[golfrulz]

Bruce Bartlett tallies it. The damage this single president did to the core of the country's fiscal health - and our ability to weather a storm like 2007 - 2009 - is hard to find parallels with. Money quote:

Putting all the numbers in the C.B.O. report together, we see that continuation of tax and budget policies and economic conditions in place at the end of the Clinton administration would have led to a cumulative budget surplus of $5.6 trillion through 2011 – enough to pay off the $5.6 trillion national debt at the end of 2000.
Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher, a turnaround of $11.7 trillion. Of this total, the C.B.O. attributes 72 percent to legislated tax cuts and spending increases, 27 percent to economic and technical factors. Of the latter, 56 percent occurred from 2009 to 2011.

When you check reality, rather than the alternate universe constantly created by Fox News and an amnesiac press, you find that Bush had a chance to pay off all our national debt before we hit the financial crisis - giving the US enormous flexibility in intervening to ameliorate the recession. Instead, we had to find money for a stimulus in a cupboard stripped bare - its contents largely given away, by an act of choice. I'm tired of being told we cannot blame Bush for our current predicament. We can and should blame him for most of it - and remind people that Romney's policies: more tax cuts, more defense spending are identical. With one difference: Bush pledged never "to balance the budget on the backs of the poor."
Mitt Romney has no qualms about doing that very thing. And he will, if he is given the chance.

[PAULYPOKER]

The fact is, the presidents job is to create debt,it is the federal way....................

[PAULYPOKER]

The more debt he or she creates the more he or she will be rewarded by the true rulers of the Earth..................

[DwightShrute]

Golf is either lying or just doesn't understand how US politics works. I suspect the former.

Here are facts not fantasy ....

Originally Posted by ANDYWEND

I'll clue you in:

Presidents are NOT in charge of our country's financial expenditures. Congress is in charge of our country's purse strings and they make all the important decisions in our country. If that was not the case, Obama would have already signed his government takeover of medicine into law.

Now that we have that out of the way, lets see which party controlled congress from the Reagan through the Obama administrations:

1980-1988 - Ronald Reagan - Democrats had full control of congress during Reagan's entire 8 years in office - $200 billion deficit
1989-1992 - Bush Sr - Democrats had full control of congress during Bush's 4 years in office - $300 billion deficit
1993-2000 - Bill Clinton - REPUBLICANS had control of congress for 6 out of the 8 Clinton years - $200 billion SURPLUS
2001-2006 - Bush Jr - Republicans controlled congress
2007-2008 - Bush Jr - Democrats controlled congress

Do you have the breakdown of Bush Jr's $482 billion deficit? How much of it came in his first 6 years in office as compared to the last 2 when democrats controlled congress

2009 - ????? Barack Obama - Democrats controlling congress - IN less than a year, Obama and the democratic party has created a larger deficit than Bush's entire 8 years combined.

The facts are OVERWHELMING and clear. Our country spends and wastes far more money under democratic controlled congresses than republican controlled.

[Carseller4]

Obama add more debt in 3 1/2 years than Bush did in 8.

FACT

[rkelly110]

If you want to play that Dwighty, the Repubs have had control of the house since Jan '11. Where has our debt gone?
You guessed it my homey, up. Accumulated interest mostly. Doing nothing will increase the debt all by itself.

[DwightShrute]

If you want to play that Dwighty, the Repubs have had control of the house since Jan '11. Where has our debt gone?
You guessed it my homey, up. Accumulated interest mostly. Doing nothing will increase the debt all by itself.

yes doing nothing is ridiculous. That's why Obama must go. You can only kick the can down the road for so long. He is unwilling to work with the Repubs which make him a poor leader. Imagine what the debt would be in the Repubs didn't have control of the house for the last year and a half?

[rkelly110]

I agree, but so should the Repubs that refused to work with him also. That's why I'm doing my homework.
Anybody who signed a pledge in my district will not be voted for by me. Signing a pledge is like saying never.
Signing a pledge is saying I'm not budging in my stance. Politicians are suppose to give and take for the betterment
of the country.

[DwightShrute]

He had 2 years with the house and senate to try anything. What did he decide to use that majority to do? Pass a health care bill that will be over turned in a couple weeks by the Supreme court and spend money. Now he can only attempt to deflect for his incompetence. The Repubs tried working with him and have always given in to temporally expending the tax increase for a few months. How many times now? lol. The only one not working across party lines is King Obama.

[Carseller4]

Clinton was smart, he worked with Republicans and they saved his ass.

Obama is not working with Republicans and it will cost him the election.

[hockey216]

Where's you get this piece from? Addictinginfo.com again?

Don't start talking about deficits.

Obama racked up 5 Trillion in deficits in his first 4 years. that was more than any 4 years under Bush.

[hockey216]

Clinton had a republican congress that was cutting spending.

[Emily_Haines]

There no sense arguing with these GOP losers. They are some of the stupidest people every gathered together to form a group. You show them a chart for the last 30 years that show most of the spending came during the terms of GOP presidents and these mouth breathers all say but it was because of a democrat controlled congress. They have a hard time with facts and a excuse for everything.

[PAULYPOKER]

Fact is Democrat or Republican are equally criminal but both gain the populace support by promising the values of the people however they never deliver...........

So you have the never ending cycle of false hope from the people that one day government will represent the peoples interest.....

This is not far off of the very definition of insanity..........

Either form a stand against this completely corrupt government or vote and get what you deserve........

[DwightShrute]

There no sense arguing with these GOP losers. They are some of the stupidest people every gathered together to form a group. You show them a chart for the last 30 years that show most of the spending came during the terms of GOP presidents and these mouth breathers all say but it was because of a democrat controlled congress. They have a hard time with facts and a excuse for everything.

It's back to the basics, again!

The President cannot spend money without the approval of the Congress. The President is helpless in spending money, he cannot authorize the spending of money. He can veto when it arrives at his desk.

FACT!

[Emily_Haines]

It's back to the basics, again!

The President cannot spend money without the approval of the Congress. The President is helpless in spending money, he cannot authorize the spending of money. He can veto when it arrives at his desk.

FACT!

AGAIN, they are as dumb as it gets

[DwightShrute]

AGAIN, they are as dumb as it gets

again, Facts I have on my side. I know they don't "fit in" to your argument so all you have is name calling. Yawn.

You guys are smart enough top realize how dumb you are.

[Emily_Haines]

again, Facts I have on my side. I know they don't "fit in" to your argument so all you have is name calling. Yawn.

You guys are smart enough top realize how dumb you are.

You can't even look at a simple chart

[DwightShrute]

again, facts not fiction Emilty

[DwightShrute]

more facts

[Emily_Haines]

Even your dumb charts show the GOP are big spenders and have been for the last 30 years

[DwightShrute]

Even your dumb charts show the GOP are big spenders and have been for the last 30 years

yes they also over spend. Geez. You just can't simply criticize your guy on the over spending alone without bringing up other administrations. Really, you can't see how idiotic that is? Really?

[DwightShrute]

[hockey216]

You can't even look at a simple chart

So you dont think that Obama spent a lot, just because his growth rate was low compared to bush?

the problem is that you are looking at growth rate instead of just looking at spending. Yes bush spent a lot (2 wars and drugs for medicaire). But obama spent a lot too. To say that obama didn't rack up a 5 trillion dollar deficit in 4 years is dishonest. You try to mitigate it by comparing him to another president who spent a lot.

2 wrongs don't make a right.

[Shaudius]

So you dont think that Obama spent a lot, just because his growth rate was low compared to bush?

the problem is that you are looking at growth rate instead of just looking at spending. Yes bush spent a lot (2 wars and drugs for medicaire). But obama spent a lot too. To say that obama didn't rack up a 5 trillion dollar deficit in 4 years is dishonest. You try to mitigate it by comparing him to another president who spent a lot.

2 wrongs don't make a right.

No, to say that Obama racked up 5 trillion dollars in 4 years is the dishonest line, because it doesn't tell the whole story. How many times do I have to repeat it here, Obama's first budget was not in effect until October of 2009. There was over a trillion dollars added to the debt before Obama could have even done anything.

Even if he cut the deficit he inherited in half immediately(that's a pretty tall order for amount of spending to cut right away, especially when your opponents won't let you touch 25% of federal spending, and your base won't let you touch another 25% or so) he still would have added a little under 2 trillion to the debt just in his first year and a half in office.

Of course that doesn't even factor in the fact that the economy got much worse in Obama's first few months in office, and by year's end was downright brutal, really putting a damper on tax revenue, even if spending had been cut in half.

The point of comparing though is the fact that his opponents want to be back in office, so its important to look at what his predecessors of the other party did when they were in power, and what they plan to do.

For this we look to what Obama has said his policy in his second term would be, and what his opponents say their policy would be. His opponent's policy is the Ryan budget plan.

So really it comes down to this, would you rather have the policies of Obama or the policies of the Ryan budget as the budget framework for the US, for me its a no brainer. For others who knows, maybe they like rich people being taxed less and poor people being taxed more, with repeals of the sequestration cuts(but only for the military) and zero actual net cuts in overall federal spending.

In my mind anything Obama could possibly do couldn't be worse than not cutting overall spending, cutting tax rates at the same time, and expecting growth to balance the budget for you.