Last Updated: Sep 06,2012
President Obama has added more to the national debt that all 43 presidents combined.
If the republicans want to win they really need to beat this drum:
We don't have a revenue problem - we have a SPENDING PROBLEM.
When Bush got into office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion and we had a budget surplus of $127 billion.
When he left office, our national debt was $10.7 trillion with an annual budget deficit of $1.3 trillion (which was the budget for 2009 through September).
Your facts are wrong, and the longer we all play the partisan rhetoric game, the worse we are. Pay attention to facts, and not spin from either side.
You are playing the partisan rhetoric game too when you mention Pres. Bush.
The President can't buy a cup of coffee on his own - CONGRESS SPENDS OUR MONEY, NOT THE PRESIDENT. So anyone that keeps blaming Bush or Obama isn't really being accurate, are they? Congress doesn't get nearly the blame they deserve for the mess we are in.
Agree completely. My point was the spin everyone chooses to listen to is the shell game they want us to play. Until we wake up and realize what the real problem is, and more importantly, how to fix it, we're screwed.
Fact is, it seems like it's easier for most to blame one person than a group of people no matter how wrong it is.
Actually no. Was just going to create a new topic on this subject.
The president sets the budget and the president spends the budget. Congress can say yes or no, but has very little control over what is in the budget, it has to be presented to congress from the office of the president of the united states, according to Pub.L. 67-13, 42 Stat. 20. By President Harding, a republican.
Budget and Accounting Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is the presidents responsibility to create a budget and spend the money. Congress can agree to the budget and modify that budget, but they do not create a budget nor spend the money. Every dollar spent from that 14 trillion dollars had to be asked and approved by the president of the united states. Not a dollar can be spent on the official budget, unless it is asked for and approved by the president of the united states.
From 1921 to present.
All the republican presidents has asked for and has got 9.766 trillion dollars.
All the democratic presidents has asked for and has got 1.99 trillion dollars.
The rest is sucked down into interest payments.
If the president did not ask for it and approved it, it would not be spent.
Interest for Fiscal Year Total as of 31 Aug 2011 = $434,131,324,866.27
Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding
Simple graph on part of the subject matter here:
I find it at once sad and frightening.
The worst part is that obama is still carrying bush's failed polices. The tax break for the extremely wealthy cost about 100 billion dollars a year.
Breaking it down by party and gdp.
Notice that the democrats increase the gdp and reduce the debt. The republicans decrease the gdp and increase the debt.
So much for the notion of the GOP being fiscal conservatives
We need the line item veto to keep Congress from attaching riders to a bill. Pork Barrel Style. They never tell you those extras are in there.
Five years ago, financial advisors complained about Americans' savings - we didn't have many. Now financial advisors are complaining we are not spending. Some don't spend due to financial worries, and some don't spend because a lot of the products are junk anyway.
Is all of that past money adjusted for inflation? I seriously doubt this administration/congress/whatever, has spent more that 235 years worth of history.
Line item veto is one of the most dangerous inventions in the 20th century. Right up there with the atomic bomb. It allows a president to "neuter" a bill and pass it into law, with out the approval of congress. For example, a line item veto can allow the president to ask congress for 4 trillion dollars in spending. Using the line item veto he can then cut anything out of the bill, but still keep the whole 4 trillion dollars. Or, if you want to fund x program, it allows the president to "black mail" them for campaign funds. Either you give me x amount (money, support,ect...) in campaign money or I will cut your spending.
No obama has not. That would be 11 trillion dollars, which would be impossible. Obama has spent a lot of money, but lets look at what he actually spent.
Military 1.4 trillion dollars, currently fighting two un-win-able wars.
Social security-700 billion dollars, a promised made from the past.
Medicare/mediaid- 600 A program to help those that can not get medical care on their own.
Interest on the national debt-400 billion dollars
Education/other-300 billion dollars.
Out of the 3.4 trillion dollars, he really has any say over the 300 billion. The rest was spent by the previous presidency's.
Bush's tax cuts, cost about 100 billion dollars a year in lost revenue.
Whoa now easy on the fact posting it detracts from big spending socialist boogeyman image that i was just getting used to.
Not directed at keale18, but what he said.
Every time someone says that, god drowns a kitten.
Socialism- any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
Every dime spent on the military is governmental ownership, and there for Socialism. In fact, spending money on militaristic needs is one aspect that every socialistic state has.
But let us look at the other owner ship, collective ownership? What the heck is that?
Collective ownership- ownership by a group for the benefit of members of that group.
So that would be, let me see, a group of people getting together to invest in a company. We could call them investors. They would have to form some kind of control system, something like a board of directors. Of course the board would have to have some kind of leader, I don't know, let call him/her a CEO.
Wait one minute, we have that, it is called wall street.
Every time someone calls obama a socialist, god drowns a kitten.
Now, let look at what this socialist has really done. Bush has spent almost 3 trillion dollars on military alone, all of that is 100% socialistic money. He has given away 100 billion dollars a year to the socialist boards, and socialist dictators, oh sorry CEO's.
Well Bob, you're not totally out in right field, but let's remember the President is not the only player in government. One might want to read the short article. Note that all cited presidents carry over till June 30th their predecessor's budget.
A bogus chart on Obama and the debt gets a new lease on life - The Fact Checker - The Washington Post
"If the chart were recast to show how much the debt went up as a percentage of GDP, it would look pretty bad for Obama after not even three years in office. In fact, Obama does almost twice as poorly as Reagan
I think its funny how we will keep printing money to attack whatever problem is popular at that point in time... hey gotta get elected don't we? Even if it means economic melt down...
This boondoggle has the bipartisan support of those receiving the biggest bribes.[FONT="]uke:[/FONT]
The Jet That Ate the Pentagon - By Winslow Wheeler | Foreign Policy
"How bad is it? A review of the F-35's cost, schedule, and performance -- three essential measures of any Pentagon program -- shows the problems are fundamental and still growing."
Extended it to 2017, scary :s: Over 3,500% of GDP :afraid:
US Federal Deficit As Percent Of GDP United States 2000-2017 - Federal State Local Data
See the chart, why do Republican President's love to spend other people's money ?
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes
"So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole
About Obama and Nextpay Spending, I read in a certain controversial article that the US is planning an all-out war against all the countries. It aims to remove the financial system that we are currently using and would potentially remove all the currencies in the world. Not that I don't care about this though, I just think they should give what is right for the people through properly spending the money like on humanitarian services and rescue efforts at least while they are still sitting on the most powerful seat in the world and waving their hands at everyone who is relying on their help.
Just because someone writes something, doesn't make it true or have any basis in reality.
That account appears to be a bot.
Separate names with a comma.