HUGE Obama FAIL milestone-DEBT REACHES 14,000,000,000,000

[kiwiman127]

Oh lookie here, from CATO!

George W. Bush: Biggest Spender Since LBJ

The Congressional Budget Office has released final budget numbers for fiscal year 2009. The numbers allow us to take a last look at the Bush administration’s record on spending from a statistical point of view.

The following three charts show annual average real (or constant dollar) outlays during the tenures of recent presidents. Presidents were in office for either 4 or 8 budget years, except JFK (3 years), LBJ (5 years), Nixon (6 years), and Ford (2 years).

President George W. Bush’s last year was fiscal 2009. Outlays that year were $3.522 trillion, according to the CBO. However, $108 billion was spending for the 2009 economic stimulus package passed under President Obama. Bush was thus roughly responsible for $3.414 trillion of spending in 2009, which includes outlays for the financial bailouts enacted under his watch. (For FY2009, $154 billion for TARP and $91 billion for Fannie and Freddie).

Spending in Bush’s first year (FY2001) was $1.863 trillion, thus he presided over an 83-percent increase in overall federal spending, which includes defense, domestic, entitlements, and interest. Even without TARP and Fannie/Freddie, spending was up a huge 70 percent under Bush over eight years. By contrast, total spending under eight years of President Clinton increased just 32 percent. These are the overall increases in nominal dollars
For more go to this link; George W. Bush: Biggest Spender Since LBJ | Cato @ Liberty

Which brings me to piece written by former Ronald Reagan adviser Bruce Bartell;

Republican Deficit Hypocrisy

The human capacity for self-delusion never ceases to amaze me, so it shouldn't surprise me that so many Republicans seem to genuinely believe that they are the party of fiscal responsibility. Perhaps at one time they were, but those days are long gone.

This fact became blindingly obvious to me six years ago this month when a Republican president and a Republican Congress enacted the Medicare drug benefit, which former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker has called "the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s."
Recall the situation in 2003. The Bush administration was already projecting the largest deficit in American history--$475 billion in fiscal year 2004, according to the July 2003 mid-session budget review. But a big election was coming up that Bush and his party were desperately fearful of losing. So they decided to win it by buying the votes of America's seniors by giving them an expensive new program to pay for their prescription drugs
Recall, too, that Medicare was already broke in every meaningful sense of the term. According to the 2003 Medicare trustees report, spending for Medicare was projected to rise much more rapidly than the payroll tax as the baby boomers retired. Consequently, the rational thing for Congress to do would have been to find ways of cutting its costs. Instead, Republicans voted to vastly increase them--and the federal deficit--by $395 billion between 2004 and 2013.

However, the Bush administration knew this figure was not accurate because Medicare's chief actuary, Richard Foster, had concluded, well before passage, that the more likely cost would be $534 billion. Tom Scully, a Republican political appointee at the Department of Health and Human Services, threatened to fire him if he dared to make that information public before the vote. (See this report by the HHS inspector general and this article by Foster
For more go to Republican Deficit Hypocrisy - Forbes.com
When one reads Bartlett's piece, pay attention to who were the those in Congress then who were pushing the spending, oddly, these are todays fiscal hawks.

Deflect and dodge much?

That does NOTHIN to refute my OP.

OBAMA HAS grew the deficit @ a faster pace and amount that ANY other Prez. EVER.

Dunno why you'd think you'd score points with this.

I along with the majority on the right scolded GWB for suck reckless DOMESTIC spending, alotta that your lefty self should love tho, hypocrite much?

Defense spending should obviously, NOT be counted, as that's an obvious necessity.

Your OP has been refuted my many. You point at the 14 trillion like it's all Obama, but no that's not a fact, it's misleading BS on your part. The 14 trillion is the result of many presidents from both sides of the aisle.
Secondly CATO refutes your little cute OP point, can we say "future deficits passed on to future presidents?" and Bartlett shows that a majority on the right didn't scold Bush, they walked lock-step with GWB all the way, sans a few like DeMint and traditional Republicans (Now known as RINOs) like Bartlett and William F Buckley.
Thirdly, I have never disagreed about the Obama pace regarding spending, never. I have stated repeatedly that he and the Dems spent way too much.
What drives me nuts is people like you who place ALL the blame on Obama, nothing like rewriting history or just making shit up (like the now previous Congress spent more than all previous Congresses). Sorry, but the GOP is as guilty and the Dems, facts bear me out.
And then this; "Defense spending should obviously, NOT be counted, as that's an obvious necessity." Yeah, that's what the USSR thought too and look what that train of thought got them. Can anyone say "collapse"?

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

kiwiman127 wrote:

Your OP has been refuted my many.

Lyin ALREADY?

You point at the 14 trillion like it's all Obama, but no that's not a fact, it's misleading BS on your part.

Lyin AGAIN. I SAID IT'S A FAIL MILESTONE. AND IT IS. THIS HAPPENED ON OBAMA'S WATCH, NOT GWB'S. Get over it, wake up, and kill that tired, silly blame Bush B S. When his excuse for a presidency is thru, likely in 2012, we'll see a DEFICIT/DEBT that WILL make GWB's look small, EVEN MORE SO THAN NOW.

The 14 trillion is the result of many presidents from both sides of the aisle.
Secondly CATO refutes your little cute OP point

Actually, THAT would be the 2ND CATO LINK POSTED BY QW that destroys yours.

can we say "future deficits passed on to future presidents?" and Bartlett shows that a majority on the right didn't scold Bush,

I DID. ALL MY FELLOW RIGHTY GOPERS I KNOW DID. So did prominent fiscal conservatives, think tanks, candidates, etc. Easily provable.

Thirdly, I have never disagreed about the Obama pace regarding spending, never. I have stated repeatedly that he and the Dems spent way too much.

Then stop tryna deflect blame with smoke and mirrors, stop obsessing over the past, and help us stop Obama's record, outta control BS.

What drives me nuts is people like you who place ALL the blame on Obama, nothing like rewriting history or just making shit up

Says your head.

And then this; "Defense spending should obviously, NOT be counted, as that's an obvious necessity." Yeah, that's what the USSR thought too and look what that train of thought got them. Can anyone say "collapse"?

WE AINT THE USSR dumbass. We've already come outta a bad recession funding the military like we should. WE'RE FINE. That should be the ABSOLUTE LAST thing we EVER CUT. Cuz in case you missed it, WE'RE @ WAR.

 

[Cuyo]

Our current President vehemently opposed and voted against raising the Debt. Ceiling in the past. In fact he delivered numerous pompous speeches on that. So why the sudden change of heart? The answer...Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely. It's very sad.

He was grandstanding before, as the teabaggers are grandstanding now. Should come as no terrible shock to any of you.

 

[Yurt]

How did continuing the Bush tax cuts help that?

^ thats the liberal answer....

just tax everyone higher....that solves everything

 

[kiwiman127]

Lets see, obama and his socialist cronies increased the debt in two years more than the first 110 congresses combined. Then they wonder why the last election went the way it did. The idiots are clueless. Lets see the clueless come on here now and blame Bush. Idiots.

And who thanked this poster for this post that's claim has already been refuted?
(R)IGHTeous1 did.

 

[kiwiman127]

"Actually, THAT would be the 2ND CATO LINK POSTED BY QW that destroys yours."-R1
Could you supply with he link? Thanks

 

[kiwiman127]

And then this; R1 posted "Defense spending should obviously, NOT be counted, as that's an obvious necessity."

Kiwiman127 posted "Yeah, that's what the USSR thought too and look what that train of thought got them. Can anyone say "collapse"?

R1 posted-WE AINT THE USSR dumbass. We've already come outta a bad recession funding the military like we should. WE'RE FINE. That should be the ABSOLUTE LAST thing we EVER CUT. Cuz in case you missed it, WE'RE @ WAR.

The US already spends more on defense than the entire world and six times more than China, who ranks 2nd in spending. Regarding this recession, we aren't out of the woods yet and not only that, the US's Defense bill is contributing to the deficits. The amount that has been spent in Iraq and Afghanistan is second only to WWII in cost and our enemy doesn't have an army and has primitive technology. Why are we spending so much with this "WAR"?
You should go over to the thread discussing cutting spending for defense, about everyone there agrees that it's time to scale back, maybe you'll pick something up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, the GOP has the purse strings now, we'll see how long it takes them to balance the budget.

 

[Cuyo]

Well, the GOP has the purse strings now, we'll see how long it takes them to balance the budget.

Well, if it's anything like the last few times we put Republicans in charge, not very long. Remember, they're the party of fiscal responsibility....................

 

[Trajan]

that's a shame that they want to cut SS when SS is pulling in a surplus in tax revenues....and has been for 20 plus years

they should cut discretionary spending instead.

That appears to have changed Care..



In 15 of Last 25 Months, Treasury Needed to Borrow Money to Pay Social Security Benefits
Wednesday, October 20, 2010

CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Treasury has needed to borrow money to pay Social Security benefits in 15 out of the last 25 months on record because the Social Security system was in deficit in those months, with the cost of monthly benefit payments exceeding the Social Security tax revenues flowing into the Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance "trust funds," according to data published by the Social Security Administration.

http://www.cnsnews.com/sites/defaul...OF SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND REPORT-2010.pdf

In a summary of their annual report released in August, the Social Security trustees predicted that the Social Security system would run an annual deficit in 2010 for the first time since 1983, and that it would also run an annual deficit in 2011. After that, the trustees predicted, Social Security would run “small surpluses” in 2012, 2013 and 2014, and then, barring changes in the system, lurch permanently into the red as the bulk of the Baby Boom moved into retirement and began collecting benefits.

“Social Security expenditures are expected to exceed tax receipts this year for the first time since 1983,” said the trustees.

In 15 of Last 25 Months, Treasury Needed to Borrow Money to Pay Social Security Benefits | CNSnews.com

 

[Trajan]

the debt. celing has to be rasied above 14 trillion, we really don't have a choice. there will be a lot of rep. grandstading, but this sin't new, we need to ensure we don;t have tp do thios 6 motnhs donw the road so demdaing cuts is oging to be a must.


and just to keep it real, Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling in 06, so when his money guy Austan Goolsbee, chairman of the U.S. Council of Economic Advisers says not raising it is catastrophic and not; “I don’t see why anybody’s playing chicken with the debt ceiling,” Goolsbee said today on ABC’s “This Week” program, well......



The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

As a senator, Barack Obama claimed that the very fact the Senate was debating raising the debt ceiling was a sign of failed leadership in Washington. He was fairly adamant about his opposition to raising the debt ceiling, so much so that not only did he speak out vociferously against the idea, HE VOTED AGAINST raising the debt ceiling. By his own standard which he set in 2006, it would appear that Barack Obama has failed in his leadership capacity on this issue, otherwise we wouldn’t even need to be debating this issue.

Obama: Not Always a Fan of Upping Debt Ceiling - By Katrina Trinko - The Corner - National Review Online

 

[Trajan]

Well, the GOP has the purse strings now, we'll see how long it takes them to balance the budget.

I am sorry, but you'll need to add the rest of your message or repost, it seems to have been garbled....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, the GOP has the purse strings now, we'll see how long it takes them to balance the budget.

I am sorry, but you'll need to add the rest of your message or repost, it seems to have been garbled....

It's a shout out to all the wingnuts who claimed it was the GOP Congress in the 90's who balanced the budget,

because, after all, they control the purse strings.

I'm guessing we'll find out that wingnut principle has since expired.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How did continuing the Bush tax cuts help that?

^ thats the liberal answer....

just tax everyone higher....that solves everything

Cutting taxes adds to the deficit. In fact, the Democrats tax CUTS from 2009 are being counted against them in the process of you people blaming them for the debt reaching 14 trillion.

 

[Rozman]

I think Paul Krugman and the Progressives are STILL pissed that Obama didn't spend enough.

 

[Avatar4321]

I certainly dont approve of Obama policies. But let's be honest here. This is a bipartisan milestone. We need to start admitting the truth before we can fix it.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

I certainly dont approve of Obama policies. But let's be honest here. This is a bipartisan milestone. We need to start admitting the truth before we can fix it.

Even tho OBAMA'S hand in this is now greater, and faster, yes, our past leadership had a hand in this too. Thankfully that's changed now.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

"Actually, THAT would be the 2ND CATO LINK POSTED BY QW that destroys yours."-R1
Could you supply with he link? Thanks

LOL dude you gotta stop makin this so easy for me. Try READING every once and a while.

From QW:
Obama the Deficit Peacock | Cato @ Liberty

 

[Care4all]

that's a shame that they want to cut SS when SS is pulling in a surplus in tax revenues....and has been for 20 plus years

they should cut discretionary spending instead.

That appears to have changed Care..



In 15 of Last 25 Months, Treasury Needed to Borrow Money to Pay Social Security Benefits
Wednesday, October 20, 2010

CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Treasury has needed to borrow money to pay Social Security benefits in 15 out of the last 25 months on record because the Social Security system was in deficit in those months, with the cost of monthly benefit payments exceeding the Social Security tax revenues flowing into the Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance "trust funds," according to data published by the Social Security Administration.

http://www.cnsnews.com/sites/defaul...OF SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND REPORT-2010.pdf

In a summary of their annual report released in August, the Social Security trustees predicted that the Social Security system would run an annual deficit in 2010 for the first time since 1983, and that it would also run an annual deficit in 2011. After that, the trustees predicted, Social Security would run “small surpluses” in 2012, 2013 and 2014, and then, barring changes in the system, lurch permanently into the red as the bulk of the Baby Boom moved into retirement and began collecting benefits.

“Social Security expenditures are expected to exceed tax receipts this year for the first time since 1983,” said the trustees.

In 15 of Last 25 Months, Treasury Needed to Borrow Money to Pay Social Security Benefits | CNSnews.com

i have no problem with that trajan....SS tax payers have OVER contributed in to SS taxes for nearly 30 years just for this occasion....when we take in less than has to be paid out.

i did read that surplus SS Taxes return again come 2012, for a few more years, then after that, we have enough SS surplus taxes that were collected, to pay 100% of everyone's social security retirements till almost 2050, even if no reforms are done.... the federal gvt will just have to pay for what they have borrowed....as they rightfully and justly, should.

 

[007]

This is what George Soros and his sock puppet from Kenya have done to the American economy...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N8gJSMoOJc[/ame]