As the Democrats were gaveling open their Convention in Charlotte, the United States National Debt reached the astonishing $16 Trillion mark.
CLICK PHOTO FOR VIDEO.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UEDJncZbh4[/youtube]
Eric Bolling said tonight on “The Five” that Barack Obama has been President 1.6% of our time as a Republic and has amassed 33% of our entire national debt.
Obama Isn’t Working.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
And the Dems kick off their convention with a speech from the Governor of the bankrupt state of Illinois, where they jacked up taxes 66% and still didn’t close their deficit.
Listening to conservatives talk about the deficit is one of the most laughable hypocrisies in modern American politics. A few posts back you guys were lauding Reagan (who EXPLODED the deficit), while you disregard his message and that of Republicans for years; “Deficits don’t matter.” You guys have a blatant disregard for the context from which these factoids you pluck are derived. Why not look at the rate at which the debt & spending have been expanding? But I guess it’s easier to blame Obama than it is to learn anything about economics.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/is-obama-responsible-for-a-5-trillion-increase-in-the-debt/2012/05/15/gIQACA0QSU_blog.html
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/dueling-debt-deceptions/
From Factcheck.org
Since fiscal 2009, however, it cannot be denied that spending has increased only modestly. Total federal outlays actually went down 1.7 percent in fiscal 2010, for example, then rose a little more than 4 percent in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. Spending was projected by CBO to rise less than 1 percent in fiscal 2012. In fact, CBO reported on May 7 in its most recent monthly budget report that spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year was 3.4 percent below the same period a year ago. That was mostly due to differences in timing of certain payments, but even adjusting for those, CBO figured spending is 0.8 percent lower so far this year.
Update, June 7: A new CBO monthly report, issued after this article was posted, showed outlays for the first eight months of the fiscal year running 1.2 percent higher than the same period a year earlier, after adjusting for timing of payments and also after taking account of an unusual adjustment to TARP outlays booked in May 2011. The June 7 CBO report thus shows fiscal 2012 spending to be on track to increase only slightly for the full fiscal year ending Sept. 30.
But CBO also projected on June 5 that by the end of the year, due to the continued mismatch between outlays and receipts, “the federal debt will reach roughly 70 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), the highest percentage since shortly after World War II.”
All of the yearly changes under Obama are well below the 7 percent average annual increase under Bush prior to fiscal 2009. And in that year — for which we assign most of the increase to Bush — the rise amounted to a staggering 17.9 percent.
There are many things that can be used to criticize Obama. But the deficit is the result of increased spending (which was set to increase at much higher levels than had been customary by the Bush Administration) and the unwillingness of Congress (one party in particular) to increase revenue for the government. You cannot blame the President for a deficit that is the result of the combination of years of increased rates of spending that were put in place before he took office (two wars, prescription drug program) and extremely low tax rates that Republicans have fought like demons to preserve.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/
Actually, Another_Jeremy, here’s the hilarity.
1) You and your Barack Obama scream and cry that Bush pushed the baseline too high.
2) You then proceed to RAISE spending above that baseline that you screamed was too high in the first place.
3) You then calculate using the baseline that you previously screamed was too high to argue that you only raised spending x%.
That’s why your math doesn’t add up, silly. Furthermore, you should also remember that Bush didn’t sign the 2009 budget with the increased baseline; the liars Pelosi and Reid deliberately obstructed it until Obama could sign it.
Therefore, you OWN that baseline. You OWN that massive spending increase. And that’s how your Obama Party is running up deficits that are four-fold increases over the Bush administration despite their desperate claims that they only increased spending some miniscule amount.
Finally, here’s the hilarity; you desperate idiots insist that if we only let you massively hike taxes on “the rich”, you wouldn’t be running these deficits.
Here’s some math for you:
– Confiscating the wealth of every single billionaire in the United States ?would gather you $1.3 trillion — not enough to pay a single YEAR of Obama Party deficits.
– Confiscating the wealth of every single person in the United States who makes over $200k annually would net you $2.4 trillion — not enough to pay two, much less three, years of Obama deficits.
Now demonstrate to us your economic ignorance by stating that confiscating 100% of the wealth of these people would have no impact whatsoever on the economy or on future tax revenues.
This is math, which is beyond a racist idiot like yourself who is desperate to see his black sugar daddy stay in office and give him handouts. You are a child, Another_Jeremy, a useless brain-dead child who wants to use governmental power to steal from others just like you stole from your parents’ wallets previously.
I have a problem with how Democrats define words. How is it what W spent in eight years was ¨staggering,¨and what Obama spent was a ¨modest increase¨? What is their definition of ¨fair share¨? Why is it ¨patriotic¨to pay more taxes? Does that mean the bottom 45% are ¨¨ unpatriotic¨? I propose that we should give the bottom an opportunity to become patriots. I propose an inverse graduated tax. The bottom half should pay 50% of all their income from all sources, government and otherwise, (panhandling, drug sales, prostitution) and maybe they´ll be motivated to do what it takes to move out of that tax bracket into a lower one , where they pay more money in taxes though at a lower rate through higher earned income which they will have more.
To North Dallas
Black sugar daddy, huh? Weird. I didn’t think you saw race.
Your comment about Bush not being responsible for the 2009 budget is a lie. Read the fact check sweetie.
Here it is moron. The economy changes in size. George Bush handed the President a shrinking economy. In addition to the fact that the economy was getting smaller there were/are two wars, tax cuts that mostly benefitted people who were already filthy rich, and a prescription drug program all unpaid for. It would have been impossible to get rid of these things in one fell swoop, and there would have been an even larger human fallout had he passed austerity measures and not used the government to keep the US (and much of the world) into a straight up depression. Why should the books be balanced on the backs of the poor and the elderly on account of the previous President and his administration bankrupting the country?
The deficit and massive spending increases were set in emotion by your beloved Bushie and you cheered him on the entire time. The spending under Obama went went down one year, up 4% the next year and up 1% the next. The idea that Obama is a massive spender is a right wing whacko fabrication. More jobs were created from the Spring of 2010 to Spring 2011 than Bush did in 8 years. Taxes have not gone up on rich people (they’ve gone up on hardly anyone), and in the case of the middle class, there was actually tax relief in the Stimulus. He achieved moderate HealthCare reform which all independent economists have determined will reduce the deficit (as it needs to because it represents 17% of your our GDP) And yet you idiots are still soooo mad at Obama. Hmmm.
Where were you guys when your beloved GW turned the largest deficits in America history in the largest deficits? About the “handouts” you claim I want, which ones are referring to? You mean the ones that existed long before he came into the white house? Better question, what could Obama do that would quiet your lusty hatred of him that you for gloss over when the same policies happen to be enacted by a Republican?
You did not give a shit when your stupid President was ruining the economy, increasing the size of the government and ruining our foreign relations, and now you wanna bitch that the “Black Sugar Daddy” is not cleaning up his mess to your satisfaction. You are an intellectually dishonest, uninformed, jackass with no regard for facts in your plainly racial hatred of the current President. Your selective outrage over the over the deficit which has been exploded by the past 3 Republican administrations belies your obvious partisan spectacles.
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/apr/28/joe-biden/vice-president-joe-biden-says-there-were-more-new-/
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/a-bogus-tax-attack-against-obama/
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_budget_pie_chart
I’m sorry that facts are confusing, Roberto. You should read the entire article as it flies in the face of the current myth making prevalent in the Republican party. It was a staggering increase because the increases under the last year Bush was accountable for the budget went up 17%. That’s over three times higher than it has gone up under Obama.
It is unpatriotic to live in what conservatives often say is the greatest country in the world, yet they have no interest in funding it because the money could hypothetically go to a program from which a poor black youth will benefit. It’s unpatriotic to be so heavily propagandized that you reject any tax increase as tyrannical while allowing corporations to defraud the country of those tax dollars. It’s unpatriotic to claim to love the country, but not give a flying shit about those who are the least among us. It’s also stupid and it doesn’t work. Unfortunately, you’re more content to make things up than face the obvious: contemporary conservative economics makes no sense when you put a pen and paper to it, and we’re all paying the price for the stupidity of voters like yourselves.
Boy, Another_Jeremy are screwed up!! So the budget went up 17% in Bush´s last year? But it was Nancy Pelosi´s and Harry Reid´s budget. They controlled the purse strings that year. Even at 17% it is a paltry pittance compared to what Obama has spent, and may I remind you, WITHOUT A BUDGET. Harry Reid wouldn´t allow it. Obama didn´t needpatriotic tax money to he,p inner city black youth. As a black President he could have used his Chinese bank credit card and spent all he wanted to help them and help them how? Don´t paint up the neighborhood? Under Obama black youth unemployment has risen disproportionately compared to all other ethnic groups. That shows you how much he really cares. There votes are a given.
I didn´t realize the kool-aid you drink is so potent. You have, like all socialists and communists, everything ass backwards. We do not exist for the state, the state exists for us. Money earned belongs to us and not the government. The government has no inherent right to redistribute the wealth of the nation. I repeat; LET´S TAX THE POOR AT 50% of their total income. LET´S TAX (read; motivate) THEM into the middle and upper class.
Another_Jeremy,
When Mitt Romney becomes President and leads the country into its greatest economic recovery since Ronald Reagan, I hope and pray that you will become massively prospeous, wealthy, and abundant by the end of 2014. I want you to be so patriotic that in 2015 you´ll pay 50% of your wealth in taxes. And tell President Romney that you want your taxes to be designated to help the poor black youth of the inner cities, since I doubt that you have ever tithed to either a church or a charitable institution. It´ll be your opportunity to be patriotic! I find it ironic that wealthy Democrats squirrel their money away in offshore accounts (Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) and when Democrats release their tax returns charitable giving is 2% or less. ¨To whom much is given much will be required.¨That´s God´s command, not government´s.
I love your insinuation that it is so fundamentally unfair to tax the wealthy at high rates as if that wasn’t the way it was during the majority of the 20th century. You make more money, you pay a higher percentage. That’s the way it’s been in this country until the last 30 years. So we were a Marxist, socialist evil country until the 80s? Weird. Keep living in your fairy tale land that the government has nothing to do with how anyone earns money.
Do you view Western Europe and Scandinavia with the same disdain with which you view poor black kids? They have a much bigger social safety net than we do, and their populace is also much better educated, healthier and prosperous. The plainly disingenuous conservative vision of “productivity” as being directly proportional to the amount of money you have resembles an oligarchy more than a democracy. You didn’t earn your parents’ money. No one chose to be born in a nice neighborhood with great schools near by. Yet you want to argue that this person simply “pulled himself up by the bootstraps” because he becomes a “small businessman” more so than a poor child from the inner city who only manages to secure a low wage job. It is sophistry. It is dishonesty. And it is immoral.
You do not get to determine where your tax dollars go. The government does. Always has. Always will. You want the government to build the roads you drive on (or on which the goods you purchased are transferred) but then object to the government making an effort to create a social floor which ultimately saves money for everyone. We all pay when the person who has no insurance goes to the emergency room. We all pay when a huge sect of the population is so impoverished that they cannot buy anything and stimulate the economy. We all pay when brilliant young people can’t accept lower paying jobs (teachers) because they are crushed with student loan debt and medical bills.
I do not think my tax dollars should go to puff up the inflated military budget, or to fill the pockets of greedy wall street CEOs but that’s not my call. All I can do is beat the streets and demand change. If you are opposed to funding the government that provides countless services to you, then become an anarchist. How can you logically support a Presidential candidate who claims he hates government involvement (despite blatant contradictions with his record) and believes it cannot create jobs, but wants to be elected to the highest government position in the land to do just that? Has this current economic melt down not taught you that this obsession with making sure you don’t have to pay for something from which you don’t directly benefit is juvenile and that we ARE ALL INTERCONNECTED?? Nope. You’d sooner live in a society wherein the majority of the population lived on the verge of starvation than dare to think they could “steal” money from the people whose businesses they were responsible for keeping afloat with their labor and business. You’d rather live in a country with sick people who could easily be treated if they had access to affordable care than pay a few more dollars to Uncle Same every year. If that ain’t the American way, I don’t know what is.
It’s also odd to hear you invoking the word of God a few posts away from denouncing the poor as panhandlers and prostitutes. What did Jesus think of the poor I wonder. You’re just the latest breed of propagandized neo-liberal automaton selectively using the words of an ancient story book to justify your ignorance, intolerance, cruelty and selfishness.
Jeremy if you think Western Europe and Scandinavia is so much better, GO! It´s your Fantasyland. My first years of life were in a fascist state. When we arrived we found a cousin, whose family migrated long before, was the leader of Tammany Hall. The relatively new ADA tried to keep him from being elected Democratic National Committeeman from New York. The New York Daily News reported ¨The anti-De Sapio drive was sparked by the LEFT WING (caps. mine for emphasis) Americans for Democratic Action-the ADA–and much the same elements which supported Rudolph Halley for Mayor against Robert Wagner last November.¨ The reporter, Sanford E. Stanton writes further down ¨Many Democratic spokesmen pointed out that support from the ADA- embracing as it does so many people who in the past had either been outright COMMUNIST SYMPATHIZERS OR SOFT HEARTED FELLOW TRAVELERS (Caps mine)–has been tantamount to disaster for Democratic candidates in recent years.¨
Now Democratic candidates jump through their asses for an ADA endorsement. This is not my mother´s cousin´s Democratic Party. The Party has taken one helluva left turn. Todya´s Democrats are socialists and pink behing the gills. Democrats have the audacity to call TEA Partiers extremists? That is the pot calling the kettle black. Down with socialism! Up with Capitalism!
Another_Jeremy. The only reason Western Europe and Scandinavia are able to do what they do with their extremely high taxes…is because of OUR “inflated military budget”. And your precious EU is FAILING. You stupid, stupid boy. Take OUR blanket of protection away from them and they are done. If it wouldn’t affect my son, I would curse you with the hope that you get exactly what you want.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/sep/12/reid-ribble/president-obama-built-nations-16-trillion-debt-gop/
Some facts for the morons. . . . .
In saying Obama was the debt king among the last five presidents dating back to Ronald Reagan, PolitiFact National found that under one measure — debt as a percentage of gross national product — Obama ranked highest. As of December 2010, the ratio under Obama had risen nearly 22 percentage points; Reagan was second at 14.9.
(However, using raw numbers, our colleagues found that at the time, the debt had increased by 34 percent, or $3.66 trillion, under Obama — well below the 86 percent increase, or a total of $4.9 trillion, under George W. Bush.)