The massive run up of new debt under obama will enslave generations to BIG government. An additional $6 TRILLION in NEW DEBT - a 60% increase in just 3 1/2 years is simply unimaginable, and certainly untenable. We are now at $16 trillion in debt, and he doesn't have one clue what to do about it. In fact, his policies will take us far, far further into debt and simply crush the country.

Unfortunately, I don't know what is worse; his record debt levels, or his horrific record on employment.


Change we can believe in .....

I must have missed where Obama passed a budget without Congress.....

If the President is to blame, so are every one of the 535 members of Congress that pass the budgets.
And Quaker, give me a breakdown of places where the President has dramatically increased the budget and debt?
Where in the non-mandatory spending?

Or, is it all mandatory?
And what could have been cut to stop the rise?

New entitlements and expansion of entitlements is technically mandatory spending, but it wasn't "mandatory" prior to Obama, was it?

gut;1257370 wrote:New entitlements and expansion of entitlements is technically mandatory spending, but it wasn't "mandatory" prior to Obama, was it?

Which sections? And how so in the FY12 an FY13?
Yes, I agree it has grown, but the Congress is just as much to blame as the President.

ptown_trojans_1;1257371 wrote:Which sections? And how so in the FY12 an FY13?
Yes, I agree it has grown, but the Congress is just as much to blame as the President.

Congress is also to blame. But he's the leader of the party that was unable to pass a budget while they had near supermajorities of the House and Senate. The same party that labeled the Tea Party "financial terrorists".

gut;1257374 wrote:Congress is also to blame. But he's the leader of the party that was unable to pass a budget while they had near supermajorities of the House and Senate. The same party that labeled the Tea Party "financial terrorists".

As much as I'd like to agree with the term "financial terrorist", I simply can't. I prefer "American Taliban" instead.

The Senate has been lead by the democratic party the whole time Obama has been president and has not passed a budget in years.

The HoR was controlled by the democratic party the first two years and did not pass a budget the whole time.

The republicans take over the HoR and pass a budget but then are villified as being draconian and financial terrorists, etc.

The Senate refused to even vote on it.

Obama is supposed to be the leader of said party that has been in control of the budgets for most of his term. He is responsible for failed leadership for sure, the Senate and HoR (mostly Senate recently) are responsible for allowing this to happen.

I wish there was hope for the Democratic party, because god knows the Repubs aren't really cutting the mustard. But Pelosi is one of their LEADERS, and she's batsh.it crazy.

He is just continuing in the trend established by Presidents for the past 30 years.

Reagan tripled the national debt.

Bush 1 doubled it.

Clinton saw it go up only 40%.

Bush II doubled it.

So far Obama has seen it go up 50%, but is well on his way to doubling it if he gets a second term.

This is what Presidents in this country do.

The only difference is that raw dollars go up because the numbers have gotten bigger. The underlying fact though is doubling the debt is doubling the debt, and no one has presented a clear plan (BHO or Willard) on how they plan to stop following in their predecessor's footsteps.

Gosh a ruddies, who put us in this situation. National debt was less than 1/3 the GDP until ronnie reagan became president. His tax cuts and those of bushie jr’s to over 84% of GDP. Then the action of good old alan greenspan had used up our monetary tools to give the bush years seeming prosperity. Then it all came crashing down and the mess was handed over to Obama.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt

jmog;1257590 wrote:The Senate has been lead by the democratic party the whole time Obama has been president and has not passed a budget in years.

The HoR was controlled by the democratic party the first two years and did not pass a budget the whole time.

The republicans take over the HoR and pass a budget but then are villified as being draconian and financial terrorists, etc.

The Senate refused to even vote on it.

Obama is supposed to be the leader of said party that has been in control of the budgets for most of his term. He is responsible for failed leadership for sure, the Senate and HoR (mostly Senate recently) are responsible for allowing this to happen.

We have a winner!


The lack of leadership in the White House is unprecedented. (Of course, with obama's lack of any experience whatsoever in solving problems, how can you expect him to dig in and work to solve problems now?) Hopefully the majority of the people who drank the koolaid 4 years will not do it again.

ptown_trojans_1;1257366 wrote:I must have missed where Obama passed a budget without Congress.....

obama put a budget out there and it was voted down in bipartisan fashion, 97 - 0. That is his effort on your behalf; and you are not ashamed of him.

Further, the senate is and has been under complete democrat control, and they have not offered up a budget in over 3 years. That is their effort on your behalf; and you are not ashamed of them.

obama/reid/pelosi --- this triumverate is the biggest failure in economic history. They are a national disgrace.


Compare the above with Mr. Ryan who is actually working to solve real problems by putting forward bold plans for real change to correct long-term insolvency issues --- and he is villified by the Left. So here we have a man of integrity who is unwilling to continue kicking the can down the road, and you beltway guys would rather run him out of town.

Better start looking in the mirror.

IggyPride00;1257678 wrote:He is just continuing in the trend established by Presidents for the past 30 years.

Reagan tripled the national debt.

Bush 1 doubled it.

Clinton saw it go up only 40%.

Bush II doubled it.

So far Obama has seen it go up 50%, but is well on his way to doubling it if he gets a second term.

This is what Presidents in this country do.

The only difference is that raw dollars go up because the numbers have gotten bigger. The underlying fact though is doubling the debt is doubling the debt, and no one has presented a clear plan (BHO or Willard) on how they plan to stop following in their predecessor's footsteps.

Try looking at it in more appropriate relative terms, as a % of GDP. Then it's a considerably different story. It's a neat trick to say "Reagan tripled the debt" when, in PV terms, he increased it maybe 2.5-3T over 8 years. Obama has doubled that in only 4.

gut;1257719 wrote:Try looking at it in more appropriate relative terms, as a % of GDP. Then it's a considerably different story. It's a neat trick to say "Reagan tripled the debt" when, in PV terms, he increased it maybe 2.5-3T over 8 years. Obama has doubled that in only 4.

It's a neat trick to say "Reagan tripled the debt" when, in PV terms, he increased it maybe 2.5-3T over 8 years.

It is a neat trick, but it also partially represents the cost of finally winning the decades-long cold war; I'll take that any day!

QuakerOats;1257712 wrote:obama put a budget out there and it was voted down in bipartisan fashion, 97 - 0. That is his effort on your behalf; and you are not ashamed of him.

Further, the senate is and has been under complete democrat control, and they have not offered up a budget in over 3 years. That is their effort on your behalf; and you are not ashamed of them.

obama/reid/pelosi --- this triumverate is the biggest failure in economic history. They are a national disgrace.


Compare the above with Mr. Ryan who is actually working to solve real problems by putting forward bold plans for real change to correct long-term insolvency issues --- and he is villified by the Left. So here we have a man of integrity who is unwilling to continue kicking the can down the road, and you beltway guys would rather run him out of town.

Better start looking in the mirror.

Well, yes, the FY13 budget was denied, but the spending levels authorized by Congress for FY12 were just as high as before. It did not have drastic cuts. So, blame Congress for the FY12 budget.
And the Senate has passed CR's for several years, and has cut bits and pieces instead of one massive budget. So, the DOD has largely it's FY13 budget, the IC has its FY13, DHS it's, etc. So, they have offered budgets, just agency by agency so to get around the 60 rule. That is why there has not been one big budget the last few years.

And those levels are still about the same as before.
Plus, mandatory spending has gone up, under Congress.
Pelosi lost her title in 2011. So, the FY12 and FY13 budgets are all on the R's, and it did not dramatically reduce the debt, and grew mandatory spending.

And yes, props to Ryan, for an idea. But, his plan still kicks the can down the road. It will not balance anything until 2040. It is a nice start, but only a start.

My whole point is there is enough blame to go around on the debt. The R's in the House are just as much to blame on the debt as the D's and the President. They have offered solutions yes, but cannot muster enough of political capital to make them policy.

How many votes did Obama's budgets get again?

gut;1258220 wrote:How many votes did Obama's budgets get again?

0.
But, how many Presidents get their budget passed exactly as they want it?
0.

I honestly cannot remember the last time any President got its budget passed on the floor as is.
Hell, that is not the way it works, so it is a misleading stat.

Still, I get your point, and will admit the President has not helped.

ptown_trojans_1;1258226 wrote: Still, I get your point, and will admit the President has not helped.

What a mild understatement. It's a crisis of leadership. The guy is the leader of the Democratic party, and despite near supermajorities in both houses can't even get a budget passed, can't even get someone from his own party to vote for it.

And I know you're going to parrot the old "fillibuster line", but I guarantee you get a leader in the WH and get Harry Reid out of the SML and see what happens. they've taken playing politics to a whole new level because there record is so disastrous.