A non-partisan examination of the federal debt

[Oldstyle]

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.

Actually one could make the point that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein "started them" but that's neither here nor there...correct me if I'm wrong, Billy but didn't Barack Obama increase troop levels in Afghanistan and dramatically increase the number of drone strikes against Al Queda leadership? Why is it again that you don't count the cost of that towards Barry?

 

[amrchaos]

The propagandists on both sides of the isle are intentionally confusing the terms debt and deficit.

To be honest, The GOP should try to use the correct labels since truth-verifiable propaganda is much more harmful than truth-distorted propaganda. The GOP will gain more people agreeing with them in this manner. Using wrong labels causes some to question the GOP motives.

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

The propagandists on both sides of the isle are intentionally confusing the terms debt and deficit.

To be honest, The GOP should try to use the correct labels since truth-verifiable propaganda is much more harmful than truth-distorted propaganda. The GOP will gain more people agreeing with them in this manner. Using wrong labels causes some to question the GOP motives.

yeah, i see what you mean...

 

[saveliberty]

The propagandists on both sides of the isle are intentionally confusing the terms debt and deficit.

To be honest, The GOP should try to use the correct labels since truth-verifiable propaganda is much more harmful than truth-distorted propaganda. The GOP will gain more people agreeing with them in this manner. Using wrong labels causes some to question the GOP motives.

Neither one is a good thing. You did manage to create a nice hack post with it though.

 

[Immanuel]

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?

Glad I decided to read the rest of the page before commenting on that or I would have just repeated basically what you said.

Immie

 

[blastoff]

I'm sorry, what??

From YOUR link

The rest of the debt under Obama was to offset the recession. It was automatic increase. Obama inherited 10 trillion. Half of that 10 trillion stemmed from Bush's two wars and the tax breaks he passed.

KNow the difference.

Bullshit.

For the record, if you read the constitution you will see that no spending can be authorized for more than two years. There is no such thing as an automatic increase, every single increase in spending has to be voted on, and then signed by the president. Every single one. Any spending done after 20 January 2009 is on Obama.

So then how do we account for the automatic congressional pay raises? As I understand it, at one point they passed some legislation that made their raises automatic, unless they take a specific vote to cancel such raises (hold your breath?). Anyway, when such increases take place the government 'spending' increases because it's spending more in congressional salaries, but without a congressional vote or presidential signature (that I know of). Where am I going wrong here?

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

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

Pathetic.

Nice assumption and math fail.

You claim to use a non-partisan source, you didn't. That's the fail.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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.

No, he's not serious, and not he doesn't have an argument. You should know better by now than to expect him to actually address subject matter.

 

[Oddball]

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.

No, he's not serious, and not he doesn't have an argument. You should know better by now than to expect him to actually address subject matter.

The point is that the examination was about as far from non-partisan as you can get.

But I quit expecting leftloon Boiking fluffers to be able to pick up on such obvious misrepresentations-cum-lies a long time ago, so it's no surprise that the point went clear over your head.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The rest of the debt under Obama was to offset the recession. It was automatic increase. Obama inherited 10 trillion. Half of that 10 trillion stemmed from Bush's two wars and the tax breaks he passed.

KNow the difference.

Bullshit.

For the record, if you read the constitution you will see that no spending can be authorized for more than two years. There is no such thing as an automatic increase, every single increase in spending has to be voted on, and then signed by the president. Every single one. Any spending done after 20 January 2009 is on Obama.

Okay, then explain to me what Obama has been spending all of this on. Do you even know?

Probably better than you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

He promised to end the Iraq war as quickly as possible, he then chose to follow the timeline Bush negotiated. That is not on Bush. As for Afghanistan, he increased the troop presence there when Bush had kept it steady for years. Again, that is not on Bush. Total fail.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Why should I counter it? I agree, Obama increased the debt more than Bush in half the time.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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. - -

Whereas your left wing position goes something like this.

Your first wife spent money on cars and vacations and you went bankrupt. Your second wife spent money on cars and vacations, but she is black, and we went bankrupt twice as fast, but it is my ex wife's fault. You had nothing to do with it, neither did your second wife, it is all your ex's fault.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The rest of the debt under Obama was to offset the recession. It was automatic increase. Obama inherited 10 trillion. Half of that 10 trillion stemmed from Bush's two wars and the tax breaks he passed.

KNow the difference.

Bullshit.

For the record, if you read the constitution you will see that no spending can be authorized for more than two years. There is no such thing as an automatic increase, every single increase in spending has to be voted on, and then signed by the president. Every single one. Any spending done after 20 January 2009 is on Obama.

So then how do we account for the automatic congressional pay raises? As I understand it, at one point they passed some legislation that made their raises automatic, unless they take a specific vote to cancel such raises (hold your breath?). Anyway, when such increases take place the government 'spending' increases because it's spending more in congressional salaries, but without a congressional vote or presidential signature (that I know of). Where am I going wrong here?

How do I account for it? Politicians lie.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

No, he's not serious, and not he doesn't have an argument. You should know better by now than to expect him to actually address subject matter.

Do you want to address the numbers in Billy's link that show Obama will increase the debt by more than Bush in half the time it took Bush?

 

[Billy000]

Bullshit.

For the record, if you read the constitution you will see that no spending can be authorized for more than two years. There is no such thing as an automatic increase, every single increase in spending has to be voted on, and then signed by the president. Every single one. Any spending done after 20 January 2009 is on Obama.

Okay, then explain to me what Obama has been spending all of this on. Do you even know?

Probably better than you.

I was right. You don't know.

 

[Billy000]

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!

Funny how you neglected to mention the wars Bush started and the Tax cuts he introduced. It's ridiculous to suggest Bush doesn't share any of the blame.

So tell me, why exactly is FactCheck.org not reliable? You clearly do not know. Otherwise, you would have told me by now.

 

[Chris]

The Obama budget deficits originated during the Bush presidency...

1. Tax cuts 2001-2002 (4 trillion over 10 years)
2. Prescription drug benefits (1 trillion over 10 years)
3. Economic meltdown of 2008 ( 3 trillion and rising)
4. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (2 trillion and winding down)

 

[The Rabbi]

The Obama budget deficits originated during the Bush presidency...

1. Tax cuts 2001-2002 (4 trillion over 10 years)
2. Prescription drug benefits (1 trillion over 10 years)
3. Economic meltdown of 2008 ( 3 trillion and rising)
4. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (2 trillion and winding down)

It's like Obama was never in office over the last 3 years.

 

[Chris]

Without the super committee, the spending cuts start automatically in January of 2013.

When the Bush tax cuts expire in December of 2012, Obama won't allow them to be renewed.

Spending cuts + a return to the old tax rates = deficit reduction.

Congress has been taken out of the equation. No treasonous Tea Party/Republicans to mess things up.

Another brilliant move by Obama.