Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    2:48 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Does anyone really know why Democrats blame the Bush Admistration for our econmonic problems? Back to Topics
btc1

Champion Author
Lexington

Posts:23,259
Points:894,095
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 1:14:38 PM

The battle over the Debt ceiling was not fought during the Bush Administration, was it? Yet, he had to have the increase for 4 Trillion, right? Why was there not such a battle then?

"At the beginning of the Bush presidency, the United States debt limit was $5.95 trillion. Despite promises that he would pay off the debt in 10 years, Bush increased the debt to $9.815 trillion by the end of his term, with plenty of help from the four Republicans currently holding Congressional leadership positions: Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl. ThinkProgress compiled a breakdown of the five debt limit increases that took place during the Bush presidency and how the four Republican leaders voted:

June 2002: Congress approves a $450 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $6.4 trillion. McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote “yea”, Kyl votes “nay.”

May 2003: Congress approves a $900 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $7.384 trillion. All four approve.

November 2004: Congress approves an $800 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.1 trillion. All four approve.

March 2006: Congress approves a $781 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.965 trillion. All four approve.

September 2007: Congress approves an $850 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $9.815 trillion. All four approve.

Database searches revealed no demands from the four legislators that debt increases come accompanied by drastic spending cuts, as there are now. In fact, the May 2003 debt limit increase passed the Senate the same day as the $350 billion Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

When Bush was in office, the current Republican leaders viewed increasing the debt limit as vital to keeping America’s economy running. But with Obama in the White House, it’s nothing more than a political pawn."

?

And who caused the need for that 4 Trillion debt ceiling increase? Republicans.

"In 2001, Bush inherited a surplus from Clinton; However, in every year starting in 2002 we were operating at a deficit. Each year’s deficit goes into the pot and becomes part of our debt. So for each year that we fail to collect enough revenue to pay off our spending, we contribute to our debt and it keeps growing.

Public debt rose under Bush as a combined result of the Bush tax cuts (less revenue) providing less money to pay for spending, while they increased spending with two unfunded wars (borrowed money for the wars was left off of the budget by the Bush administration until the Obama administration put it on the budget — no more creative accounting, please) and Medicare Part D, an unfunded “entitlement program” initiated under the Bush administration. These are facts, not spin. When you spend more money while you earn less, you end up in debt.

Conservatives like to blame non-defense discretionary spending, but “In fact, such spending, accounting for only 15 percent of the budget, has been basically flat as a share of the economy for decades. Cutting it simply will not fill the deficit hole.” Much of that debt is war debt and we all know how we got that. The fact is that public debt as a share of GDP goes up when we are at war.

We also spent a lot of money in order to bail out too-big-to-fail banks under Bush after the global financial crisis. This program was called Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Contrary to conservatives’ understanding, TARP was Bush’s baby.

The CBO estimated at the time that TARP would cost around $189 billion. So, in 2009 when Obama took office, the CBO was saying we had a $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009 (2009's budget was based on Bush policies) and they predicted future deficits due to continuing Bush’s policies (by policies they mean the Bush tax cuts- yes, the very cut Republicans have been demanding for the rich ever since Obama wanted to raise some revenue to address our debt) and the recession. Recessions cost money.

We spent more money trying to recover from the crisis under Obama. We refer to that spending as the “stimulus” – something conservatives mocked when Obama did but something they supported when Bush did. Stimulating the economy was never a bad thing before, but suddenly conservatives don’t want it stimulated. They want the economy to stagnate or recess even further, as evinced by their many votes to obstruct the things the economists agree we need in order to stimulate the economy. "

Raise the debt ceiling? No problem if the President is Republican!

Should it be raised this time? Heck yes!

[Edited by: btc1 at 1/5/2013 1:18:06 PM EST]
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author Miami

Posts:3,972
Points:819,475
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 17, 2013 11:18:32 AM

<<Using your figures, Reagan and Bush increased the debt by that amount in how many years? Obama raised it by "almost as much as Bush (in 8 years)" in four years and it is projected to rise by $4 trillion over the next 4 years.>> nstrdnvstr

But that is not what jeskibuff (and flyboyUT?) were trying to say. And it looks like you missed the point too that what was said was not honest. It was trying to artificially make the progressives/liberals look far worse than the actual situation.

And as usual there is also no honesty in the regressives/conservatives to admit that much of the problem was the unfunded wars started by Bush that had to be paid.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,987
Points:4,633,725
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 17, 2013 9:55:01 AM

rayw45, "First, neither war, Iraq nor Afganistan, was paid for in the Federal budget. Both were paid for through supplimental votes. The money was borrowed."

So if the money was borrowed, it was added to the debt, right? And debt payments ARE part of the budget, right?

"Third, the prescription drug benefit that was given to seniors on medicare was not funded. It is a huge cost without a cent more going into the fund to pay for it."

That drug benefit, in my opinion actually helps reduce medical costs. If these seniors can now have better access to their medicines, they will end up in the hospital less often.


[Edited by: nstrdnvstr at 1/17/2013 9:58:14 AM EST]
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,987
Points:4,633,725
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 17, 2013 9:53:40 AM

El_Gato_Negro, "Again, using jeskibuff's example, Reagan doubled the debt. Bush only increased it by 2/3 (or .66%), which is slightly more than Obama's .60% increase.

So if one is being honest unlike the incomplete calculations that flyboyUT is cheering on, then Obama is not nearly as guilty as jeskibuff is trying to make him out to be.

But if one expects regressive/conservatives to be honest, I hope you are not holding your breath."

Using your figures, Reagan and Bush increased the debt by that amount in how many years? Obama raised it by "almost as much as Bush (in 8 years)" in four years and it is projected to rise by $4 trillion over the next 4 years.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,987
Points:4,633,725
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 17, 2013 9:49:28 AM

YDraigGoch, "Bush broke it.

Obama couldn't fix it."

The Democrat controlled Congress broke it and now pretend the problem doesn't exist. When was the last time the Democrat controlled Senate passed a budget (by law, they are supposed to do that EVERY year)?

I guess if one does not have a budget, you really can't overspend the budget, right? Then you end up with trillion dollar deficits.

"Is Joe the Plumber still around??"

I am sure he is.
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2013 8:46:22 PM

Bush broke it.

Obama couldn't fix it.

Is Joe the Plumber still around??
Profile Pic
rayw45
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:7,777
Points:393,800
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2013 6:47:57 PM

First, neither war, Iraq nor Afganistan, was paid for in the Federal budget. Both were paid for through supplimental votes. The money was borrowed.
Second, the tax cuts were made while we were going to war. That had never been done before. To cut income while increasing spending creates a large deficit and one that would continue for years into the future.
Third, the prescription drug benefit that was given to seniors on medicare was not funded. It is a huge cost without a cent more going into the fund to pay for it.

That's some of the reasons.
Profile Pic
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author Miami

Posts:3,972
Points:819,475
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2013 11:29:49 AM

Talking about being honest flyboyUT, perhaps you should talk about regressives/cons being dishonest.

As in the dishonesty of what jeskibuff had to say in his comparison.

He left out one important factor – inflation.

Using the
U.S. inflation calculator and taking Reagan's term of office starting in 1981, that 2 dollar increase as described by jeskibuff would be the same as a 5 dollar increase in 2012 dollars.

In the same way Bush's increase of 4 dollars would actually be 5.3 dollars when inflation is added to jeskibuff's calculations.

Again, using jeskibuff's example, Reagan doubled the debt. Bush only increased it by 2/3 (or .66%), which is slightly more than Obama's .60% increase.

So if one is being honest unlike the incomplete calculations that flyboyUT is cheering on, then Obama is not nearly as guilty as jeskibuff is trying to make him out to be.

But if one expects regressive/conservatives to be honest, I hope you are not holding your breath.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,494
Points:1,563,575
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 15, 2013 4:28:36 PM

jeskibuff - you expect a prog/lib to be honest. I hope you arent holding your breath!
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,663
Points:2,868,530
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 15, 2013 3:31:41 PM

>>RNorm said: "We can go back several administrations, including Ronnie's TRIPLING of the deficit if we really wanted to look at the problem honestly."<<

Our debt tripled after amnesty was given to ILLEGAL aliens?

BTW, who had control of both houses of Congress back then?

[Edited by: 101Speedster at 1/15/2013 3:32:36 PM EST]
Profile Pic
owt
Champion Author Tennessee

Posts:10,326
Points:1,592,070
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 15, 2013 3:29:50 PM

They are to ashamed of themselves and the low information voter to take responsibility.
Profile Pic
daylily2009
Champion Author Fayetteville

Posts:2,443
Points:1,166,870
Joined:Oct 2009
Message Posted: Jan 15, 2013 1:46:36 PM

btc1
The more i read your postings the more i enjoy!!
Profile Pic
jeskibuff
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:10,803
Points:2,082,530
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 13, 2013 10:41:43 AM

RNorm said: "We can go back several administrations, including Ronnie's TRIPLING of the deficit if we really wanted to look at the problem honestly."

If you want to look at things HONESTLY, you wouldn't use such dishonest statements.

For simplicity's sake (and to avoid repeating the word "TRILLION" over and over), say if Reagan started his terms with the government ONE DOLLAR in debt and at the end the government owed THREE dollars, yeah, the debt certainly tripled, but only went up 2 dollars over 8 years.

GWB starts out at 6 dollars owed and over a period of 8 years the debt goes up 4 dollars to 10 dollars. The 4-dollar increase is double the 2-dollar increase seen in Reagan's terms, but to TRIPLE the debt would have required it to hit 18 dollars! In other words, as the debt gets higher, it becomes ever harder to triple it without REALLY burning through the dollars! To say that Reagan's tripling of the debt with a 2-dollar increase was worse than GWB's less-than-tripling with a 4-dollar increase is just being either naive or dishonest.

Then we get to Obozo's "astounding" accomplishment. He starts out at 10 dollars in debt and RAPIDLY and recklessly gets us to 16 dollars in debt! That 6-dollar increase is TRIPLE the increase we saw from Reagan, but remarkably occurred in half as many years! For Obozo to "triple" the overall debt would require us to be at 30 dollars. That's harder to achieve, but at the rate we're going, he's likely to get us close to that mark by the time he (is supposed to) leave office in 2016.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,987
Points:4,633,725
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 12, 2013 11:51:05 AM

btc, "AC, I am sorry to say this, as I do respect you. BUT, if you honestly think this President has not done anything to bring the economy bACk from the devastation that the Bush Administration wrought, I need to find you a good optometrist."

The results speak for themselves, a record number of people on food stamps, a continuing lowering of the median income, less people actually working, higher gas prices, and more people working part time even though they want full time work.

How does all that help the economy, let alone the middle class?

You better go find a good optometrist yourself.

So when, if ever does Obama take responsibility for his actions and policies? Or will he be known as "The Irresponsible President"?



[Edited by: nstrdnvstr at 1/12/2013 11:53:42 AM EST]
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:23,259
Points:894,095
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Jan 12, 2013 11:40:21 AM

AC, I am sorry to say this, as I do respect you. BUT, if you honestly think this President has not done anything to bring the economy bACk from the devastation that the Bush Administration wrought, I need to find you a good optometrist.

Oh yeah, and sgm, I wholeheartedly agree!

(AC, I do not know why I do this but, in response to you, I always cap all AC's! see my spelling of back. I will leave it for your amusement!)

[Edited by: btc1 at 1/12/2013 11:42:52 AM EST]
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,350
Points:3,030,845
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jan 12, 2013 11:13:27 AM

<<Does anyone really know why Democrats blame the Bush Admistration for our econmonic problems?>>

I also blame Reagan.
Profile Pic
jdhelm
Champion Author Iowa

Posts:16,451
Points:1,841,115
Joined:Dec 2009
Message Posted: Jan 12, 2013 5:38:47 AM

With the US elections over, do you think that the US is heading in the right direction? (Discuss)
Yes 23%
No 67%
No opinion 9%

Total votes: 23598
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,595
Points:3,493,670
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 12, 2013 1:32:35 AM

btc1 asks in his title: "Topic: Does anyone really know why Democrats blame the Bush Admistration for our econmonic problems?"

--Are you for real? To be honest, no. I don't know why you Dems keep blaming W for the economy? After all, during the election, Obama said he had the answers to the economy and could fix it. But instead, he's created MASSIVE additions to the national debt and deficit. Guess what? Radical socialism, including ObamaCare, and huge growth in government isn't the answer to our economic woes. Of course, fiscal discipline might go a bit further, but the Dems didn't display that either. And if I recall rightly, Obama himself said that if he couldn't turn it around in 4 years, he didn't deserve a second term. I agree with him. He didn't turn the economy around, and he didn't deserve to be Pres again.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,473
Points:3,838,180
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Jan 12, 2013 1:09:18 AM

Probably for the same reason that Republicants would have been blaming the Obama administration had Mitt Romney been elected.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,702
Points:1,881,715
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 11, 2013 10:22:29 PM

RNorm, >>We can go back several administrations, including Ronnie's TRIPLING of the deficit if we really wanted to look at the problem honestly<<
***
Why start there? Why not start at Wilson, when the "Progressive" era was in its infancy?

The real question we should all be asking is, "When will it stop?"
Profile Pic
daylily2009
Champion Author Fayetteville

Posts:2,443
Points:1,166,870
Joined:Oct 2009
Message Posted: Jan 11, 2013 10:06:40 PM

Yes!!
Obama is a know it all !!
Profile Pic
daylily2009
Champion Author Fayetteville

Posts:2,443
Points:1,166,870
Joined:Oct 2009
Message Posted: Jan 8, 2013 9:10:35 PM

demos do what obama tells them to do
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,502
Points:1,310,555
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 7:03:46 PM

"Most libs here claim all of our debt problems were caused by "Bush's wars". So I guess that they feel we are paying 1T interest per year on that?"


If we have a $16T debt and Obama added $4.5T and the costs of the credit card wars was $1.5T, then that means we ALREADY had a $10T deficit problem even BEFORE Obama walked into the Oval office.

So the problem existed before Obama.

If the Deficit was $5T when Bush came in and he added $4.5T, then that means we had a $5T deficit when Bush walked in the door.

So the problem existed before Bush.

We can go back several administrations, including Ronnie's TRIPLING of the deficit if we really wanted to look at the problem honestly. But the only problem with such a look is that people will start making excuses for the president of their choice (he had a "X-Party" majority in congress and they ran up the debt)...and it just never ends...

SMH
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:23,259
Points:894,095
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 6:45:50 PM

As with the selection of Chuck Hagel, this will be a balanced proposal to reach an agreement on the debt ceiling. No one from his opposition, has given this President any credit for anything. You are about to see how he really will deal with it.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,588
Points:1,156,845
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 6:34:19 PM

.


[Edited by: ministorage at 1/6/2013 6:37:38 PM EST]
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,588
Points:1,156,845
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 6:07:51 PM

Feb. 23, 2009, Barack Obama "pledge[d]" to the American people to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Tell us Mr. President, about the "the prevailing wisdom" in Washington D.C.

I believed him when he said that. I was applauding.

Since that moment, practically all he and his cronies have done is push for more deficit spending.

That "prevailing wisdom" is still prevailing.

SMH
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,588
Points:1,156,845
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 6:01:49 PM

July 3, 2008 — Candidate Barack Obama: Driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars to $9 trillion ($4 trillion during the prior 8 yrs. under Bush, "by his lonesome")... "It's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic." (Applause)

Since that stump speech, the National Debt has risen by over $5 trillion ($4.5 trillion during Obama's first term, "by his lonesome" in half that time).

btc1: >>"Should it be raised this time? Heck yes!"<<

SMH

[Edited by: ministorage at 1/6/2013 6:05:31 PM EST]
Profile Pic
jeskibuff
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:10,803
Points:2,082,530
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 5:32:30 PM

btc1 said: "We have always been about balance. Spend and pay."

Oh, now that's just wet-my-pants funny!

Tell me again, who hasn't bothered to pass a budget since 4/29/09?
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,663
Points:2,868,530
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 5:17:07 PM

. . . because Obama does not want to accept responsibility for making the economy worse.
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 5:15:33 PM

Suppose you were living within your means. You have debts, but nothing you can't handle.

The suddenly, you start spending like a drunken fool, and take an easier job at work that pays a lot less. So you run up every credit card you can get your hands on.

You do that for eight years, and then leave the mess for your kids to clean up.

Now, they have their own expenses, so they borrow a lot of money to clean up your mess. So four years later, they are still deep in the hole.

Would you honestly look your kids in the eye and say "Hey! Why are you blaming ME? It's all YOUR problem. You should be cutting YOUR lifestyle to pay for MY debt"

Come to think of it, there are some here who actually would say that. Which is why we have this post in the first place.

So do carry on with your partisan delusions.
Profile Pic
e_jeepin
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:4,810
Points:140,890
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 5:10:22 PM

"I've seen, on THIS site, conservatives moan and whine about Obama ran up the debt to $16T, even though his portion was about $4.5T, with the other $1.5T coming from the costs of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq."

I'm glad you admitted these truths

People use improper English all the time. Obama didnt run up 16T in debt, he increased the debt to 16T. Wait?? Didn't he campaign in 2008 to change this? yup!

Most libs here claim all of our debt problems were caused by "Bush's wars". So I guess that they feel we are paying 1T interest per year on that?

No its everything else, a decade of war is the tip of the iceberg -- the massive part is below the surface out of sight.

[Edited by: e_jeepin at 1/6/2013 5:13:02 PM EST]
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,702
Points:1,881,715
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 2:25:42 PM

nstrdnvstr,>>So let's go back to 2001, MahopacJack. What happened in 2001, (early September) that caused us to spend more money to defend the country?

Do you have any idea?<<
***
Yes.

The surplus RNorm was attributing to Clinton was because of a Republican Majority in BOTH HOUSES since the electorate threw out the DEFICITCRATs in 1994. If you remember back to the first two years of the Clinton Administration, the DEFICITCRATs tried to increase the spending and attempted nationalized health care. The Republicans maintained that privilege until 2006 when the electorate became fed up with the wanton spending.

The 2006 and 2008 elections saw a return to DEFICITCRAT majorities in both houses. Another reversal happened in 2010.

I predict some day politicians will come to the conclusion that people paying the bills want the government to live within its means. But as the political class has yet to recognize this. It would be contrary to THEIR WANTS and NEEDS.

[Edited by: MahopacJack at 1/6/2013 2:30:05 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,818
Points:3,185,035
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 11:30:03 AM


btc1, "Well it looks like conservatives agree that their leaders spent too much and ran us into debt"

You need to take your liberal blinders off and look at the real world.

When Bush left office the national debt was $10 trillion (70%of GDP). In just four years Obama has raised that to over $17 trillion (over 102% of GDP). This administration also intends to add $1-1.25 trillion in debt per year as far as the eye can see, and has only offered phantom "cuts" like not spending current military war costs each year for the next decade, which we weren't going to do anyway.

In addition to that Obama has sharply increased the size of government:

Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million

"The era of big government has returned with a vengeance, in the form of the largest federal work force in modern history.

The Obama administration says the government will grow to 2.15 million employees this year [2010], topping 2 million for the first time since President Clinton declared that 'the era of big government is over' and joined forces with a Republican-led Congress in the 1990s to pare back the federal work force.

From 1981 through 2008, the civilian work force remained at about 1.1 million to 1.2 million, with a low of 1.07 million in 1986 and a high of more than 1.2 million in 1993 and in 2008. In 2009, the number jumped to 1.28 million.

Mr. Obama is in a situation similar to that of Mr. Clinton, who took office when the budget deficit was at a record high and government bureaucracy was expanding, even though the Pentagon was shedding workers with the end of the Cold War.

Mr. Clinton in 1996 declared that 'the era of big government is over' and took steps to work with Congress to control spending and cut the work force, which already had been trending lower.

As he left office in 2000, Mr. Clinton boasted that his administration had helped cut 377,000 government jobs, leaving the smallest civilian federal work force since 1960.

Mr. Obama, though, appears to be accepting a larger federal work force"

To attempt to blame the current over-spending on the GOP or conservatives is the sort of insanity only possible in liberal "minds".

This is world-class projection.

Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,987
Points:4,633,725
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 11:21:49 AM

MahopacJack, "Notice there is no mention of the 2001 surplus which "Bush inherited" was from a REPUBLICAN controlled House and Senate?"

So let's go back to 2001, MahopacJack. What happened in 2001, (early September) that caused us to spend more money to defend the country?

Do you have any idea?
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,987
Points:4,633,725
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 11:17:03 AM

btc, did Obama, or did he not promise to reduce the deficit by half during his first term?

Obama has been president for 4 years now, and in each of those years, we have had trillion dollar deficits and NO budget!

That certainly is not Bush's fault! Nearly all businesses that don't have budgets fail. Yes, some that do have budgets fail, but it is totally irresponsible (not to mention that it is Constitutionally required) for the Senate to pass a budget every year.

When, if ever will Obama take responsibility for his actions and policies?

Or will he be known as "The Irresponsible President"?
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:23,259
Points:894,095
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 10:44:34 AM

Well it looks like conservatives agree that their leaders spent too much and ran us into debt.

But, they want to blame Obama for wanting to raise the debt ceiling now to pay for their debts, when he was warning us about spending and not paying for it in the first place! That is the point of this topic! You blame Obama for the debt ceiling needing to be raised and you want cuts to entitlements to pay for the wasteful spending of Bush, et. al. to get the debt reduced! AND you refuse to recognize that "entitlements" were established as a benefit that was paid into!

[Edited by: btc1 at 1/6/2013 10:45:38 AM EST]
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,595
Points:3,493,670
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 10:23:11 AM

WAY below, RNorm said: "Lets see: (1) Tripling the deficit...well its ok because it was Ronnie. (2) We don't negotiate with terrorists...Iran Contra...well its ok because it was Ronnie. (3) Deficits don't matter...well its ok because, again, it was Ronnie. Yep, you conservatives always have an excuse as to why YOUR OWN words don't apply to you."

--Let's take this in order:
1) .. and yes, that was a big criticism of Reagan. I understand why he did it, but yes, he did run up a big bill. But would you care to compare the MAGNITUDE of the Reagan deficit/debt numbers to those of Obama? To quote from my liberal friends: "Two wrongs don't make a right" - in Obama's case, we're throwing away good money after bad, and literally TONS of it.

2) I also agree, we shouldn't have negotiated with Iran. Nor should we have financed it through the government selling drugs to drug dealers to sell to addicts in the US. That was wrong. And so is the BATF running guns to drug dealers in Mexico. Again, the jerk sitting in the big chair is also doing more or less the same thing in promoting cartel violence that is spilling into the US.

3) IMHO, deficits do matter, and I've said that time and time again that the last SIX administrations have acted in fiscally irresponsible ways. The only thing I'd tell you that's different in Reagan and Bush 1's case, is that they spent in order to get the economy moving. But they didn't just give it away to banks willy-nilly. They placed military hardware orders, government orders and built infrastructure. Those things get people working. Obama shoved money at banks that should have failed, and is spending social programs PRETENDING that they are going to employ people and cure America's financial ills. Unfortunately, our elected idiot, ooops, sorry, our "esteemed President" doesn't seem to get that part.

Reagan was right though - "Government isn't the solution, government is part of the problem." (bad and bloated government, he meant. And how much more so now in THIS day and age?)
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,595
Points:3,493,670
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 10:12:31 AM

btc1's base post said: "The battle over the Debt ceiling was not fought during the Bush Administration, was it? Yet, he had to have the increase for 4 Trillion, right? Why was there not such a battle then?"

--Yes, Bush 2 did need the debt ceiling increased. Oh, and wasn't it then SENATOR Barack Obama who made a speech about fiscal responsibility, and then he cast his vote AGAINST raising the debt ceiling on Bush? Hmmm... I detect more than a whiff of stinking hypocrisy on this issue, in fact, it wreaks badly of hypocrisy. Doubly so when Obama decides that HE ought to be in charge of the debt ceiling - and wants no limits anymore.
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:23,259
Points:894,095
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 9:41:21 AM

For clarity, It is about how the Bush Administration led the way to spending without revenue raises to pay for that spending.

So do not try to start the deviation of topic to about how the democrats are all about spending. We have always been about balance. Spend and pay. If you want to spend you have to raise the income. The Bush Administration did not do that. All the Bush Administration did was to waste the surplus from the Democratic administration, previously established and borrowed and did not devise a way to re-pay that!

[Edited by: btc1 at 1/6/2013 9:44:30 AM EST]
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,502
Points:1,310,555
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 9:26:18 AM

"I could have sworn the topic was about, "Does anyone really know why Democrats blame the Bush Admistration for our econmonic problems?""


Seems to me the topic is about charting and following the votes and positions on debt ceiling increases by the GOP leadership:

"with plenty of help from the four Republicans currently holding Congressional leadership positions: Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl. ThinkProgress compiled a breakdown of the five debt limit increases that took place during the Bush presidency and how the four Republican leaders voted"

I guess you missed that part...no surprise there.
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:23,259
Points:894,095
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 9:00:55 AM

Mahopacjack, "2011 Democrat Spending Cuts a FARCE!"

Well, this may be part of the reason, "Public debt rose under Bush as a combined result of the Bush tax cuts (less revenue) providing less money to pay for spending, while they increased spending with two unfunded wars (borrowed money for the wars was left off of the budget by the Bush administration until the Obama administration put it on the budget — no more creative accounting, please.)"

We still have more debt due to Mr. Bush. We are just forced to recognize that now. If we borrow money it is now PART of the budget instead of being left out!
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,702
Points:1,881,715
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 8:59:12 AM

RNorm, >>The simple point is that none of the four people he's talking about ever raised the spending objections against increasing the debt ceiling when given the chance to do so.<<
***
I could have sworn the topic was about, "Does anyone really know why Democrats blame the Bush Admistration for our econmonic problems?"

Let me check......................

btc1, >>Does anyone really know why Democrats blame the Bush Admistration for our econmonic problems?<<

My goodness! IT IS about DEMOCRATS blaming Bush for running up the deficit. Notice the lying about the DEMOCRATS hand in this?

Notice there is no mention of the 2001 surplus which "Bush inherited" was from a REPUBLICAN controlled House and Senate?
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,702
Points:1,881,715
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 8:44:14 AM

2011 Democrat Spending Cuts a FARCE!
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,377
Points:325,725
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 8:37:46 AM


Medicare is in about the same shape it has been in since its inception. It's solvent for 11 more years without touching anything. That's standard solvency now and yesterday for Medicare.

We spent an enormous amount of time and political energy on the Affordable Care Act, which is a 2,000 page bill, as the Tea Party and Republicans are fond of pointing out. The Affordable Care Act has consumer protections and Medicare reforms written into it. The consumer protection piece is about 60 pages. The other 1,940 pages are Medicare reforms intended to control the rising cost of health care.

We will not know whether those reforms are effective for three to four years. What we know today is that Medicare spending has decreased over the last three years, and that's before all of the ACA reforms take hold.


Chris Hayes
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,377
Points:325,725
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 8:34:32 AM

"Social Security, let’s lay it to rest once in for all…Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. Social Security is totally funded by the payroll tax levied on employer and employee. If you reduce the outgo of Social Security, that money would not go into the general fund to reduce the deficit. It would go into the Social Security trust fund. So Social Security has nothing to do with balancing the budget or erasing or lowering the deficit." --Ronald Reagan
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,502
Points:1,310,555
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 8:31:58 AM

"Approved by a DEMOCRAT MAJORITY in BOTH HOUSES. "


The simple point is that none of the four people he's talking about ever raised the spending objections against increasing the debt ceiling when given the chance to do so.

Regardless of who controls the house or senate, each individual member of the chamber has the opportunity to let their opinion be known and heard as well as their vote to be put on record. If you're against spending, you would be so regardless of who's in the white house or their party affiliation.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,702
Points:1,881,715
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 8:31:51 AM

Tom Coburn's remarks regarding the 2009 Senate Continuing Spending Resolution.

Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,702
Points:1,881,715
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 8:22:59 AM

btc1, >>March 2006: Congress approves a $781 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.965 trillion. All four approve.

September 2007: Congress approves an $850 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $9.815 trillion. All four approve.<<
***
Approved by a DEMOCRAT MAJORITY in BOTH HOUSES.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,502
Points:1,310,555
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 12:18:01 AM

"Most likely because they don't want to take responsibility for their actions and policies."

Lets see:

(1) Tripling the deficit...well its ok because it was Ronnie.

(2) We don't negotiate with terrorists...Iran Contra...well its ok because it was Ronnie.

(3) Deficits don't matter...well its ok because, again, it was Ronnie.

Yep, you conservatives always have an excuse as to why YOUR OWN words don't apply to you.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,987
Points:4,633,725
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 10:20:03 PM

Most likely because they don't want to take responsibility for their actions and policies.

For example, look at the housing bubble. Barney Frank and other democrats "wanted to roll the dice some more" (Barneys words) on the subprime mortgages even though many in the administration were pushing for tightening. Rep. Frank went so far as insisting that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fiscally sound.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,502
Points:1,310,555
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 9:40:23 PM

"Nobody is blaming him for "ALL" the debt, just blaming him for not doing what he said he would in 2008 -- then gets re-elected for not doing it?"


Are you sure bro?

I've seen, on THIS site, conservatives moan and whine about Obama ran up the debt to $16T, even though his portion was about $4.5T, with the other $1.5T coming from the costs of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Not to mention I've seen numerous figures showing that Obama's rate of spending is LESS than pretty much all of the presidents before him in the last few generations, but conservatives will have none of that...not to mention that he's actually cut the size of the government, but that's not good enough either.

It seems to me that conservatives believe what they want to believe and toss out facts that do not conform with their partisan beliefs. Like blaming Obama for the "Obama phone" (and related costs) when in fact that was initiated under Bush in 2008...
Post a reply Back to Topics