|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 4, 2013 16:50:34 GMT
Can we say, BIG FAT HYPOCRITE?
"In 2006, then-Sen. Obama used the debt ceiling as a stick to hit Bush.
“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,” Obama said in March 2006. “It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies. Over the past five years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is ‘trillion’ with a ‘T.’ That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers.”
Since assuming power, Obama has backed off his alarmism about “foreign countries,” telling the always credulous David Letterman last September, “A lot of [the debt] we owe to ourselves.”
Read more: dailycaller.com/2013/09/29/democrats-have-fought-debt-ceiling-hikes-many-times/#ixzz2glwi2ZGq
Since Bush left office and Obama took over as president, that federal debt has gone from the $8.6 trillion that Obama was so outraged about in 2006 to a whopping, $17 TRILLION.
That's TRILLION with a capitol "T," Mr. President.
|
|
|
|
Post by smartmouthwoman on Oct 4, 2013 18:00:07 GMT
Obama is a serial liar. He says whatever serves his agenda at the time with no regard for the truth.
I'm just surprised so many Americans are OK with that.
Must be victims of the Obaaaaama syndrome.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 4, 2013 18:03:42 GMT
"According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress voted 53 times from 1978 to 2013 to change the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling has increased to about $16 trillion from $752 billion. Of these 53 votes, 29 occurred in a Congress run by Democrats, 17 in a split Congress, and seven in a Republican-controlled Congress.
While large increases that give the U.S. Treasury a healthy amount of borrowing space happen occasionally, small short-term increases are common. In 1990 alone, while Republican George H.W. Bush was in the White House, a Democratic-controlled Congress voted to increase the debt limit seven times.
Congressional Republicans who want legislative conditions in exchange for a debt-limit increase are following a strategy that has been pursued by both parties the majority of the time. Of the 53 increases in the debt limit, 26 were "clean"—that is, stand-alone, no strings-attached statutes. The remaining debt-limit increases were part of an omnibus package of other legislative bills or a continuing resolution. Other times, the limit was paired with reforms, only some of which were related to the budget.
In 1979, a Democratic Congress increased the debt limit but required Congress and the president to present balanced budgets for fiscal years 1981 and 1982. In 1980 the debt limit, again increased by a Democratic Congress, included repeal of an oil-import fee. In 1985, the debt limit that was raised by a divided Congress included a cigarette tax and a provision requiring Congress to pursue an alternative minimum corporate tax in the next year.
Most recently, a divided Congress that passed the 2011 debt-limit increase included the Budget Control Act which aimed to reduce the deficit by $2.4 trillion over 10 years and included the automatic budget sequester that kicked in on Jan. 1.
As the finger pointing begins, it is important to keep this history in mind. All told, congressional Democrats have been responsible for 60% of the "dirty" increases when the debt limit was raised alongside other legislative items. Republicans were responsible for 15%. The remaining 25% occurred during divided Congresses."
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304906704579111020769496150.html?mod=trending_now_4
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 4, 2013 18:30:39 GMT
In 2008, this CBS White House Correspondent, blasted Bush over the national debt and what had been added to the debt since he took office.
Wonder if this guy is still around.....and if he or CBS has done such an article blasting Obama over his increase.......nearly twice the total amount since he took office....up to almost $17 TRILLION now. And he's still got 3+ years to go, unfortunately. That's TRILLION.....with a capital "T." OH....and let me know IF you can find an article from CBS or any liberal outlet blasting Obama over the debt he's added. Now.....Obama has the honor of holding the record of the "biggest increase under any president in U.S. history...."
Here's the 2008 CBS hit job:
"With no fanfare and little notice, the national debt has grown by more than $4 trillion during George W. Bush's presidency.
It's the biggest increase under any president in U.S history.
On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The latest number from the Treasury Department shows the national debt now stands at more than $9.849 trillion. That's a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush's watch."
www.cbsnews.com/8301-500803_162-4486228-500803.html
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 7, 2013 0:48:58 GMT
Down memory lane: 'Obama on raising the Debt Ceiling in 2006, 2008'
During his 2008 campaign, our "no-negotiating" Spender-in-chief blasted President Bush for raising the debt ceiling ... calling it a failure or leadership, irresponsible, and unpatriotic. Bush had raised the debt ceiling by $4 trillion. See the video in the link provided with Obama actually saying this!
Back in 2006, then Senator Obama voted NO on raising the debt ceiling while blasting Bush as a failed leader:
"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."
you forget, when Obama took office in the midst of the Great Recession, the total national debt was $10.6 trillion; it is now $16.958 trillion, and counting.
And for the record, Democrats have fought debt ceiling hikes many times in the past ... so why are the Dems pretending it's bad for the GOP to do so now by agreeing to fund the gov't but requiring that the Dems give the American people the same deal they and their president gave themselves and that the president has given unions, big business, some small businesses, and Spanish-speaking Americans?
However, we do need to keep in mind that Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times; George W. Bush seven times, and the debt ceiling has been raised 74 times since March 1962. But only Obama has been so naive and misinformed as to claim that raising the debt ceiling doesn't raise the debt ... and has long past (back in 2011) increased the debt more than all presidents from George Washington through George H.W. Bush combined."
www.hyscience.com/archives/2013/10/down_memory_lan.php____
Obama called Bush "unpatriotic" for raising the debt $4 trillion in his 8 years in office. But Obama has now raised it over $7 TRILLION and he's just 1/2 way into his presidency. I'm thinking these words of his will be played and replayed over and over again during all this. And rightly so!!
|
|
|
|
Post by maniacalhamster on Oct 7, 2013 2:56:49 GMT
You have to understand what “quantitative-easing” is .
You are completely bereft of understanding the complexity central banks are playing with.
The deal is no one on the boards of the central banks know if what they are doing is going to work.
they all are printing trillions of dollars to keep the economy from actual collapse. They are buying time and it's all wait and see if the world topples .
the fact morons in the United States are blaming Obama is so far wrong and prove their ignorance
You get your facts from malicious blaggards who only want to have the republican party in power no matter what the cost of having these morons in power.
the republicans are shooting themselves in the foot and balls and then ramming the rifle up their arse for good measure..
it's Divine providence stepping in ...it's like God knows the depths of DEPRAVITY the republican congress will have to do to wake up the comatose republican voter into getting rid of for their survival...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 7, 2013 21:17:36 GMT
The prez is trying to make this so-called shutdown hurt. Purposeful actions to TRY and make it hurt Americans.
What's he done?
He's kicked people out of their homes....who lived on federal lands. Nice, eh?
He's blocked off lookout pullovers in the federal parks.
He's blocked off the Lincoln Memorial; first time EVER in our history.....even through ALL the previous shut downs.
He's blocked off the WWII War Memorial and other outside memorials.....because he wants people to be mad and he thinks they'll take it out of Republicans and blame them.
He's shut down the Amber Alert; but kept Michelle's "Keep Movin" website and running.
Disgusting. Nothing about this man is presidential....NOTHING.
|
|
|
|
Post by 12th on Oct 8, 2013 1:51:14 GMT
What do you think pbama wants? He is so spiteful. We've never had a president who would insult us personally. He is convinced of his own superiority. But what does he want? Just the daily enjoyment of watching his minions maybe.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 8, 2013 2:58:56 GMT
What do you think pbama wants? He is so spiteful. We've never had a president who would insult us personally. He is convinced of his own superiority. But what does he want? Just the daily enjoyment of watching his minions maybe.
|
|
|
|
Post by maniacalhamster on Oct 8, 2013 3:01:14 GMT
The prez is trying to make this so-called shutdown hurt. Purposeful actions to TRY and make it hurt Americans.
What's he done?
He's kicked people out of their homes....who lived on federal lands. Nice, eh?
He's blocked off lookout pullovers in the federal parks.
He's blocked off the Lincoln Memorial; first time EVER in our history.....even through ALL the previous shut downs.
He's blocked off the WWII War Memorial and other outside memorials.....because he wants people to be mad and he thinks they'll take it out of Republicans and blame them.
He's shut down the Amber Alert; but kept Michelle's "Keep Movin" website and running.
Disgusting. Nothing about this man is presidential....NOTHING. ok you got me here...it does seem a little like baiting them at the cost of regular people... maybe little should be ..a lot .... ok thats one for you... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 10, 2013 13:19:34 GMT
Since Bush left office and Obama took over as president, that federal debt has gone from the $8.6 trillion that Obama was so outraged about in 2006 to a whopping, $17 TRILLION.
That's TRILLION with a capitol "T," Mr. President.
First we must acknowledge that there is a problem with addressing the national debt when it comes to transitions in administrations. For example the 2001 budget was a "Clinton" budget and the 2009 budget was a "Bush" budget as the fiscal year begins on October 1st of the previous year. The new administration can add to that spending (or even reduce it although that never happens) which changes the numbers.
If we address the presidential budget years then the Bush administration is responsible for 2002 through 2009. The national debt went from 6,228,235,965,597.16 to 11,909,829,003,511.75 or increased roughly $5.7 trillion.
If we address the presidential "administration" years of 2001 through 2008 that covers "time in office" then the national debt went from 5,807,463,412,200.06 to 10,024,724,896,912.49 or increased by roughly $4.2 trillion.
To be fair I'd say that it would be fair to state that former President Bush increased the national debt by about $5 trillion but there is a caveat to this.
President Bush inherited a projected surplus budget from former President Clinton and in his 2001 State of the Union Address former President Bush promised to reduce the national debt while also reducing taxation. He stated it would reduce it at a slower rate than under the Clinton tax codes but that it would still reduce the debt. Had former President Bush fulfilled his promise then we should have had a national debt of well less than $4 trillion when he left office and that would add at least $2 trillion to his "score" related to the increase in the National Debt for a total of $7 trillion dollars.
President Obama's administration has added between $5 trillion and $6 trillion to the national debt. Much of this was caused by the Great Recession, second only to the Great Depression in American history, that the Bush administration left for the Obama administration to deal with. The Great Recession resulted in dramatically reduced federal revenues and was exacerbated by almost $1 trillion in tax cuts under the Obama administration.
In comparing the two administrations all of these consideration need to be taken into account. Had Bush fulfilled in State of the Union Promise to reduce the national debt and if President Obama had not cut taxes under his administration then the national debt today would be LESS than what President Bush left the nation with when he left office. Instead of a $17 trillion national debt we'd be looking at about a $10 trillion national debt.
The problem for both the Bush administration and the Obama administrations were that both cut taxes when we needed more revenue, not less. Had we simply left the Clinton tax codes unchanged we wouldn't be in such dire straits today.
www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 11, 2013 1:15:05 GMT
Since Bush left office and Obama took over as president, that federal debt has gone from the $8.6 trillion that Obama was so outraged about in 2006 to a whopping, $17 TRILLION.
That's TRILLION with a capitol "T," Mr. President.
First we must acknowledge that there is a problem with addressing the national debt when it comes to transitions in administrations. For example the 2001 budget was a "Clinton" budget and the 2009 budget was a "Bush" budget as the fiscal year begins on October 1st of the previous year. The new administration can add to that spending (or even reduce it although that never happens) which changes the numbers.
And the current 2012 debt is Obama's.....and it's $17 TRILLION. And he's got 3 more years and it ain't going down during that time. So nothing I stated above is wrong.
If we address the presidential budget years then the Bush administration is responsible for 2002 through 2009. The national debt went from 6,228,235,965,597.16 to 11,909,829,003,511.75 or increased roughly $5.7 trillion.
If we address the presidential "administration" years of 2001 through 2008 that covers "time in office" then the national debt went from 5,807,463,412,200.06 to 10,024,724,896,912.49 or increased by roughly $4.2 trillion.
To be fair I'd say that it would be fair to state that former President Bush increased the national debt by about $5 trillion but there is a caveat to this.
President Bush inherited a projected surplus budget from former President Clinton and in his 2001 State of the Union Address former President Bush promised to reduce the national debt while also reducing taxation. He stated it would reduce it at a slower rate than under the Clinton tax codes but that it would still reduce the debt. Had former President Bush fulfilled his promise then we should have had a national debt of well less than $4 trillion when he left office and that would add at least $2 trillion to his "score" related to the increase in the National Debt for a total of $7 trillion dollars.
And to be fair......the only reason Clinton's administration showed a budget surplus at the end of his term was because the Republicans came in to office and FORCED him to address the budget and cut things, including Welfare (as he had promised to do during his first campaign, but had made no moves to do so). Unlike Obama who thinks he is always right and no one can argue with him.....at least Clinton realized what he had to do...and he and Gingrich went through the budget line by line, cutting things. But I don't know that Clinton had planned to do so....UNTIL the Republican takeover which had sent a huge message to Clinton.
President Obama's administration has added between $5 trillion and $6 trillion to the national debt. Much of this was caused by the Great Recession, second only to the Great Depression in American history, that the Bush administration left for the Obama administration to deal with. The Great Recession resulted in dramatically reduced federal revenues and was exacerbated by almost $1 trillion in tax cuts under the Obama administration.
However, Obama is sneaky. He starts with those largest numbers and then counts all the pay-offs of the bailouts that came back to us rather quickly AND with interest......as was set up by Bush before he left. And Obama tries to take credit for that. The money that came back to the federal coffers after Obama got in....had nothing to do with anything Obama did.
In comparing the two administrations all of these consideration need to be taken into account. Had Bush fulfilled in State of the Union Promise to reduce the national debt and if President Obama had not cut taxes under his administration then the national debt today would be LESS than what President Bush left the nation with when he left office. Instead of a $17 trillion national debt we'd be looking at about a $10 trillion national debt.
Where in the world are you getting that Obama cut taxes? He let the Bush tax cuts expire. That's a tax HIKE. He raised taxes, he didn't cut them.
The problem for both the Bush administration and the Obama administrations were that both cut taxes when we needed more revenue, not less. Had we simply left the Clinton tax codes unchanged we wouldn't be in such dire straits today.
www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
You don't understand economics if you believe that during a recession high taxes will result in more revenue. People were losing money in their businesses, small and large. Less taxes paid. People were losing their jobs; thus less taxes paid in. More people have been moved to part-time; less taxes being paid. And under Obama, there are a lot more people who have moved from the middle class down into the lower classes and millions more have been moved on to federal subsidies. And that's not only less taxes being paid in to the federal gov't.....it means more money being paid out (debt) to support them.
Truth is....instead of spending his first two years in office creating the biggest spending program EVER and adding to the debt.....he should have been doing just the opposite; working on turning the economy around. That's the reason we are STILL where we are right now. Obama is THE worst president EVER!!
blah, blah, blah, and more blah, blah, blah...two more....blah blah.... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 11, 2013 7:14:46 GMT
There seems to be a minor breakthrough on the debt ceiling by Republicans but it carries a mixed message.
So from what this is saying the debt ceiling will be raised but there won't be a "Continuous Resolution" (CR) to fund the government while the House and the Senate work out the 2014 budget that they should have been working since at least February when the White House releases it's annual budget request to Congress and that should have been passed and on the President's desk not later than September 30th.
So basically Congress has failed to pass a budget for seven months already and the Republicans are insisting that the government stay partially shut down, costing tens of thousands of jobs in the public and private sector, driving the economy in to a recession again, while we wait for them to finally pass a budget for 2014.
Doesn't it make more sense to pass a CR to fund the government that allows the government to operate fully while Congress negotiates a compromise budget that both houses of Congress will pass? Neither side in Congress should be trying to impose conditions on the funding to continue to allow the government to operate. That's not what a CR is for. It's funding measure and funding measure alone and NOT a budgetary measure. The CR provides the money for the authorized expenditures but does not determine what they are.
The "Budget" determines what the money is to be spent on and the Republicans are taking the position that the government should be partially shut down until the 2014 budget is passed. That is going to reek havoc on the US economy and American people that are being adversely affected by the shut down.
|
|
|
|
Post by 12th on Oct 13, 2013 16:39:32 GMT
You can't hang the 2009 "budget" around Bush's neck. 2009 includes the porkulus bill.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 13, 2013 19:22:54 GMT
You can't hang the 2009 "budget" around Bush's neck. 2009 includes the porkulus bill.
Looks like it's gonna be protect this prez at all costs all the way up to the end. But guess what; HISTORY won't.
|
|
