A non-partisan examination of the federal debt

[theunbubba]

I don't think you can be serious, either. Do you have an actual argument against this article?

I didn't think so.

Why is it that the cost of maintaining troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are counted as Bush expenses but not Obama expenses? That alone totally skews this comparison so badly as to make it useless.

Makes it useless? Obama had to continue these wars. It was Bush that started them.

Had to continue a war? Not according to his campaign promises. What a colossal fail of an excuse.

 

[theunbubba]

Libs and Cons should take the time to read this because both sides of the aisle are guilty of distorting the facts:

FactCheck.org : Dueling Debt Deceptions

Here are some highlights:

...It’s not true, for example, that the debt has increased only 16 percent since Obama took office. That erroneous calculation originally came from the office of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. And — despite being corrected later — it has continued to circulate via email.

Here is my favorite part of the article:

We won’t attempt here to assess which side is more to blame for the mounting debt, or how much of the increase is Obama’s fault. Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein argues that the economic stimulus and other Obama policies account for just under $1 trillion of the debt added since he took office, while Bush added $5.1 trillion in his eight years — mostly due to tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. On the other hand, former Washington Post reporter Eric Pianin and others fault Obama for not getting more strongly behind the recommendations of his own deficit-reduction commission more than a year ago. Obama agreed to extend Bush’s tax cuts for two years, even as his commission called for tax reform. And he attacked Republican proposals to hold down the cost of Medicare, despite the commission’s call to move beyond the “phantom savings” in his own health care law, savings the commission said “will never materialize.”

All we can do here is point to the correct figures for how much debt has piled up on Obama’s watch, and note that there is ample blame to go around. When the partisan deceptions on each side are disregarded, the plain fact remains that the debt has increased, for many years, under both Democratic and Republican presidents. And it is currently increasing rapidly, reaching historically high levels, while partisans continue to struggle over what to do about it.

In sum, Bush increased the debt by 86% and Obama increased the debt by 45%.

Factcheck is not non-partisan. they fully support the left.


also; 86% in 8 years vs 45% in 3 is nothing to boast about.

for a nice even ballpark; That's 90% for big 0 in 6 years, assuming people are ignorant or foolish enough to vote him in.

And by further extrapolation it would be 120% for 8 years. AWWW. That would be about 20% lower than hiz own projections.

 

[Billy000]

Libs and Cons should take the time to read this because both sides of the aisle are guilty of distorting the facts:

FactCheck.org : Dueling Debt Deceptions

Here are some highlights:

...It’s not true, for example, that the debt has increased only 16 percent since Obama took office. That erroneous calculation originally came from the office of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. And — despite being corrected later — it has continued to circulate via email.

Here is my favorite part of the article:

We won’t attempt here to assess which side is more to blame for the mounting debt, or how much of the increase is Obama’s fault. Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein argues that the economic stimulus and other Obama policies account for just under $1 trillion of the debt added since he took office, while Bush added $5.1 trillion in his eight years — mostly due to tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. On the other hand, former Washington Post reporter Eric Pianin and others fault Obama for not getting more strongly behind the recommendations of his own deficit-reduction commission more than a year ago. Obama agreed to extend Bush’s tax cuts for two years, even as his commission called for tax reform. And he attacked Republican proposals to hold down the cost of Medicare, despite the commission’s call to move beyond the “phantom savings” in his own health care law, savings the commission said “will never materialize.”

All we can do here is point to the correct figures for how much debt has piled up on Obama’s watch, and note that there is ample blame to go around. When the partisan deceptions on each side are disregarded, the plain fact remains that the debt has increased, for many years, under both Democratic and Republican presidents. And it is currently increasing rapidly, reaching historically high levels, while partisans continue to struggle over what to do about it.

In sum, Bush increased the debt by 86% and Obama increased the debt by 45%.

Factcheck is not non-partisan. they fully support the left.


also; 86% in 8 years vs 45% in 3 is nothing to boast about.

for a nice even ballpark; That's 90% for big 0 in 6 years, assuming people are ignorant or foolish enough to vote him in.

So because Factcheck doesn't jive with what you believe, you automatically think they are biased?

Pathetic.

 

[Billy000]

Libs and Cons should take the time to read this because both sides of the aisle are guilty of distorting the facts:

FactCheck.org : Dueling Debt Deceptions

Here are some highlights:





Here is my favorite part of the article:




In sum, Bush increased the debt by 86% and Obama increased the debt by 45%.

Factcheck is not non-partisan. they fully support the left.


also; 86% in 8 years vs 45% in 3 is nothing to boast about.

for a nice even ballpark; That's 90% for big 0 in 6 years, assuming people are ignorant or foolish enough to vote him in.

And by further extrapolation it would be 120% for 8 years. AWWW. That would be about 20% lower than hiz own projections.

Again I ask, what is he spending it on? You obviously do not know.

 

[theunbubba]

Factcheck is not non-partisan. they fully support the left.


also; 86% in 8 years vs 45% in 3 is nothing to boast about.

for a nice even ballpark; That's 90% for big 0 in 6 years, assuming people are ignorant or foolish enough to vote him in.

And by further extrapolation it would be 120% for 8 years. AWWW. That would be about 20% lower than hiz own projections.

Again I ask, what is he spending it on? You obviously do not know.

Solyndra you dumbass.

 

[Billy000]

And by further extrapolation it would be 120% for 8 years. AWWW. That would be about 20% lower than hiz own projections.

Again I ask, what is he spending it on? You obviously do not know.

Solyndra you dumbass.

So you're saying the spending, which is in the trillions, all went to Solyndra?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Fact Check and well known Boiking fluffer Ezra Klein?...You can't possibly be serious.

I don't think you can be serious, either. Do you have an actual argument against this article?

I didn't think so.

Fact check is maintained by the Annenberg Foundation the Annenberg Foundation of which obama was a board member.
Have a great day little billy.

 

[Billy000]

Fact Check and well known Boiking fluffer Ezra Klein?...You can't possibly be serious.

I don't think you can be serious, either. Do you have an actual argument against this article?

I didn't think so.

Fact check is maintained by the Annenberg Foundation the Annenberg Foundation of which obama was a board member.
Have a great day little billy.

Even if they were biased, you have no argument to counter the article's claim.

 

[midcan5]

Let's see if I can sum up the right wingnut argument concerning this issue with a simple analogy. - - My first wife and I spent money on cars and vacations, and we went bankrupt. My second wife and I spent money on cars and vacations and we went bankrupt. It's all my wife's fault because she left me. I had nothing to do with it, nor should any blame be attached to me. It was all her fault and now I (right wing voter / politicians) am spending money on cars and vacations. and it's still that darn wife's fault. - -

 

[editec]

Neither Bush nor Obama increased the debt.

CONGRESS did.

When are we going to understand that our presidents are not KINGS?

 

[The Rabbi]

Let's see if I can sum up the right wingnut argument concerning this issue with a simple analogy. - - My first wife and I spent money on cars and vacations, and we went bankrupt. My second wife and I spent money on cars and vacations and we went bankrupt. It's all my wife's fault because she left me. I had nothing to do with it, nor should any blame be attached to me. It was all her fault and now I (right wing voter / politicians) am spending money on cars and vacations. and it's still that darn wife's fault. - -

Can anyone explain what this analagous to?

Let's try this: when Bush spent money, it was BAAAD. When Obama spends more in 3 years than Bush did in 8 that's GOOOD. Bush=Bad. Obama=Good.
Clear now?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't think you can be serious, either. Do you have an actual argument against this article?

I didn't think so.

Fact check is maintained by the Annenberg Foundation the Annenberg Foundation of which obama was a board member.
Have a great day little billy.

Even if they were biased, you have no argument to counter the article's claim.

OH yell let's use their information. Do you have something other than what obama use to be a board member of?

 

[saveliberty]

Neither Bush nor Obama increased the debt.

CONGRESS did.

When are we going to understand that our presidents are not KINGS?

Oh, oh, me, me!!!

When they stop acting like kings?

 

[uscitizen]

Most are too well programmed to see the debt in anything but political terms.

 

[JDzBrain]

I don't think you can be serious, either. Do you have an actual argument against this article?

I didn't think so.

Fact check is maintained by the Annenberg Foundation the Annenberg Foundation of which obama was a board member.
Have a great day little billy.

Even if they were biased, you have no argument to counter the article's claim.

Ok dumbasses...I'm not going to spend to much time on this, cause I'm busy and Fact Check sourcing is just to ridiculous to take serious if you have HALF a brain. But since you keep saying no one can discredit the report, I'll just take on this ONE part and let you figure out the rest of the LIES for yourself if the TRUTH really matters and you're not just another paid Mediamatters or Center for American Progress DRONE.

If you REALLY want to see some truth, check what happened to Bush's last budget. It started out as a 556 billion dollar budget. In negotiations with Pelosi and Reid who said that was not enough and they would not pass his budget...since the DEMOCRATS CONTROLLED BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS SINCE 2006 and Congress controls the purse strings...they could do that!

Busch relented and raised the request to something just under 800 billion. When the budget actually got through the DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED CONFERENCES, COMMITTEES and CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENTS...it was up to 986 billion dollars and the budget that Obama signed was 1.2 TRILLION.

Even given all that, the year Bush left office, the national debt was just under 10 trillion...4.2 trillion more than it was when he took office 8 years earlier (5.8 T), the deficit spending was 449 billion and the budget as a percentage of the GDP was 22%.

In the 3 years Obama has been in office, the national debt has risen 5.4 trillion to 15.4 trillion and is 105% of the GDP and the LOWEST amount of deficit spending he has had is 1.2 TRILLION dollars!

Now liberals can mix and match statistics to make it look how ever they want...but what we are ALL feeling in our pocketbooks puts LIE to the rhetoric!

The republicans have not controlled spending since 2005. They only control 1/6th of the government now. They have passed...only to be left laying fallow on Harry Rieds desk...some 32 jobs bills and over 300 other reform and budget related pieces of legislation. This MESS we have now...is laid FIRMLY at the feet of DEMOCRATS and THIS PRESIDENT!

 

[saveliberty]

Da truth bomb has exploded.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The rest of the debt under Obama was to offset the recession.

It doesn't matter what the hell it's for. It's debt none the less that has to be paid back on the top of an already toppling mountain of it. He didn't need to spend a few trillion more to "offset the recession." That's bullshit failed Keynesian theory.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Ok this isn't hard to figure out. Yes, a lot of debt has accumulated under Obama. However, only 1 trillion of it was a result of his policies. The rest was automatic.

No, there is no such thing as "automatic." The government giveth and the government can taketh away.

Dumb ass.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Neither Bush nor Obama increased the debt.

CONGRESS did.

And they put their signatures on it. They didn't have to, did they.

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

OP, save your breath. Neither side will take responsibility for their part in our debt. They are experts at placing blame while giving their own a pass. That is what they do best.