. And while it will fall to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2017, it then begins to grow again to 3 percent of GDP by 2022.

To be sure, CBO’s baseline isn’t perfect as a standard against which to measure fiscal decisions.

The nonpartisan office is bound by rules that require it to assume that all of the Bush-era tax cuts will end in December, for example. At the same time, it must build-in spending assumptions that major health programs like Medicare and Medicaid continue to grow unchecked.

[Excerpt]

Read more:
CBO: Exploding debt under Obama policies - David Rogers - POLITICO.com

Obama's only going to be in office for 4 more years, so what are you saying? That even if a Republican wins the presidency in 2016, Obama's responsible for the debt for an additional 6 years?

 

[Faun]

No, it is not deceiving and Obama is not responsible for the 2009 fiscal budget...it is YOU who is mistaken and have not taken the time to research it for yourself and are just mouthing off what you have been told and time and time again you all are corrected on this false assumption or yours yet you neglect to absorb the truth.

Please, for the love of God, read the full link below...it is very informative and enlightening....read it all, it is very thorough.

FactCheck.org : Obama?s Spending: ?Inferno? or Not?

------------------------------------------------

If you want to take the 200 billion at most, that Obama affected bush's budget with, then you would in turn have to count what President Bush did when he first took office and take that spending and tax cuts out of Clinton's last budget for fiscal 2001....since president Bush gave us all a tax break and stimulus before Clinton's last fiscal budget for 2001 was over on September 30th.

You're being ridiculous. You can't just blindly look at FY2009 and attribute it all to Bush.

Under normal circumstances, that would be acceptable. Normal circumstances being that an incoming president inherits the annual budget from their predecessor which would have begun the previous October.

But FY2009 was not a normal circumstance. There was no annual budget signed by Bush for FY2009, therefore, he doesn't own it, as you are trying to claim.

At the end September, 2008, as FY2008 was coming to a close and the federal government still could not get a budget signed, Bush signed a continuing resolution to keep the government functioning for the first half of FY2009.

The following March, Obama then assumed the budget when he signed a continuing resolution, that went into effect on March 12, 2009.

From that date forward, you cannot blindly attribute the budget to Bush simply because FY2009 started under his watch.

READ THE LINK, pretty please....

none of obama's budgets have been signed yet you all blame it all on him don't you?

President bush's fiscal budget for 2009 brought us to 1.3 trillion dollar deficit all by itself....most of the stimulus that obama passed was NOT SPENT in fiscal 2009 so not even the full amount of that of obama's is in the numbers of fiscal 2009....so please STOP IT....educate yourself and read the link from factcheck....do it, do it for yourself, so YOU know the truth....it's not that hard to do....

honesty is the best policy, not staying ignorant, as you have purposely chosen....no matter what side of the aisle you are on....

I read the link. You're ignoring the fact that in March, 2009, Obama signed a continuing resolution and an appropriation bill. He's owned the budget ever since. According to your logic, since Obama still hasn't signed a budget, this is still Bush's budget.