The Facts About Obama's Economic Record

[NYcarbineer]

-- Obama has shattered Bush's record of debt accumulation, and he has done so in less than 6.5 years. In 8 years, Bush added $4.9 trillion to the national debt (from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.6 trillion in January 2009). In only 6 years and 5 months, Obama has added $7.5 trillion to the national debt (from $10.6 trillion in January 2009 to $18.1 trillion as of last month). And it's worth noting that we would be even deeper in debt if Obama and the Democrats had gotten their way on spending.

Obama didn't add all of that debt. In fact he added very little of it.

Do you know that over 2 trillion dollars worth of spending in the last six years is interest on the debt - debt accumulated for decades?

Is that Obama's fault?

You blame Reagan for a recession 5 months into his Presidency, so for you, yeah it is

Reagan's debt is not Obama's fault, dumbass.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's an astounding chart that most RW'ers either won't understand,

or will pretend they don't:

 

[NYcarbineer]

-- Obama has shattered Bush's record of debt accumulation, and he has done so in less than 6.5 years. In 8 years, Bush added $4.9 trillion to the national debt (from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.6 trillion in January 2009). In only 6 years and 5 months, Obama has added $7.5 trillion to the national debt (from $10.6 trillion in January 2009 to $18.1 trillion as of last month). And it's worth noting that we would be even deeper in debt if Obama and the Democrats had gotten their way on spending.

Obama didn't add all of that debt. In fact he added very little of it.

Do you know that over 2 trillion dollars worth of spending in the last six years is interest on the debt - debt accumulated for decades?

Is that Obama's fault?

There is such a thing as retiring debt.

You and your New York state of mind.

Which has nothing to do with what I pointed out. Barack Obama has little or no power to simply stop government spending.

Sorry, but he signs the spending bills..... Want to try for another fail????

Spending bills only apply to discretionary spending. Over 60% of spending is mandatory. Do some research.

 

[edthecynic]

Some liberals are resurrecting Rex Nutting's refuted, discredited claim that FY 2009 spending was Bush's fault

Actually it was your Heritage BS that was refuted and discredited, but you knew that already.

Obama s Spending Inferno or Not

• Fiscal 2009 began Oct. 1, 2008. That was before Obama was elected, and nearly four months before he took office on Jan. 20, 2009.
• President Bush signed the massive spending bill under which the government was operating when Obama took office. That was Sept. 30, 2008. As The Associated Press noted, it combined “a record Pentagon budget with aid for automakers and natural disaster victims, and increased health care funding for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.”
• Bush also signed, on Oct. 3, 2008, a bank bailout bill that authorized another $700 billionto avert a looming financial collapse (though not all of that would end up being spent in fiscal 2009, and Obama later signed a measure reducing total authorized bailout spending to $475 billion).
• On Jan. 7, 2009 — two weeks before Obama took office — the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued its regular budget outlook, stating: “CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion.”
• CBO attributed the rapid rise in spending to the bank bailout and the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — plus rising costs for unemployment insurance and other factors driven by the collapsing economy (which shed 818,000 jobs in January alone).
• Another factor beyond Obama’s control was an automatic 5.8 percent cost of living increase announced in October 2008 and given to Social Security beneficiaries in January 2009. It was the largest since 1982. Social Security spending alone rose $66 billion in fiscal 2009, and Medicare spending, driven by rising medical costs, rose $39 billion.

How Much Did Obama Add?

But it’s also true that Obama signed a number of appropriations bills, plus other legislation and executive orders, that raised spending for the remainder of fiscal 2009 even above the path set by Bush. By our calculations, Obama can be fairly assigned responsibility for a maximum of $203 billion in additional spending for that year.

It can be argued that the total should be lower. Economist Daniel J. Mitchell of the libertarian CATO Institute — who once served on the Republican staff of the Senate Finance Committee — has put the figure at $140 billion.

More lies and distortion. Some facts:

* FY 2009 started in October 2008, but, as you should know, the Reid-Pelosi-controlled Congress stalled most of the FY 2009 spending measures so that they could increase their amounts and then have Obama sign them. That's why Obama's signature, not Bush's, is on most of the FY 2009 spending measures. This is a fact that no amount of liberal lying and denialism can change.

* Obama supported that Social Security cost-of-living increase! Bush had tried to scale back Social Security payments but was viciously demagogued by Democrats for trying to do so.

* Obama pushed for much higher spending levels throughout his time in the Senate. Just go read his speeches and votes in the Congressional record.

* The government had to bail out Freddie and Fannie?! Yeah, why was that??? Because the Democrats had blocked every GOP attempt to rein in Freddie and Fannie's reckless intervention in the housing market. Bush and the GOP tried three times to rein in Freddie and Fannie; he even warned of Freddie and Fannie's unsound practices in a state of the union address. Barack Obama was among the Senators who blocked every attempt to impose tougher regulations on Freddie and Fannie. This is all documented in the Congressional Record.

All lies and distortions on your part, most of which have already been addressed.

The GOP controlled both houses and the White House so the Dems were completely powerless to block any reform. It is true the Dems objected to the most of the "reforms" the GOP offered, but ALL the reforms were blocked by the GOP majority, even the ones the dems supported, like the Oxley reform bill.

 

[kaz]

-- Obama has shattered Bush's record of debt accumulation, and he has done so in less than 6.5 years. In 8 years, Bush added $4.9 trillion to the national debt (from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.6 trillion in January 2009). In only 6 years and 5 months, Obama has added $7.5 trillion to the national debt (from $10.6 trillion in January 2009 to $18.1 trillion as of last month). And it's worth noting that we would be even deeper in debt if Obama and the Democrats had gotten their way on spending.

Obama didn't add all of that debt. In fact he added very little of it.

Do you know that over 2 trillion dollars worth of spending in the last six years is interest on the debt - debt accumulated for decades?

Is that Obama's fault?

You blame Reagan for a recession 5 months into his Presidency, so for you, yeah it is

Reagan's debt is not Obama's fault, dumbass.

What does that have to do with anything? You never do make sense and can't follow simple discussions. Are you Canadian?

 

[Dragonlady]

Actually it was your Heritage BS that was refuted and discredited, but you knew that already.

Obama s Spending Inferno or Not

• Fiscal 2009 began Oct. 1, 2008. That was before Obama was elected, and nearly four months before he took office on Jan. 20, 2009.
• President Bush signed the massive spending bill under which the government was operating when Obama took office. That was Sept. 30, 2008. As The Associated Press noted, it combined “a record Pentagon budget with aid for automakers and natural disaster victims, and increased health care funding for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.”
• Bush also signed, on Oct. 3, 2008, a bank bailout bill that authorized another $700 billionto avert a looming financial collapse (though not all of that would end up being spent in fiscal 2009, and Obama later signed a measure reducing total authorized bailout spending to $475 billion).
• On Jan. 7, 2009 — two weeks before Obama took office — the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued its regular budget outlook, stating: “CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion.”
• CBO attributed the rapid rise in spending to the bank bailout and the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — plus rising costs for unemployment insurance and other factors driven by the collapsing economy (which shed 818,000 jobs in January alone).
• Another factor beyond Obama’s control was an automatic 5.8 percent cost of living increase announced in October 2008 and given to Social Security beneficiaries in January 2009. It was the largest since 1982. Social Security spending alone rose $66 billion in fiscal 2009, and Medicare spending, driven by rising medical costs, rose $39 billion.

How Much Did Obama Add?

But it’s also true that Obama signed a number of appropriations bills, plus other legislation and executive orders, that raised spending for the remainder of fiscal 2009 even above the path set by Bush. By our calculations, Obama can be fairly assigned responsibility for a maximum of $203 billion in additional spending for that year.

It can be argued that the total should be lower. Economist Daniel J. Mitchell of the libertarian CATO Institute — who once served on the Republican staff of the Senate Finance Committee — has put the figure at $140 billion.

More lies and distortion. Some facts:

* FY 2009 started in October 2008, but, as you should know, the Reid-Pelosi-controlled Congress stalled most of the FY 2009 spending measures so that they could increase their amounts and then have Obama sign them. That's why Obama's signature, not Bush's, is on most of the FY 2009 spending measures. This is a fact that no amount of liberal lying and denialism can change.

* Obama supported that Social Security cost-of-living increase! Bush had tried to scale back Social Security payments but was viciously demagogued by Democrats for trying to do so.

* Obama pushed for much higher spending levels throughout his time in the Senate. Just go read his speeches and votes in the Congressional record.

* The government had to bail out Freddie and Fannie?! Yeah, why was that??? Because the Democrats had blocked every GOP attempt to rein in Freddie and Fannie's reckless intervention in the housing market. Bush and the GOP tried three times to rein in Freddie and Fannie; he even warned of Freddie and Fannie's unsound practices in a state of the union address. Barack Obama was among the Senators who blocked every attempt to impose tougher regulations on Freddie and Fannie. This is all documented in the Congressional Record.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, let's deal with the bullshit YOU'RE tossing around here. First off, the Heritage Foundation is hardly friendly towards Obama. It's a very conservative foundation, funded by the Koch Brothers and big oil. If the Heritage Foundation isn't blaming Obama for increasing the spending under the 2009 budget, I'll take their word for it over the very Libertarian sites you're quoting..

Freddie and Fannie have repaid ALL of the bailout money they were given. The role in the collapse of the housing bubble was minor. It was the big brokerage houses which did most of the damage by repackaging sub-prime loans.

Obama pushing for higher spending when he was in the Senate is meaningless. He had no power to control spending levels at that time. In fact this point is totally meaningless.

Social Security increases SHOULD have gone through. Seniors are among those who require the most social assistance through food stamps and Medicaid. And again, Obama was just one of 100 Senators at that time and can hardly be blamed for this spending, even if he did vote for it.

You have stretched every item to the point of laughability in an effort to blame Obama for spending which was pretty much set in stone from the day he took office. It won't fly.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Barack Obama has little or no power to simply stop government spending.

of course thats super stupid and typicially liberal given that he submits $4 trillion budgets to Congress, is an aggressive libcommie who voted to left of Bernie Sanders, and wants nothing more than to tax and spend.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You have stretched every item to the point of laughability in an effort to blame Obama for spending which was pretty much set in stone from the day he took office. It won't fly.

my dear, Obama is a libcommie who voted to left of Bernie Sanders and accordingly wants nothing more than to raise taxes to European levels and beyond.

How can a person be so stupid as to not know that? It is the single most obvious fact about Obama who wrote a book called "Dreams from my Communist Father".

What planet have you been on???

 

[The Rabbi]

Obama reversed the tax cuts and teh deficit is still enormous. How do you explain this?

Sure, Rabbit........One of the many problems I've had with Obama...

December 17, 2010, 5:10 PM
Obama Signs Bill To Extend Bush Tax Cuts

In a display of compromise rarely seen during his time in office, President Obama has signed into law a $858 billion tax cut bill despite the misgivings of members of both parties.

Obama Signs Bill To Extend Bush Tax Cuts - CBS News

Dunce
The Bush tax cuts have expired and no law has replaced it

NOT TRUE.......

The most recent extension of these cuts has allowed conservative members of Congress to claim victory on these tax cuts, which briefly expired on Dec. 31, 2012, only to be reinstated almost in full.

Dunce. The tax cuts expired. Obama wouldnt renew them. Where have you been?

 

[Billy000]

1) The actual recovery that Obama started wasn't slow. We simply had the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We lost 8 million jobs in 5 months. Obama's stimulus created 3 million private jobs and boosted GDP by 2%. Over 11 million private jobs have been created since he took office. Do you really think any recovery will happen quickly?

2) The debt under Obama, in terms of his policies, is comprised of a surge in defense spending and extending Bush's tax cuts. The rest is comprised of automatic spending increases, interest on the debt, and inflation of raw dollars.

3) Yes, part of the problem with the labor participation is people giving up looking for work. Retirement still plays a role however. The primary reason why people have dropped out of the market is low wages. Obama tried fixing this problem by raising the minimum wage. The primary reason for this drop is the effects from the Great Recession.

4) Why don't you put any blame on the job creators themselves for the decline in wages? They are, afterall, wealthier than they have ever been under Obama.

Was the Obama Stimulus a Success or a Failure - NPQ - Nonprofit Quarterly

National Debt Under Obama

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

4) Why don't you put any blame on the job creators themselves for the decline in wages?

dear, business is competitive so to survive you have to have the lowest wages and lowest prices possible .

Do you have the IQ to understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The primary reason why people have dropped out of the market is low wages.

yes low wages caused by 20 million liberal illegals and the highest corporate taxes in the world. Eliminate both and you have 40 million new jobs tomorrow and huge upward pressure on wages,

Does the liberal have the IQ to understand?

 

[Dragonlady]

The primary reason why people have dropped out of the market is low wages.

yes low wages caused by 20 million liberal illegals and the highest corporate taxes in the world. Eliminate both and you have 40 million new jobs tomorrow and huge upward pressure on wages,

Does the liberal have the IQ to understand?

Do you have the IQ to understand that conservatives WANT illegals to remain in order to keep wages low, or that the 11 million illegals cannot simply be sent home because the cost of doing so and the resources needed are simply not feasible?

The US economy is dependent on a large pool of low income workers. First it was slave labour, then the Chinese "guest" workers, and now it's the illegals. This is a planned strategy to keep the cost of food and other goods low.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Do you have the IQ to understand that conservatives WANT illegals to remain in order to keep wages low,.

dear, check the votes in Congress. Libs vote for amnesty and no wall while Republicans don't!!

Do you understand that??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

11 million illegals cannot simply be sent home because the cost of doing so and the resources needed are simply not feasible?

too stpuid of course, they would self deport if it was very illegal to be here and to hire them, and we'd have 11 million new jobs with huge upward pressure on wages.

Simple enough for a liberal to grasp??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The US economy is dependent on a large poor of low income workers. .

no dear a huge and growing pool of unemployed Americans is dependent on us for a range of welfare entitlements that discourage them from ever working.

Now do you understand?

 

[Stephanie]

Some liberals are resurrecting Rex Nutting's refuted, discredited claim that FY 2009 spending was Bush's fault

Actually it was your Heritage BS that was refuted and discredited, but you knew that already.

Obama s Spending Inferno or Not

• Fiscal 2009 began Oct. 1, 2008. That was before Obama was elected, and nearly four months before he took office on Jan. 20, 2009.
• President Bush signed the massive spending bill under which the government was operating when Obama took office. That was Sept. 30, 2008. As The Associated Press noted, it combined “a record Pentagon budget with aid for automakers and natural disaster victims, and increased health care funding for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.”
• Bush also signed, on Oct. 3, 2008, a bank bailout bill that authorized another $700 billionto avert a looming financial collapse (though not all of that would end up being spent in fiscal 2009, and Obama later signed a measure reducing total authorized bailout spending to $475 billion).
• On Jan. 7, 2009 — two weeks before Obama took office — the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued its regular budget outlook, stating: “CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion.”
• CBO attributed the rapid rise in spending to the bank bailout and the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — plus rising costs for unemployment insurance and other factors driven by the collapsing economy (which shed 818,000 jobs in January alone).
• Another factor beyond Obama’s control was an automatic 5.8 percent cost of living increase announced in October 2008 and given to Social Security beneficiaries in January 2009. It was the largest since 1982. Social Security spending alone rose $66 billion in fiscal 2009, and Medicare spending, driven by rising medical costs, rose $39 billion.

How Much Did Obama Add?

But it’s also true that Obama signed a number of appropriations bills, plus other legislation and executive orders, that raised spending for the remainder of fiscal 2009 even above the path set by Bush. By our calculations, Obama can be fairly assigned responsibility for a maximum of $203 billion in additional spending for that year.

It can be argued that the total should be lower. Economist Daniel J. Mitchell of the libertarian CATO Institute — who once served on the Republican staff of the Senate Finance Committee — has put the figure at $140 billion.

More lies and distortion. Some facts:

* FY 2009 started in October 2008, but, as you should know, the Reid-Pelosi-controlled Congress stalled most of the FY 2009 spending measures so that they could increase their amounts and then have Obama sign them. That's why Obama's signature, not Bush's, is on most of the FY 2009 spending measures. This is a fact that no amount of liberal lying and denialism can change.

* Obama supported that Social Security cost-of-living increase! Bush had tried to scale back Social Security payments but was viciously demagogued by Democrats for trying to do so.

* Obama pushed for much higher spending levels throughout his time in the Senate. Just go read his speeches and votes in the Congressional record.

* The government had to bail out Freddie and Fannie?! Yeah, why was that??? Because the Democrats had blocked every GOP attempt to rein in Freddie and Fannie's reckless intervention in the housing market. Bush and the GOP tried three times to rein in Freddie and Fannie; he even warned of Freddie and Fannie's unsound practices in a state of the union address. Barack Obama was among the Senators who blocked every attempt to impose tougher regulations on Freddie and Fannie. This is all documented in the Congressional Record.

All lies and distortions on your part, most of which have already been addressed.

The GOP controlled both houses and the White House so the Dems were completely powerless to block any reform. It is true the Dems objected to the most of the "reforms" the GOP offered, but ALL the reforms were blocked by the GOP majority, even the ones the dems supported, like the Oxley reform bill.

are you a paid Obot goon? Everything anyone post you ride to say, it's all lies lies lies. it's from a rightwing Website, etc bla bla bla
with all the information posted and people's OWN experience's . you think we are suppose only BELIEVE you.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

We have less net income and everything costs more, all a result of obama energy policy. That sums it all up.

 

[Billy000]

4) Why don't you put any blame on the job creators themselves for the decline in wages?

dear, business is competitive so to survive you have to have the lowest wages and lowest prices possible .

Do you have the IQ to understand?

Do you have the IQ to understand that this is a consumption based economy? Decent wages leads to more consumer demand. THat helps the economy in general. For the very few people who comprise the 1%, they just like to keep the ridiculous amount of money they already make than invest in a strong labor force which would help EVERYONE in the ecoonomy. The top 5% and everyone below them are getting shafted by the top 1%.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We have less net income and everything costs more, all a result of obama energy policy. That sums it all up.

Imagine where the economy would be without Republican fracking and horizontal drilling. Obama would have been impeached.